Is morality Objective?

[Socrastein]

1. If morality is objective, then we will know all moral maxims.
2. We can demonstrate knowing all moral maxims by listing all of them and agreeing upon them.
3. I can't list them all.
4. We won't agree on all of them.
5. Therefore we can't demonstrate that we know all moral maxims.
6. Therefore there is no objective morality.

No, I said that if morality is SO OBVIOUS to you that you can't accept that it's relative, then it should be easy for you to share all of these obvious objective moral maxims with us. Yes, math is objective but a lot of people know very little of it. So I would never say math is obvious. However, you are arguing that morality is so obvious that it's undeniable, and thus I am asking for you to show us what we who deny this obvious objective morality seem to be missing.

Also, regarding the math example, math may not be obvious, but once it is taught and demonstrated it is quite easy to understand. It's only not obvious in the sense that some 8 year old kid isn't going to suddenly come up with the formula for calculating the volume of a sphere, for instance. However, if you teach someone how to do this, it makes sense to them and they can understand quite well how it works.

So even if morality wasn't 'obvious', if it was objective someone should still be able to hash it out and demonstrate it for everyone else to plainly see and agree upon.

A. It is wrong to murder a person.
B. It is wrong to lie to another person.
C. It is wrong to steal from a person.
D. It is right to help a person in need.

So you admitted these have exceptions. Could you therefore list all the obvious exceptions? Cause I think of many personal exceptions to all of these when I look at them. However, other people do not believe that there are exceptions to moral rules (this is actually closer to objective morals than your idea). How do you argue that they are simply missing the obvious truth that you are privy too?

 

[mepalmer3]

No, I said that if morality is SO OBVIOUS to you that you can't accept that it's relative, then it should be easy for you to share all of these obvious objective moral maxims with us. Yes, math is objective but a lot of people know very little of it. So I would never say math is obvious. However, you are arguing that morality is so obvious that it's undeniable, and thus I am asking for you to show us what we who deny this obvious objective morality seem to be missing.

Also, regarding the math example, math may not be obvious, but once it is taught and demonstrated it is quite easy to understand. It's only not obvious in the sense that some 8 year old kid isn't going to suddenly come up with the formula for calculating the volume of a sphere, for instance. However, if you teach someone how to do this, it makes sense to them and they can understand quite well how it works.

So even if morality wasn't 'obvious', if it was objective someone should still be able to hash it out and demonstrate it for everyone else to plainly see and agree upon.

Ah... ok. Certainly if you talked to a great mathematician, he too would say that math, even calculus, is simply obvious. So too I think if you talk to a person who very often "introspects" or internally contemplates life, then he too will say that bits of morality are also obvious, even some of the more advanced bits.

I have a couple of objections.

1. Just because 2 things are objective doesn't mean that they will equally be understandable or demonstrable by all. For instance, math we have already agreed is objective. The reality of nature's laws we might also agree are objective. However, nature, through the use of science, is more difficult to agree upon. If it was objective, then it should be cut and dry, or undeniable that evolution is true, right? But again, there doesn't at all seem to be a consensus. "Wait," you might claim, "scientists do almost universally agree on evolution." I would say that the moral teachers have almost all agree on the fundamentals of morality as well.

2. I am not arguing that the whole of morality, every possible moral decision, is undeniably obvious. Rather I am arguing that at there is at least 1 moral claim that is undeniably obvious. I don't need an entire set of moral maxims, I just need 1 to make my argument sound. In the same way an evolutionists doesn't need to prove the entire tree or even every single step from A to B, rather he just needs to show that some part of it is undeniable and obvious. So in short I am arguing that as basic math is undeniably obvious, so is basic morality. But no, I'm not arguing that the advanced morality is obvious. And I'm not even arguing the underlying moral axiom is obvious, just that some portion of it is obvious and undeniable.

So, again you may ask... what are some obvious moral maxims. I'll just quote my previous statements since your next questions were based upon them. I will say that these statements probably shouldn't be called moral maxims, but rather moral laws built upon a moral maxim that human life is valuable.

A. It is wrong to murder a person.
B. It is wrong to lie to another person.
C. It is wrong to steal from a person.
D. It is right to help a person in need.

So you admitted these have exceptions. Could you therefore list all the obvious exceptions? Cause I think of many personal exceptions to all of these when I look at them. However, other people do not believe that there are exceptions to moral rules (this is actually closer to objective morals than your idea). How do you argue that they are simply missing the obvious truth that you are privy too?

First of all... I'm not real particular about the word "objective". If it is more easily understood by all that "objective and absolute" means categorical imperatives and "subjective and absolute" means true right/wrong, but dependent upon the situation, then I would be fine with calling morality subjective. But I hear a lot of people use subjective in the sense that morality, or right/wrong, is based upon a person's personal experience, or they use it in a "cultural relativism" sort of way. IOW, there is no true morality, just people's personal opinions and the facts of what they do.

But again, I wouldn't need to list all of the exceptions to the rules. Although I don't think the exceptions to the rules are exceptions to the underlying moral maxims that the moral laws are built upon. Rather the underlying maxim appears as though it would remain constant. But regardless... that's another conversation perhaps.

So I'll just take A. It is wrong to murder a person.

I don't want to get into differences of murder or kill, so I'll just say "It is wrong to kill a person".

A special case where killing another is not immoral is if it is to prevent that man from continuing to harm people. So if Bob is raping and pillaging, and there's not anyway we can stop him without killing him, then it is moral and right to kill him.

I will say that the exceptions are not quite as obvious as the rules themselves.

But again... it still rings very true to me, and observably true in everyone around me and every conversation I hear that people think some things truly are wrong, and other things truly are right.

 

[Zenaphobe]

Yep. The Word that is Jesus Christ. Outside of Him there are no morals, just people's opinions.



Nope, though lots will disagree. Thing is even though they disagree, it is God's Word by which ALL will still be judged.

I am assuming that you mean an absolute moral is one which has no exceptions and is either always right or always wrong. Is this correct?

Can I ask a favor?

Would you list some of the objective morals which the Bible affirms?

Thanks

 

[Socrastein]

Well mepalmer it seems we've found the crux of your argument - you feel like morality is absolute, therefore morality is absolute. I and others can try and show how invalid that is all we want, but it won't do much good I imagine. It's never worked before, since you make the same argument for free will - I feel free, so obviously I have free will. I guess your feelings supercede your reason, and trying to argue with someone who has disregarded their use of reason is like trying to give medicine to the dead.

 

[mepalmer3]

Well mepalmer it seems we've found the crux of your argument - you feel like morality is absolute, therefore morality is absolute. I and others can try and show how invalid that is all we want, but it won't do much good I imagine. It's never worked before, since you make the same argument for free will - I feel free, so obviously I have free will. I guess your feelings supercede your reason, and trying to argue with someone who has disregarded their use of reason is like trying to give medicine to the dead.

Hmm... I haven't seen any sound arguments against moral absolutes. My "feeling" that some things truly are moral is akin to my "feeling" that I see a computer monitor in front of me. People could try to use reason to tell me that the monitor is in fact not there, or that morality is not absolute... but so far, at best people say, "I have a feeling that morality is not absolute". But this seems inconsistent with too much of other stuff I observe. So while at the core I believe that absolute morality is internally observable, it's using reason and other observations that seals the deal for me as it all fits so perfectly.

So, did you have any arguments against absolute morals? Do you have your own syllogism for there not being any absolute morals that you'd like to throw out?

 

[Socrastein]

Does a specific act realize ends that we desire? This is the only litmus test for whether or not an act is right or wrong. If a society desires the safety of its citizens, murder is wrong because it does not realize this end, it is harmful to the end. However, if a society was overpopulating at a dangerous pace and was in threat of running out of resources and everyone dying, and thus they desired a drastically smaller population lest they all die, then murder would become appropriate, as a means to decreasing the population perhpas by killing everyone over a certain age. Who are we to say that is wrong? We are only people with differing desires and ends in mind, that is all.

Whenever you say that "X is wrong" or "X is right" you are really exposing those ends that you desire, and you are labeling things conducive or not to said ends. To try and tell people there are absolute morals is to try and tell people there are absolute desires, that everyone does or should desire in the same manner and same degree. This is utterly ridiculous, and thus appealing to absolute notions of right and wrong is utterly ridiculous.

All moral rules must be tested by examining whether they tend to realize ends that we desire. I say ends that we desire, not ends that we ought to desire. What we ‘ought’ to desire is merely what someone else wishes us to desire.
-Bertrand Russell

You have two options from this point - either show that morality does not stem from what beings desire, or show that in fact humans should all desire the exact same things, in the exact same degree.

 

[mepalmer3]

You have two options from this point - either show that morality does not stem from what beings desire, or show that in fact humans should all desire the exact same things, in the exact same degree.

If I remember correctly, you have asserted that people do what they desire most, or their greatest desire is what causes them to act or behave a certain way. Thus morality, or the idea that people should act in some way "better" than what they do, is nonsensical. Right? Because in fact nobody desires to act better than they do. So morality, sort of like free will, must be considerd a nonsensical term in your worldview. Do you agree?

If there is an objective morality that God puts on the hearts or conscience of all people, then that too would appear as though it is our "feelings" drives our morality. Although generally speaking, my feelings are clearly (to me) not always pushing me in what I perceive as the moral way. Generally my feelings say "hit the guy back" even though something else says "do not respond in anger".

Do you have any arguments that don't try to shift the burden of proof? (ie, do you have anything that defends it all on it's own without relying on anything unproven?)

 

[Fledge]

It seems to me that very few people truly believe that morality is subjective, even if just because that leads to some uncomfortable conclusions. I'm sure you are all aware of some of them, especially the ones about murder being right for person A and wrong for person B, so I will not go into that. In this post, I will attempt to prove that morality is objective by showing that genuine moral subjectivity is both utterly impractical and totally absurd. Here goes...

If morality is subjective, then (by definition) everyone must decide for himself what is "right" and "wrong". However, for morality to be truly, one hundred percent subjective, then everyone would also have to decide whether it is right or wrong for him to "impose" his moral standards on anyone else. Additionally, everyone would have to decide whether it is morally "right" for him to accept somone else's morality. Likewise, everyone would have to decide for himself whether it is right or not to respect anyone else's morality. The list of things that people have to decide for themselves (if morality is truly subjective) goes on endlessly, and spirals out of control rather quickly. (This logic quickly results in a variation on the "I know that you know that I know..." theme, only with "but I don't agree that what you believe about the subject that we're talking about here is valid..." instead.)

 

[Socrastein]

If I remember correctly, you have asserted that people do what they desire most, or their greatest desire is what causes them to act or behave a certain way. Thus morality, or the idea that people should act in some way "better" than what they do, is nonsensical. Right? Because in fact nobody desires to act better than they do. So morality, sort of like free will, must be considerd a nonsensical term in your worldview. Do you agree?

Of course not. I already stated that morality is simply a description of our desires. The only way to say morality is nonsensical is to say we have no desires. I do not deny that human beings have desires.

Do you have any arguments that don't try to shift the burden of proof?

My original argument did not shift the burden of proof.

If morality is subjective, then (by definition) everyone must decide for himself what is "right" and "wrong". However, for morality to be truly, one hundred percent subjective, then everyone would also have to decide whether it is right or wrong for him to "impose" his moral standards on anyone else. Additionally, everyone would have to decide whether it is morally "right" for him to accept somone else's morality. Likewise, everyone would have to decide for himself whether it is right or not to respect anyone else's morality. The list of things that people have to decide for themselves (if morality is truly subjective) goes on endlessly, and spirals out of control rather quickly. (This logic quickly results in a variation on the "I know that you know that I know..." theme, only with "but I don't agree that what you believe about the subject that we're talking about here is valid..." instead.)

You know, if I wanted to make a bad argument against objective morality I could argue that one's decisions would spiral out of control as they decide for themselves which moral maxim trumps which moral maxim in which moral dilemma under which moral standards, and this would have to be done for every single possible moral decision one makes. However, this would be a horribly bad argument, as is yours.

There's no reason to think everything should or would spiral out of control (whatever that even means... would our heads explode if we were 'truly' moral relativists or something?)

One simple desire can solve all the questions you try to befuddle the issue with - the desire for a well-functioning society! One with a strong enough desire for this would respect other people's morals so long as they were conducive to this end, they would follow any morals from others that were conducive toward this end, they would 'impose' any morals on people that would be conducive toward this end, etc. etc.

I really don't see anything spinning out of control, and I don't see such a person in threat of being a moral absolutist just because their head isn't rupturing.

 

[Forest]

One simple desire can solve all the questions you try to befuddle the issue with - the desire for a well-functioning society!...........

So then, you are not a moral relativist because you see that as the objective measure or morality.

 

[Socrastein]

No, I see that as a refutation of Fledge's "disproof" through saying everything spirals out of control when you're a moral relativist. One can base an entire moral system and make many multiple moral decisions on that one simple desire. There is no need for things to get all crazy, like Fledge is arguing.

 

[Forest]

No, I see that as a refutation of Fledge's "disproof" through saying everything spirals out of control when you're a moral relativist. One can base an entire moral system and make many multiple moral decisions on that one simple desire. There is no need for things to get all crazy, like Fledge is arguing.

It seems that it only doesn't 'spiral out of control', when there is some obejective measure, such as the one you listed. No objective measure means morality could be anything. If something can be defined as anything, then the term is meaningless.

 

[Socrastein]

How was my measure objective? It is a desire, a desire that some people have, and others don't, and not everyone has to the same degree. That sounds pretty subjective to me.

And I haven't defined morality as anything, I've defined it as a system that espouses what is conducive and inhibitive to our desires. That's something pretty specific actually. You couldn't say "Well then morality is pizza", so obviously I haven't defined it as anything.

 

[Fledge]

You know, if I wanted to make a bad argument against objective morality I could argue that one's decisions would spiral out of control as they decide for themselves which moral maxim trumps which moral maxim in which moral dilemma under which moral standards, and this would have to be done for every single possible moral decision one makes. However, this would be a horribly bad argument, as is yours.

This would not necessarily happen though. If you take the Bible as your source of objective morality, there are all kinds of examples that explain exactly which moral standard "trumps" the other, so there would be very little confusion. As a result, your argument against my argument only works when all of the potential sources of objective morality do a horrible job explaining things. The Bible does a very good job, and so it would not have those problems.

There's no reason to think everything should or would spiral out of control (whatever that even means... would our heads explode if we were 'truly' moral relativists or something?)

For morality to be truly, totally 100% subjective, what I described is the only logical conclusion. Do I think that people will ever carry it to it's logical conclusion? Of course not, carrying it to it's logical conclusion would be lunacy, but that is exactly my point. Once man becomes the source of morality, then there is no way to (logically) prevent society from collapsing because of the total lack of moral authority and structure. This is why I think that genuine moral subjectivity is completely impossible.

One simple desire can solve all the questions you try to befuddle the issue with - the desire for a well-functioning society! One with a strong enough desire for this would respect other people's morals so long as they were conducive to this end, they would follow any morals from others that were conducive toward this end, they would 'impose' any morals on people that would be conducive toward this end, etc. etc.

Who decides what a "well-functioning society" is? In a morally relative society, where good and evil are what the individuals decide it to be, a well-functioning society could be a violently-restrictive police state that murders, rapes, starves, and brutalizes its civilians. Your argument has no force in a genuinely morally subjective world, because there is nothing to dictate what a well-functioning society is...except the people who make it up. And once again, this will (if carried to its logical conclusion) result in utter chaos.

 

[Socrastein]

This would not necessarily happen though. If you take the Bible as your source of objective morality, there are all kinds of examples that explain exactly which moral standard "trumps" the other, so there would be very little confusion. As a result, your argument against my argument only works when all of the potential sources of objective morality do a horrible job explaining things. The Bible does a very good job, and so it would not have those problems.

If you had to choose between killing 4 eldery adults and 3 young children, which would you kill? Would you base it strictly on numbers, or would you desire the children have a chance at life, whereas the eldery adults have already experienced a great many things? Is the Bible clear on this? Can you answer with absolute certainty? How are you going to tell someone who sees it from the other view point that their desires are inferior to yours?

If you think the Bible and objective morality in general is so easy to apply, I can give you a hundred more examples of moral grey areas to show you that as much as you'd like it to be, not everything, especially moral decisions, is black and white.

For morality to be truly, totally 100% subjective, what I described is the only logical conclusion. Do I think that people will ever carry it to it's logical conclusion? Of course not, carrying it to it's logical conclusion would be lunacy, but that is exactly my point. Once man becomes the source of morality, then there is no way to (logically) prevent society from collapsing because of the total lack of moral authority and structure. This is why I think that genuine moral subjectivity is completely impossible.

Genuine moral subjectivity does not equal the collapse of society - it simply means that one does not believe in an absolute standard of morality: that's it. You're making it out to be more than it is. Please remember that the context of this debate over objective morality has been regarding the idea of objective morality as a transcendent, absolute right or wrong that is beyond desires and opinions. If you deny this, you're a moral subjectivist, as far as this debate has been concerned. This does not mean that society will collapse, it simply means that morality simply stems from desires and though most people share similiar desires, some don't, and that doesn't make them inherently, or absolutely, or objectively bad, it just makes them inhibiting to that which the rest of humanity commonly desires.

Who decides what a "well-functioning society" is? In a morally relative society, where good and evil are what the individuals decide it to be, a well-functioning society could be a violently-restrictive police state that murders, rapes, starves, and brutalizes its civilians.

Only if you completely disregard the meaning of the word society. A society is defined by mutual interests, cooperations, common goods and goals, etc. Rape and murder do not fit into this paradigm. Humans create societies to satisfy needs and desires that they cannot get on their own. So a well functioning society is one that efficiently and effectively satisfies these desires for which it was created. Like the desire for safety, and for freedom, and for property rights, and for trade, etc.

Your argument has no force in a genuinely morally subjective world, because there is nothing to dictate what a well-functioning society is...except the people who make it up. And once again, this will (if carried to its logical conclusion) result in utter chaos.

Your "logical conclusion" only holds water if you completely redefine the terms being used. How logical of an argument do you have if you need to manipulate the context in order to make sense?

 

[Fledge]

If you had to choose between killing 4 eldery adults and 3 young children, which would you kill? Would you base it strictly on numbers, or would you desire the children have a chance at life, whereas the eldery adults have already experienced a great many things? Is the Bible clear on this? Can you answer with absolute certainty? How are you going to tell someone who sees it from the other view point that their desires are inferior to yours?

If you think the Bible and objective morality in general is so easy to apply, I can give you a hundred more examples of moral grey areas to show you that as much as you'd like it to be, not everything, especially moral decisions, is black and white.

Oh, the joys of "situational ethics". Yes, I'm sure that there are dozens of questions that you could ask me that would be difficult to answer, but by and large, questions of that nature are highly deceptive. For starters, we can take a look at the question you just asked me. You are trying to get me to say that I value either age or numbers more greatly when it comes to life. What you didn't mention is the fact that (since I am the one who would be acting) I can choose to do neither. Now, I'm sure that not all of your questions would be that poorly worded, and you could undoubtedly leave me in some uncomfortable situations.

However, I'd be willing to bet that the world has far fewer shades of gray than you probably think. No matter what ethical system you decide to follow, there are always difficult questions to answer, but the Bible provides an excellent "litmus" test for every action. Namely, love. If my actions are not the result of love for the people who will be affected, then I need to be (at the least) extremely careful as to what I do. If what I am doing stems directly from love, then chances are I am doing the right thing. Is this an easy thing to do? Of course not, and I will be the first to admit that I don't often succeed at doing so. However, I have found that whenever I do ask myself what my motives are, I end up doing what I know to be the right thing. I just don't always see it until I ask myself the quesiton.

Genuine moral subjectivity does not equal the collapse of society - it simply means that one does not believe in an absolute standard of morality: that's it. You're making it out to be more than it is. Please remember that the context of this debate over objective morality has been regarding the idea of objective morality as a transcendent, absolute right or wrong that is beyond desires and opinions. If you deny this, you're a moral subjectivist, as far as this debate has been concerned. This does not mean that society will collapse, it simply means that morality simply stems from desires and though most people share similiar desires, some don't, and that doesn't make them inherently, or absolutely, or objectively bad, it just makes them inhibiting to that which the rest of humanity commonly desires.

No? Only because the people who currently hold the only absolute to be the complete lack of absolutes refuse to carry moral relativism to its logical extreme. That is what I've been trying to point out all along. Moral relativism doesn't inherently destroy a society, but this is only because the people who practice it don't carry it to the logical extreme. You seem to think that I'm completely off my rocker because I'm proposing ideas that are clearly insane. I am proposing insane ideas, but only because I see them as the logical result of total moral subjectivity.

If there is no absolute moral standard, then there is nothing to prevent people from defining good as that which increases their own power/prestige/wealth or any other "selfish" desire. Of course, they would also believe that their desires aren't selfish at all, because that would imply that there is something wrong with what they are trying to do. More on this in a second.

Only if you completely disregard the meaning of the word society. A society is defined by mutual interests, cooperations, common goods and goals, etc. Rape and murder do not fit into this paradigm. Humans create societies to satisfy needs and desires that they cannot get on their own. So a well functioning society is one that efficiently and effectively satisfies these desires for which it was created. Like the desire for safety, and for freedom, and for property rights, and for trade, etc.

Nazi Germany had a society. Of course, the Jews didn't fit into that society, but that doesn't change the fact that there was a society, and rape and murder fit beautifully into it. If there is no absolute moral standard then there is no way we can tell Hitler that murdering, torturing, raping, etc. is wrong, because he might have decided that this was good and right (which he had as far as the Jews were concerned). Would Hitler have thought that his society was a "well functioning" society? Of course he would have, or he would have tried to change it. We would disagree with him on this point, but it doesn't change the fact that if there is no absolute moral standard whatsoever, we would be incapable of arguing that what he is doing is "wrong" because there would be no such thing as wrong. Only what people decide to do and not do.

Your "logical conclusion" only holds water if you completely redefine the terms being used. How logical of an argument do you have if you need to manipulate the context in order to make sense?

I'm not trying to redefine the terms, because I agree that any argument that twists the meaning of words is pretty weak. However, I am not convinced that I am twisting the meaning of the words, so I will continue to use this argument. If you can convince me that I am twisting the words, I will have no option but to recant or rewrite my entire argument.

Fledge

 

[Forest]

How was my measure objective? It is a desire, a desire that some people have, and others don't, and not everyone has to the same degree. That sounds pretty subjective to me.

And I haven't defined morality as anything, I've defined it as a system that espouses what is conducive and inhibitive to our desires. That's something pretty specific actually. You couldn't say "Well then morality is pizza", so obviously I haven't defined it as anything.

If your definition applies to everyone everywhere, then it is not subjective, it is objective even though people may disagree on the details in some situations there is still a common measure.

If your definition is subjective and does not apply to everyone everywhere then someone else could define morality as "pizza", and therefore it could be anything that someone else chooses even though "you" don't define it as "anything".

 

[Socrastein]

Oh, the joys of "situational ethics". Yes, I'm sure that there are dozens of questions that you could ask me that would be difficult to answer, but by and large, questions of that nature are highly deceptive. For starters, we can take a look at the question you just asked me. You are trying to get me to say that I value either age or numbers more greatly when it comes to life. What you didn't mention is the fact that (since I am the one who would be acting) I can choose to do neither. Now, I'm sure that not all of your questions would be that poorly worded, and you could undoubtedly leave me in some uncomfortable situations.

My question wasn't poorly worded, you're just not very good at reading.

If you had to choose between killing 4 eldery adults and 3 young children, which would you kill?

However, I'd be willing to bet that the world has far fewer shades of gray than you probably think. No matter what ethical system you decide to follow, there are always difficult questions to answer, but the Bible provides an excellent "litmus" test for every action. Namely, love. If my actions are not the result of love for the people who will be affected, then I need to be (at the least) extremely careful as to what I do. If what I am doing stems directly from love, then chances are I am doing the right thing. Is this an easy thing to do? Of course not, and I will be the first to admit that I don't often succeed at doing so. However, I have found that whenever I do ask myself what my motives are, I end up doing what I know to be the right thing. I just don't always see it until I ask myself the quesiton.

That might be fairly objective and reliable, if love meant the same thing, in the same degree, to every human on the planet. Two people could make two different choices out of love. One might do it out of love for one thing, and another might do it out of love for another thing. Maybe one person loves their country more than their family, and they would choose differently in a given situation than someone who loves their family more than their country. Are you going to tell them they are loving in the wrong way?

Only because the people who currently hold the only absolute to be the complete lack of absolutes refuse to carry moral relativism to its logical extreme. That is what I've been trying to point out all along. Moral relativism doesn't inherently destroy a society, but this is only because the people who practice it don't carry it to the logical extreme.

You really shouldn't call it a logical extreme - at best it's an unsubstantiated statement. You did not demonstrate it logically, you just asserted it. So until you prove your assertion, you're just conjecturing.

You seem to think that I'm completely off my rocker because I'm proposing ideas that are clearly insane.

No actually I think you're irrational and are mistakenly under the impression you're making logical arguments, because you're referring to your unsubstantiated assertions as logical conclusions.

If there is no absolute moral standard, then there is nothing to prevent people from defining good as that which increases their own power/prestige/wealth or any other "selfish" desire.

Plenty of people do EXACTLY that. Or haven't you noticed? Are you saying that if there were moral absolutes, those absolutes would stop them from doing this? If so, then you just disproved moral absolutes.

Of course, they would also believe that their desires aren't selfish at all, because that would imply that there is something wrong with what they are trying to do.

No, it wouldn't imply that. There is nothing inherently wrong in being selfish. I can selfishly eat a piece of pizza because I'm hungry. Does that make me a bad person in your view?

Nazi Germany had a society. Of course, the Jews didn't fit into that society, but that doesn't change the fact that there was a society, and rape and murder fit beautifully into it.

Wow, you're really desperate to make a point are you? So much so you'd completely disregard all meaning in communication to try and say something as ridiculous as rape and murder fit beautifully into Nazi Germany. When you have to throw meaning out the window to prove your point, it's about time you adopt a more sensible position.

If there is no absolute moral standard then there is no way we can tell Hitler that murdering, torturing, raping, etc. is wrong, because he might have decided that this was good and right (which he had as far as the Jews were concerned).

Yes, we can tell him he's wrong. Obviously you haven't understood my argument at all if you're spouting off this kind of nonsense.

Would Hitler have thought that his society was a "well functioning" society? Of course he would have, or he would have tried to change it.

False dichotomy - try to avoid such glaring fallacies if you can. He could have thought society was ****, but if he didn't desire a well functioning society then this wouldn't bother him in the least.

We would disagree with him on this point, but it doesn't change the fact that if there is no absolute moral standard whatsoever, we would be incapable of arguing that what he is doing is "wrong" because there would be no such thing as wrong.

Once again you demonstrate how poor your reading skills are by completely misunderstanding what I have been arguing.

I'm not trying to redefine the terms, because I agree that any argument that twists the meaning of words is pretty weak. However, I am not convinced that I am twisting the meaning of the words, so I will continue to use this argument. If you can convince me that I am twisting the words, I will have no option but to recant or rewrite my entire argument.

I already explained to you how you're misusing the concept of society. Yet you're still completely abusing the term, by saying a society where people rape and murder eachother is well functioning. I specifically explained what morality is, and what context "right" and "wrong" have in moral relativism, and yet you are completely disregarding this and defining right and wrong as absolutely right and absolutely wrong, which is false, unsubstantiated, and only for the sake of trying to support your argument. Not to mention you're completely abusing the term moral subjectivity by trying to define it as chaos, when there is NOTHING in the term that necessitates chaos.

If your definition applies to everyone everywhere, then it is not subjective, it is objective even though people may disagree on the details in some situations there is still a common measure.

Why are you trying to apply the objectivity of language to morals? Where is the logical link between "Language can be defined objectively" and "Therefore morality is absolute"?

If your definition is subjective and does not apply to everyone everywhere then someone else could define morality as "pizza", and therefore it could be anything that someone else chooses even though "you" don't define it as "anything".

Once again, you're not even talking about morality, you're talking about the definitions of words. Why? This is completely irrelevent.

 

[Fledge]

My question wasn't poorly worded, you're just not very good at reading.

If you had to choose between killing 4 eldery adults and 3 young children, which would you kill?

I understood you perfectly the first time. However, as I said, every time I have heard someone ask this kind of a question, he has neglected something very important. What you have neglected is the fact that killing is an action. If I so desire, I can choose to take no action at all, which would mean that I would not be killing anyone. Perhaps you meant a different scenario, but at the moment the only thing I have to go on is your very loose, and (in my opinion) poorly worded question. Would you be so kind as to clarify?

That might be fairly objective and reliable, if love meant the same thing, in the same degree, to every human on the planet. Two people could make two different choices out of love. One might do it out of love for one thing, and another might do it out of love for another thing. Maybe one person loves their country more than their family, and they would choose differently in a given situation than someone who loves their family more than their country. Are you going to tell them they are loving in the wrong way?

Best definition for love that I ever heard comes from the Bible. First Corinthians 13. You've probably read it, or are at least familiar with it. If not, you might find it worth reading. That is the definition of love that I would tend to use, difficult though it may be.

Sometimes, the only thing that we can do is that which seems best. If that is proven to be the second best thing at a later date, then we repent, learn from the mistake, and move on. However, please keep in mind that every situation is different, AND that humanity is not the ultimate judge.

You really shouldn't call it a logical extreme - at best it's an unsubstantiated statement. You did not demonstrate it logically, you just asserted it. So until you prove your assertion, you're just conjecturing.

You think so? Okay, I'll try again. When you see an error, point it out, with an explanation for why it's incorrect, and I'll go back to the drawing board.
Assumption number 1. "there is no such thing as a moral absolute."
Conclusion: "Morality is what I decide it to be."
Conclusion: "Other people will see morality as what they decide it to be."

The results of these conclusions?
Result: "Good is that which helps me get (insert whatever you want/like/desire/wish for here)."
Result: "Bad is that which produced negative results for me."

When this is applied in real life, there is no way to stop people from deciding that other people really don't matter, because "number 1" is the only person who counts. I have yet to run across a society (if you have, please tell me about it) that could function smoothly when nobody gave ground to anybody else. Relationships only function properly when there is mutual respect, because mutual respect means that both sides are willing to let the other person have his way sometimes.

No actually I think you're irrational and are mistakenly under the impression you're making logical arguments, because you're referring to your unsubstantiated assertions as logical conclusions.

I've attempted to prove it, so please let me know how I've done.

Plenty of people do EXACTLY that. Or haven't you noticed? Are you saying that if there were moral absolutes, those absolutes would stop them from doing this? If so, then you just disproved moral absolutes.

I've noticed, but I'm not trying to say that moral absolutes would have stopped them. There are always people who do not follow the laws, so the fact that people tend to be self-seeking does nothing to disprove the idea of moral absolutes. All it does is show that some people don't believe in/follow the moral absolutes that I try to follow.

No, it wouldn't imply that. There is nothing inherently wrong in being selfish. I can selfishly eat a piece of pizza because I'm hungry. Does that make me a bad person in your view?

Okay, I should have been more clear. My apologies for the confusion. It is not inherently wrong to do things that benefit yourself. Its when the things that benefit you cause harm to other people that moral issues arise. If you're hungry, and you have a pizza, go ahead and eat some. If somebody else wants some, and you say "no", you're probably being unkind.

Wow, you're really desperate to make a point are you? So much so you'd completely disregard all meaning in communication to try and say something as ridiculous as rape and murder fit beautifully into Nazi Germany. When you have to throw meaning out the window to prove your point, it's about time you adopt a more sensible position.

Let me try this again...

Rape and murder of Jews fit into the society that Hitler had constructed for Nazi Germany, because their society taught that Jews weren't really human. They were sub-human, and existed solely for the benefit of the "master race". Since the society was such that rape and murder (of Jews) was considered acceptable (or even good), clearly, rape and murder (of Jews) fit into that society.

Yes, we can tell him he's wrong. Obviously you haven't understood my argument at all if you're spouting off this kind of nonsense.

Clearly, we have misunderstood each other here. I'll try again, and if you still don't understand what I'm trying to say, I'll try again. We can tell Hitler that what he is doing is wrong. We can go to war with him to make that point. We can kick his butt in that war, throw him out of power, and have him tried for "crimes against humanity" (before you ask, I know that he committed suicide in his bunker shortly before the Russians finished taking Berlin). However, unless there is some kind of an absolute, not necessarily an entire system, but something that is morally absolute, we have no moral obligation/duty/right to do so. We can scream at him until we're blue in the face, we can plead with him until our pants wear through at the knees, we can reason with him until we die of old age, but unless there are moral absolutes, we cannot tell him that what he is doing is wrong (because that would imply some kind of moral standard that transcends human reason, which would tend to indicate that it is an absolute).

False dichotomy - try to avoid such glaring fallacies if you can. He could have thought society was ****, but if he didn't desire a well functioning society then this wouldn't bother him in the least.

Granted. My mistake, and I'll try to avoid making such errors in the future. I can't promise anything though, so I'm counting on you to catch me when I screw up next time. However, the point still remains that there were people in power in Germany at that time who thought that there society was good. If everybody had been appalled by it the way people usually are today, then it would have fallen apart very quickly. However, it held together until it was torn apart my force of arms, so clearly some people liked it the way it was. And again, without a moral standard that transcends mankind, we cannot say that their society was bad without admitting that it is purely our own personal opinion. And clearly, the Nazis didn't really care too much about other people's opinions, or they wouldn't have done what they did.

Once again you demonstrate how poor your reading skills are by completely misunderstanding what I have been arguing.

Then please reiterate your argument, because I appear to have completely missed the point.

I already explained to you how you're misusing the concept of society. Yet you're still completely abusing the term, by saying a society where people rape and murder eachother is well functioning. I specifically explained what morality is, and what context "right" and "wrong" have in moral relativism, and yet you are completely disregarding this and defining right and wrong as absolutely right and absolutely wrong, which is false, unsubstantiated, and only for the sake of trying to support your argument. Not to mention you're completely abusing the term moral subjectivity by trying to define it as chaos, when there is NOTHING in the term that necessitates chaos.

Okay. Please define the term "society" because the only way I can explain our totally opposed views would be if we are using different interpretations of the same word. Secondly, I seem to have missed the part where you explained what your definition of morality is, and what part you think it plays in moral relativism. My mistake, and I apologize, but I would like to ask you to restate them so that we can both have them readily on hand.

Since I think that morality is absolute, I instinctively think of right and wrong as absolute right and wrong. If you could explain what you think of when you think of right and wrong, I will attempt to use those definitions in future posts.

I have not been trying to define moral subjectivity as chaos, I have been trying to show that it leads to chaos. That is not the same thing, and you haven't done very much to convince me that moral relativism doesn't lead to chaos. If you do convince me (or even partially so) then I will have to change my tactics.

Fledge

 

[Socrastein]

I understood you perfectly the first time. However, as I said, every time I have heard someone ask this kind of a question, he has neglected something very important. What you have neglected is the fact that killing is an action. If I so desire, I can choose to take no action at all, which would mean that I would not be killing anyone. Perhaps you meant a different scenario, but at the moment the only thing I have to go on is your very loose, and (in my opinion) poorly worded question. Would you be so kind as to clarify?

Unbelievable. Even after specifically bolding the portion that negates your option to not act, you still missed the point. The question said that you HAD TO choose between one or the other. As in, you MUST choose between killing one group, or killing the other group. So if you HAVE TO choose from those two, how can you choose not to act? You can't choose not to act, because you HAVE TO choose between the two options given. My question was not poorly written, you just are having a very hard time comprehending it (Not because it's confusing of difficult, it's rather simple and direct in fact).


Best definition for love that I ever heard comes from the Bible. First Corinthians 13. You've probably read it, or are at least familiar with it. If not, you might find it worth reading. That is the definition of love that I would tend to use, difficult though it may be.

Assumption number 1. "there is no such thing as a moral absolute."
Conclusion: "Morality is what I decide it to be."
Conclusion: "Other people will see morality as what they decide it to be."

The results of these conclusions?
Result: "Good is that which helps me get (insert whatever you want/like/desire/wish for here)."
Result: "Bad is that which produced negative results for me."

Is that supposed to be a logical syllogism? Boy I hope not.

When this is applied in real life, there is no way to stop people from deciding that other people really don't matter, because "number 1" is the only person who counts. I have yet to run across a society (if you have, please tell me about it) that could function smoothly when nobody gave ground to anybody else. Relationships only function properly when there is mutual respect, because mutual respect means that both sides are willing to let the other person have his way sometimes.

Of course there's nothing stopping you from deciding people don't matter. People decide this all the time. What WOULD stop them? A lightning bolt from the sky? It's a simple, obvious fact that people make their own morality. Unless you're claiming that everyone's morals are identical.

You said you've attempted to prove your argument, and in all honesty I respect that. I'm glad that you're trying to be reasonable with your position, that's definitely a good thing. However, again being honest, you haven't done a good job of it. You made what looked like an attempt at a logical syllogism, however it was not clear and the steps did not follow logically. A good logical syllogism follows very precisely, yours was very vague and that's the last thing you want in a logical argument. So if you could make it more specific, and logically demonstrate your conclusions from the premises, then you'd have a lot better of an argument.

I've noticed, but I'm not trying to say that moral absolutes would have stopped them. There are always people who do not follow the laws, so the fact that people tend to be self-seeking does nothing to disprove the idea of moral absolutes. All it does is show that some people don't believe in/follow the moral absolutes that I try to follow.

Okay, then it's established that whether or not there are moral absolutes, people will all have their own conception of morality.

So the question is, how are you to know for certain who is right? How can you tell Hitler he's wrong, when he is willing to say with just as much certainty that you are wrong? If you're going to appeal to the Bible, then you're going to have to prove that God exists, then you're going to have to prove that the Bible is inspired by him and is completely true, at least where morality is concerned.

Okay, I should have been more clear. My apologies for the confusion. It is not inherently wrong to do things that benefit yourself. Its when the things that benefit you cause harm to other people that moral issues arise. If you're hungry, and you have a pizza, go ahead and eat some. If somebody else wants some, and you say "no", you're probably being unkind.

Okay, I see what you meant now. Thanks for clarifying.

Rape and murder of Jews fit into the society that Hitler had constructed for Nazi Germany, because their society taught that Jews weren't really human. They were sub-human, and existed solely for the benefit of the "master race". Since the society was such that rape and murder (of Jews) was considered acceptable (or even good), clearly, rape and murder (of Jews) fit into that society.

Okay, again I see what you meant. I was coming from the view that Jews are a part of that society, even if everyone else doesn't think so, and thus when an entire population has lost their rights, freedoms, safety, etc. then that society is not functioning well, because society is supposed to secure those things for everyone. But yeah, I see how from the position of all the non-Jews, society was great, since they were basically ridding themselves of a percieved burden, for lack of a better word.

I'll try again, and if you still don't understand what I'm trying to say, I'll try again. We can tell Hitler that what he is doing is wrong. We can go to war with him to make that point. We can kick his butt in that war, throw him out of power, and have him tried for "crimes against humanity" (before you ask, I know that he committed suicide in his bunker shortly before the Russians finished taking Berlin). However, unless there is some kind of an absolute, not necessarily an entire system, but something that is morally absolute, we have no moral obligation/duty/right to do so. We can scream at him until we're blue in the face, we can plead with him until our pants wear through at the knees, we can reason with him until we die of old age, but unless there are moral absolutes, we cannot tell him that what he is doing is wrong (because that would imply some kind of moral standard that transcends human reason, which would tend to indicate that it is an absolute).

I agree. Thanks, once again , for clarifying.

My question is - why are you so eager to be able to tell people they are absolutely wrong? I feel that human beings have an innate tendency to want to demonize things and people. When you look down on someone, you build yourself up, and that naturally makes you feel better, makes you feel superior and secure. There are many ways we do this, from simply making fun of the smelly kid in class behind his back, to completely belittling an enemy in war so that we don't see them as human beings, but as nothing more than opponents.

Morality is another way we do this. A murder trial, for example, shouldn't be about trying to damn and judge people, saying they've violated some transcendent moral code and thus they are wretched and we are all enlightened. It should be nothing more than recognizing this person is inhibitive to the collective desires of this society, and thus we are forced to take measures to ensure the realization of our desired ends.

In both cases, the problem is addressed and all is well, however when we don't assume our morality to be objectively and absolutely "right", we don't have to bother with all the condescension and demonizing that comes with thinking we are somehow privy to the absolute truth and good of the universe. We are not. We are all just different people, who like and dislike different things, and thus our views of right and wrong (Good and bad for my desires) are all different.

Granted. My mistake, and I'll try to avoid making such errors in the future. I can't promise anything though, so I'm counting on you to catch me when I screw up next time. However, the point still remains that there were people in power in Germany at that time who thought that there society was good. If everybody had been appalled by it the way people usually are today, then it would have fallen apart very quickly. However, it held together until it was torn apart my force of arms, so clearly some people liked it the way it was. And again, without a moral standard that transcends mankind, we cannot say that their society was bad without admitting that it is purely our own personal opinion. And clearly, the Nazis didn't really care too much about other people's opinions, or they wouldn't have done what they did.

Oh hey don't worry: if there's one thing I'm good at, it's pointing out people's mistakes in a debate (Please always do the same for me as well)

You've mentioned more than once now the fact that without absolutes, we can't 'absolutely' condemn people's actions. I understand that this is a consequence of moral subjectivism, however, I am not sure whether or not you're using this as an argument for moral absolutes, or if you're just pointing it out. Could you let me know if "Without absolutes nobody is absolutely wrong" is just an observation by you, or if it's somehow an argument against moral subjectivism?

Then please reiterate your argument, because I appear to have completely missed the point.

You said that with moral subjectivism there is not such thing as wrong. I see now that you meant "absolutely wrong", but I thought you just meant that a moral subjectivist can never say anything at all is wrong. This is not true. Like I said before, morality describes that which is conducive or inhibitive to our desires. Murder is only wrong cause we desire the safety of innocent people. Theft is only wrong because we desire the property rights of people. Lying is wrong because we desire honesty, truth, and we do not like deception. Giving money to the poor is good because we desire the happiness of other people, and we can empathize with others and their suffering. So, things can very well be wrong to a moral subjectivist, however no, one would not appeal to some transcendent morality.

Before you disagree, think about this. Just because food preferences are subjective, and there is no transcendent, absolute "Tasty", doesn't mean I can't say that what someone likes is gross, does it? I know that it's just my parent's preference to eat sour kraut, but I think it's nasty. And I tell them "How can you eat that ****, it's so nasty!". However, I know that my opinion isn't an absolute, and their tastes are as valid as mine, no matter how strongly I disagree with them.

I hope I've cleared it up, sorry if I was vague or misleading.

Please define the term "society" because the only way I can explain our totally opposed views would be if we are using different interpretations of the same word.

Like I said before:

A society is defined by mutual interests, cooperations, common goods and goals, etc.

To elaborate a bit, when man is in a state of nature (before society) he is in threat of death, in threat of theft, he cannot defend his life or his property beyond his inherent ability to do so, he does not have access to anything he can't make himself, and there are plenty of other restrictions humans have when they live autonomously. So, society is created to provide all that we don't have without society. So we all come together and agree to provide safety to one another, to respect and protect property rights, to respect and protect various freedoms, we work together to provide different goods and services for eachother, and basically we all just cooperate to secure happiness for as many people as possible.