Man evolved equal?

[selfinflikted]

Of course it's part of human. I wholeheartedly agree.

The post you quoted of mine was in response to a poster who believed that morals are subjective.

Yea, I often just jump right into the middle of someone else's conversation and start throwing my two pennies around.

Are you saying objective or subjective then? Your answer, while an important point, does not address the question which I posed to the poster.

Well, I thought my explanation would imply that I, too, think morals are subjective.

It rather dances around it in a vague way. And whatever your opinion is on the matter, the other poster stated that she quite obviously believed that morals are subjective. Your answer is, therefore, off point. It bears relevance to the thread but bears no significance to my point in context with my conversation with the other poster.

It's relevant, for reasons that I have explained in this post. Sorry I wasn't a bit more clear from the start.

A universal truth? Who could say.

But among humans, its an objective truth, for sure.

Not necessarily. Maybe collectively agreed upon (for the most part), but that doesn't make it "objective."

 

[durangodawood]

....Not necessarily. Maybe collectively agreed upon (for the most part), but that doesn't make it "objective."

The reasons that murder is considered wrong are facts about human living that are available for you to scrutinize. Hence objective.

 

[selfinflikted]

The reasons that murder is considered wrong are facts about human living that are available for you to scrutinize. Hence objective.

I disagree. It is collective opinion that murder (that is, legally defined murder - not killing) is wrong, on the whole. The fact that it's opinion, even if it's based on available "facts," is the very reason it's subjective.

 

[durangodawood]

I disagree. It is collective opinion that murder (that is, legally defined murder - not killing) is wrong, on the whole. The fact that it's opinion, even if it's based on available "facts," is the very reason it's subjective.

This opinion is NOT arbitrary in any way.

This opinion is widely held because of facts about human behavior that are available for study and examination.

The human moral against murder is about as "subjective" as the fact that sardines "prefer" to school, or that bucks "prefer" to compete for mates.

 

[Nithavela]

Murderers don't hold the opinion that murdering is wrong.

 

[durangodawood]

Murderers don't hold the opinion that murdering is wrong.

2 problems here:

1. a lot of murderers DO think murder is wrong.

2. objective morality doesnt mean every single person is on board. It just means that theres an objective basis for the moral.

 

[selfinflikted]

This opinion is NOT arbitrary in any way.

Whether the opinion is arbitrary or not has no bearing on whether it is subjective or not.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "objective."

This opinion is widely held because of facts about human behavior that are available for study and examination.

Again, the fact that it is opinion, whether universally held or not, in fact makes it subjective.

 

[Nithavela]

The problem is that the definition of murder changes. Many things that we now today would see as murder (like lynching a woman accused of witchcraft, or whipping a slave until he dies) were seen as A-Okay.

So yes, murder has always been known to be wrong, but the definition of murder is 'Ending someones live for a wrong reason', and as such, this is just circular logic. Murder is objectively wrong, but what is defined as murder is defined in a subjective, culturally specific way.

So, as I said, either objective morals can change (making them not very objective), or they don't exist in the first place.

 

[durangodawood]

Again, the fact that it is opinion, whether universally held or not, in fact makes it subjective.

If its just opinion, then its subjective.

But if most people in most times believe it for reasons that are objective facts about the world, then its objective.

 

[selfinflikted]

But if most people in most times believe it for reasons that are objective facts about the world, then its objective.

"Believe" and "opinion" are analogous, whether they are singular or collective beliefs and opinions.

I believe we will have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[durangodawood]

"Believe" and "opinion" are analogous, whether they are singular or collective beliefs and opinions.

I believe we will have to agree to disagree on this.

Missing the point. A fact of human behavior doesnt become simply subjective if it happens to manifest also as belief or opinion.

At the root, the human moral against murder is a fact of animal behavior. As such, its objective. Its has an objective basis, AND its available to objective scientific inquiry.

 

[Nithavela]

At the root, the human moral against murder is a fact of animal behavior.

Did you know that when male lions take over a pride from another dominant male, they kill all the baby lions fathered by the ousted male, so that the females go into heat and the new male lion can father children of his own?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)

 

[durangodawood]

Did you know that when male lions take over a pride from another dominant male, they kill all the baby lions fathered by the ousted male, so that the females go into heat and the new male lion can father children of his own?

Infanticide (zoology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And that says what about human moral facts.....?

 

[selfinflikted]

Missing the point. A fact of human behavior doesnt become simply subjective if it happens to manifest also as belief or opinion.

At the root, the human moral against murder is a fact of animal behavior. As such, its objective. Its has an objective basis, AND its available to objective scientific inquiry.

I still do not agree. "Murder" is a legal term and has nothing to do with animal behavior, as I assume you are using the phrase, because its definition applies to very specific situations. "Murder," as defined, is a social construct based in collective opinion. What is considered "murder" in some societies may not necessarily qualify as such in others. Further, there are different degrees of "murder," implying some are "more" wrong and others "less wrong." I just can't see this as objective.

Now, if you want to talk about killing, well, that's a whole other argument.

 

[Nithavela]

And that says what about human moral facts.....?

That you can't use animal behaviour as an argument for them, like you did.

 

[durangodawood]

I still do not agree. "Murder" is a legal term and has nothing to do with animal behavior, as I assume you are using the phrase, because its definition applies to very specific situations. "Murder," as defined, is a social construct based in collective opinion. What is considered "murder" in some societies may not necessarily qualify as such in others. Further, there are different degrees of "murder," implying some are "more" wrong and others "less wrong." I just can't see this as objective.

Now, if you want to talk about killing, well, that's a whole other argument.

Of course we can talk about murder as a moral issue, even as its also a legal issue.

I hope you dont think that objective morality means all societies are going to hold all the same morals at the same time.

I do NOT believe there is an absolute morality. But for sure most of morality has an objective basis. There is a huge distinction.

 

[durangodawood]

That you can't use animal behaviour as an argument for them, like you did.

???

I dont follow at all. Lion morality works well for lions. Poorly for humans.

 

[selfinflikted]

I do NOT believe there is an absolute morality. But for sure most of morality has an objective basis. There is a huge distinction.

Perhaps I've been confusing the two. I've been known to erroneously conflate things like that before.

Even if that's the case, I think the points still apply to morals being subjective, where murder is concerned.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What if I were to attempt to cut your head off one day? I'm assuming you would consider this wrong. And not wrong simply because it's an opinion of yours. You would think that it was obviously objectively wrong and would expect other people to see that it was wrong and would grow upset if people tried explaining to you that in their opinion I really did nothing wrong. You would be appealing to them to recognize the universal truth of what I did was wrong. And you would be absolutely right. There would be no arguing that what I did was wrong. And you would expect me to feel bad about it.

Or if I am wrong you would not feel this way, please correct me.

Thanks!

Actually, if you were doing it under the threat of your own death,I wouldn't view it as immoral, although I certainly wouldn't just stand there and let you kill me!

 

[Nithavela]

Durandongawood, let me show you 2 quotes of you. In my opinion, they are a little at odds with each other. They are even on the same page of the thread.

At the root, the human moral against murder is a fact of animal behavior. As such, its objective.

I dont follow at all. Lion morality works well for lions. Poorly for humans

This is something I have seen quite often on this board (though not by non-christians, until now):

"Behaviour X isn't natural, even animals wouldn't do such a thing, so it's wrong."
*Evidence of animals doing X*
"Well, obviously we aren't animals, so doing things that animals do would be wrong."