My Perspective on Morality

[HRE]

On whether morality is objective or subjective, and from whence it originates.

Preview:
There are very few, if any, moral hard lines. At best, we can say that there are a few tenets which tend to express themselves in an overwhelming majority of cultures, isolated or connected, across the history of the globe.

These moral hardlines, in their own individual ways, are memes -- a meme being an idea or cultural factor that evolves just like an organism, and often hand-in-hand with the organism.


Biological Basis:
Life has existed, from its inception, for the sole purpose of making more life. It has no purpose, actually -- it's just what life does. Self-replicating chemicals make more self-replicating chemicals. Is that a purpose? I say not -- no more than the purpose of the sun is to be a big fusion reactor. It is just what the sun does.

Now, all 'life' as we know it today does the same thing, to a greater or lesser extent, as those first self-replicating chemicals: it makes more of itself. The difference is that modern life has diversified and come up with many different ways to do it.

We make more of ourselves through the act of childbirth and rearing -- we have sex, produce children, and raise them protectively until they are capable of repeating the process.

I should note here that I do not subscribe to the selfish gene theory -- there is to vast an amount of directly observational evidence that runs contrary to it. Rather, I accept that from an evolutionary standpoint, the replication of the individual organism is not the goal -- it is the replication and continuation of the individual population, whether that be a tribe in the Amazons, an entire nation-spanning society and culture, or simply an individual family.


The Content:
The moral hardlines are memes. They are ideas that have evolved with the populations and are passed on not genetically, but through nurture. They serve to ensure that an organism behaves in such a way that the population continues. These memes make a warrior run a suicide mission so that his tribe survives. These memes say that you should treat your brethren with kindness and hospitality, while making subtle implications as to who, exactly, your brethren are.

The basis of morality, then, is the variety of ways that we keep on chugging away.

For one culture, this may mean that the individual is irrelevant in the face of society and can be freely disposed of for the benefit of the society. For another culture, this may mean that each individual is valuable and should be given the greatest possibilities to successfully reproduce.

For one culture, this may mean that the most successful men should fertilize the greatest number of women possible, consensually or otherwise. For another culture, this may mean that a man and a woman should reproduce and bond to form a stable family unit to ensure the greatest success in rearing an individual child.

Which of these, then, is correct? Rape and harems? Monogamy and the nuclear family?

To put it quite simply: whichever one works. Whichever moral hardline allows a culture to achieve dominance and success is the appropriate moral hardline, and other populations would do well to adopt it to stand a greater chance of survival.


Extentions:
This covers the basic morality, but then where do more abstract ideas like the morality of theivery or even the worship of certain deities and not others come from?

I say that they lie in the same root. We do not tolerate someone robbing our possessions because it limits our ability to pass on our genes, at the fundamental level. This morality extends into the superfluous -- someone stealing my lamp isn't going to hamper my ability to make babies, but it still appeals to that core moral.

Likewise, a culture saying 'My way or the Highway' (See the Ten Commandments) is saying, "Don't blend with the other people. They're not like us. Keep your genes here, and don't let them get washed out."


In Summary:
Morality is not objective. It fills the same purpose, but in different ways in different cultures. Likewise, it is not entirely subjective -- not every moral system is correct. Rather, it is utilitarian -- whichever systems works best for its purpose (the continuation of the population) is the best system for the time being.






Now, I'm taking certain things as axioms from this perspective, such as the veracity of evolution, that some of you may disagree with. Please, let's move beyond that and see if my thoughts on morality hold from the perspective from which I approach the argument.

 

[FSTDT]

All your perspective provides is nothing but the content of moral commands, but not the justification.

As far as I'm concerned, because there is no justification, there is no reason to prefer your moral perspective above pulling moral rules out of a hat, or for that matter there is no reason to prefer your moral perspective above any theists idea of morality.

To pull yourself out of the subjectivist root a little, I think you should concede that certain moral rules really are more reasonable than others. For instance, you could imagine a culture that sacrifices every 3rd born live infant into a fire, and you could imagine that this culture is bound strongly by this practice... but, its a very silly practice, and one which I would argue is strongly immoral - there are more reasonable actions that can be taken than all this needless waste of life and tremendous suffering.

The further and further you distance yourself from the subjectivist angle, the more and more viable and robust your moral will become. Yes, we all read Michael Shermers book, and we all found it fascinating, but justifying morality on an evolutionary basis is as naive as you can get with the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[HRE]

To pull yourself out of the subjectivist root a little, I think you should concede that certain moral rules really are more reasonable than others. For instance, you could imagine a culture that sacrifices every 3rd born live infant into a fire, and you could imagine that this culture is bound strongly by this practice... but, its a very silly practice, and one which I would argue is strongly immoral - there are more reasonable actions that can be taken than all this needless waste of life and tremendous suffering.

And, if this moral system was unacceptable, that would be observed in a decay of the culture -- they would produce less viable offspring and be eventually overrun and they, or the meme, would become extinct.

And, as a matter of fact, I have not read nor heard of Michael Shermer nor any of his works. Dawkins posited memes, and the rest is my thinking.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Our self-awarness as human beings is a fairly new phenomenon in the history of the planet. I suspect that self-awarness may be capable of trumping any evolutionary urge to propogate a population. It may be capable of generating an objective morality.

 

[David Gould]

Morality is self-protection writ large. That is simply a description, not a justification.

As to objective morality, we might be able to find a morality we all agree on. I am unclear how that would make it objective, however. And there would be no justification for this morality that did not boil down to 'because ?'.

Morality cannot be justified. For something to be deemed moral or immoral, there must be a context. For example:

'A male has just killed a female.'

Can you make a comment on whether this act was moral or immoral without context? No. As soon as I provide context, you can. As you learn more and more about the context, your moral judgment may well switch around.

 

[FSTDT]

David Gould,

Morality is self-protection writ large. That is simply a description, not a justification.

As to objective morality, we might be able to find a morality we all agree on. I am unclear how that would make it objective, however. And there would be no justification for this morality that did not boil down to 'because ?'.

Objective morality has nothing to do with a large number of people coming to a consensus. All it means is that morality is justified on a basis outside of what people want it to be. Its rather similar to the way that facts are objective in science, and is analogous to the pithy "science does not change based on our ability to stomach it".

On other forums, I've put forward the idea that objective morality is based on a few axiomatic statements. For instance, the words "behaving morally" are equivalent to the statement "producing desirable behavior", and several things which are desirable in and of themselves including happiness and the satisfaction of preferences. I have this explained in great detail elsewhere on the internet, but its basically a way to reduce down morality to a set of axioms that does not rely on conceding to subjectivism or "just because" morality.

 

[David Gould]

David Gould,


Objective morality has nothing to do with a large number of people coming to a consensus. All it means is that morality is justified on a basis outside of what people want it to be. Its rather similar to the way that facts are objective in science, and is analogous to the pithy "science does not change based on our ability to stomach it".

Morality is very different to science. Science is descriptive: in other words, it describes what we observe. Morality, on the other hand, does no such thing: rather, it tells us how things should be. There is a way of working out how the universe operates - we look at it. There is no similar way to work out how what should be by looking at what is.

On other forums, I've put forward the idea that objective morality is based on a few axiomatic statements. For instance, the words "behaving morally" are equivalent to the statement "producing desirable behavior", and several things which are desirable in and of themselves including happiness and the satisfaction of preferences. I have this explained in great detail elsewhere on the internet, but its basically a way to reduce down morality to a set of axioms that does not rely on conceding to subjectivism or "just because" morality.

The problem is, your 'axioms' are 'just because'. There is no reason why I should accept them.

You talk about 'producing desirable behaviour'. For something to be desired, there must be a desirer. And that makes it subjective by definition. What happens if two people desire two different behaviours from someone? And so on.

 

[philosopherthales]

Given the propogation of the idea of no objective morality, you would think that people would begin to live by it. Yet, my observation shows me that people do not live by it. There are lines that they don't want to cross. These ideas of what they want to occur are so concrete in their head, I doubt any of them will ever cross the line. For instance, most here won't deliberately stab themselves in the arm for no reason given their idea that no outcome is better than the other(no right outcome and no wrong outcome...no morality). When someone proposing subjective morality actually does that, then I will believe that they individually actually believe their own rhetoric. Otherwise, they don't seem able to get themselves to believe that no outcome in the world is better than another. Basically, you would be on the same level as buddha was on, no desires and no attachments. I don't think people here are actually at that stage.

As actions speak louder than words, I must come to the conclusion that the writer of the OP is decieving himself. He thinks there is a purpose, yet claims to think there is no purpose. His life seems very ordered. He goes to work, has a car, washes it every Teusday etc. With such order, I must come to the conclusion that there is underlying principles by which he lives and outcomes that he desires. He has principles, he must have principles, for order without rules is impossible. I observe order, thus I extrapolate rules.

 

[FSTDT]

David,

Morality is very different to science. Science is descriptive: in other words, it describes what we observe. Morality, on the other hand, does no such thing: rather, it tells us how things should be. There is a way of working out how the universe operates - we look at it. There is no similar way to work out how what should be by looking at what is.

Its an analogy. I'm pointing out a similarity between objective morality and objective facts, because they both share a few common misconceptions. The idea that objectiveness is the same thing as majority consensus is just one of those misconceptions.

The problem is, your 'axioms' are 'just because'. There is no reason why I should accept them.

You talk about 'producing desirable behaviour'. For something to be desired, there must be a desirer. And that makes it subjective by definition. What happens if two people desire two different behaviours from someone? And so on.

Both criticisms are wrong, but forgivable because you've never actually seen how I justify the statements. Maybe I'll start a new thread on it, because I dont want to derail this one.

 

[David Gould]

David,

Its an analogy. I'm pointing out a similarity between objective morality and objective facts, because they both share a few common misconceptions. The idea that objectiveness is the same thing as majority consensus is just one of those misconceptions.

There is no similarity that I can see between objective facts and objective morality. Objective facts are logically possible; objective morality is not. This is because facts do not depend on a subjective observer, while morality does.

Both criticisms are wrong, but forgivable because you've never actually seen how I justify the statements. Maybe I'll start a new thread on it, because I dont want to derail this one.

It does not matter what axioms you put forward. There is no reason why I should accept them. I may very well do so. But there is no reason why I should.

 

[David Gould]

Given the propogation of the idea of no objective morality, you would think that people would begin to live by it. Yet, my observation shows me that people do not live by it. There are lines that they don't want to cross. These ideas of what they want to occur are so concrete in their head, I doubt any of them will ever cross the line. For instance, most here won't deliberately stab themselves in the arm for no reason given their idea that no outcome is better than the other(no right outcome and no wrong outcome...no morality). When someone proposing subjective morality actually does that, then I will believe that they individually actually believe their own rhetoric. Otherwise, they don't seem able to get themselves to believe that no outcome in the world is better than another. Basically, you would be on the same level as buddha was on, no desires and no attachments. I don't think people here are actually at that stage.

As actions speak louder than words, I must come to the conclusion that the writer of the OP is decieving himself. He thinks there is a purpose, yet claims to think there is no purpose. His life seems very ordered. He goes to work, has a car, washes it every Teusday etc. With such order, I must come to the conclusion that there is underlying principles by which he lives and outcomes that he desires. He has principles, he must have principles, for order without rules is impossible. I observe order, thus I extrapolate rules.

But when two people follow two different sets of rules, there is still order in their lives, so I fail to see how any of the above supports the notion that there is such a thing an objective morality.

 

[philosopherthales]

I wasn't actually supporting the idea of objective morality. At least, that wasn't my intention. What I was saying was that objective morality is a concept held by most(if not all) people. They can claim otherwise, but people either are decieved themselves or actively decieve other people all the time.

My final point for now is that this is just a fact of life. You are going to have a viewpoint that you believe is right every which way we look at possible outcomes of a human's consciousness. You are going to treat those opinions as objectively describing what should occur. Get over it, and pick some good values. Yeah, it is going to be emotional feeling for meaning and purpose; that is just how things will turn out. Yet, if you think about objective morality with only emotional feeling and seeking, there will be no coherence. Hence my advice to choose actively and don't go around proclaiming you don't believe in objective morality when you do(it is how sentient beings operate). Your choice as a logical extension will be hindered by not accepting that a question of "what is right and wrong" actually is being asked of you. So, acknowledge the question as either your sub-consious or conscious mind is going to make a decision. My advice is to use your sense of logic and take a deep look at your sub-conscious motivations for your choice. Relegate your choice as much as possible to logic you are consciously aware of.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

For instance, most here won't deliberately stab themselves in the arm for no reason given their idea that no outcome is better than the other(no right outcome and no wrong outcome...no morality). When someone proposing subjective morality actually does that, then I will believe that they individually actually believe their own rhetoric. Otherwise, they don't seem able to get themselves to believe that no outcome in the world is better than another.

This paragraph completely misses the point of what subjective morality is. Certainly, under subjective morality, there is no necessity - or liklihood - that anyone would want to stab themselves in their arm. To say that because they don't do so, morality is objective makes no sense at all.

Basically, you would be on the same level as buddha was on, no desires and no attachments. I don't think people here are actually at that stage.

Again, this has nothing to do with subjective morality.

He thinks there is a purpose, yet claims to think there is no purpose. His life seems very ordered. He goes to work, has a car, washes it every Teusday etc. With such order, I must come to the conclusion that there is underlying principles by which he lives and outcomes that he desires. He has principles, he must have principles, for order without rules is impossible.

Once again, thuis has nothing whatsoever to do with subjective morality.

 

[HRE]

I think I need to revise my statement.

The OP was discussing where morality originated, and whether it was subjective or objective in its origin.

Self-awareness, and awareness of the process, changes the approach to morality entirely.

 

[philosopherthales]

This paragraph completely misses the point of what subjective morality is. Certainly, under subjective morality, there is no necessity - or liklihood - that anyone would want to stab themselves in their arm. To say that because they don't do so, morality is objective makes no sense at all.

Firstly, watch the words that imply some outcome that is better than another. "Want" and "Nessecity" wouldn't apply to someone under this situation(a person "under subjective morality"). He would certianly be without want and without neccessity.

I am not supporting objective morality. All I am saying is that all people subjectively come to rules by which they live and rules which they are reluctant to break. They subjectively come to their own objective morality as they treat these rules as nothing other than that. They see the outcomes gained by this as unquestionably the right outcome in this world of ours.

I am reluctant to believe that people here don't fall into this category. This is the most likely state, so if I had to guess, you all are viably described by this. I would need evidence to show that this is not the case for me to reasonably change this conclusion that is honestly based on very likely assumptions. The usually strongest desire is that of personal reduction of pain and increase of pleasure. This is the thing that I observe to be the one moral guideline that is (from my experiance) never broken. This is the one that is always there, and for me to question if it is there in a person's case, I would need some indication that it doesn't apply like it did when I observed hundreds of thousands of beings that brought me to my conclusion in the first place.

Certainly, under subjective morality, there is no necessity - or liklihood - that anyone would want to stab themselves in their arm.

well, given the choice of yes and no to the internal question of if someone is going to do this. Under subjective morality, the likelihood would be 50%.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I am not supporting objective morality. All I am saying is that all people subjectively come to rules by which they live and rules which they are reluctant to break. They subjectively come to their own objective morality as they treat these rules as nothing other than that. They see the outcomes gained by this as unquestionably the right outcome in this world of ours.

Now it seems you don't understand what 'objective morality' means. You state that people "subjectively come to their own objective morality," which is impossible. You can't have your own objective morality - 'objective morality' means it's independent of any person's point of view.

I am reluctant to believe that people here don't fall into this category.

Into WHAT category? The category you seem to be talking about (people who "subjectively come to their own objective morality" doesn't even make sense).

The usually strongest desire is that of personal reduction of pain and increase of pleasure. This is the thing that I observe to be the one moral guideline that is (from my experiance) never broken. This is the one that is always there, and for me to question if it is there in a person's case, I would need some indication that it doesn't apply like it did when I observed hundreds of thousands of beings that brought me to my conclusion in the first place.

Now it appears you don't know what morality means. It doesn't have anything to do with personal reduction of pain and increase of pleasure. It doesn't reduce my pain or increase my pleasure to hold the moral belief that homosexuality is right (or wrong). It's a moral belief nevertheless.

well, given the choice of yes and no to the internal question of if someone is going to do this. Under subjective morality, the likelihood would be 50%.

Mate, you're not making sense at all. Morality has nothing to do with the liklihood of someone's stabbing themselves in the arm.

 

[philosopherthales]

Now it seems you don't understand what 'objective morality' means. You state that people "subjectively come to their own objective morality," which is impossible. You can't have your own objective morality - 'objective morality' means it's independent of any person's point of view.

Ok, I didn‘t optimally word that. My other statements should have provided enough context for you to deduce what my argument was.

"subjectively come to their own objective morality" should read "subjectively come to their own view of objective morality". There is not much indicating that they are right, but they treat it as if they are right. You do the same thing, in all probability.

Into WHAT category? The category you seem to be talking about (people who "subjectively come to their own objective morality" doesn't even make sense).

I hope the category is explained better now

Now it appears you don't know what morality means. It doesn't have anything to do with personal reduction of pain and increase of pleasure. It doesn't reduce my pain or increase my pleasure to hold the moral belief that homosexuality is right (or wrong). It's a moral belief nevertheless.

Morality has to do with preference of events. Aversion to suffering is just one example of a "preference of events". I don't think I indicated or implied that it was the only form of morality excluding ideas on homosexuality. In fact, I state...

The usually strongest desire is that of personal reduction of pain and increase of pleasure. This is the thing that I observe to be the one moral guideline that is (from my experience) never broken.

Does this statement exclude other things that can be labeled under morality? No, I was given an example. As that particular moral guideline is hardly broken, I find that people generally believe it to be objectively a solid 'moral guideline'. In other words, they believe avoidance of pain to be a solid and logical 'preference of events'. Someone stabbing themselves in the arm (just one example) would be an indication that they could be living under no preference of events that they are attached to (that they see as unquestionably legitimate). Until I see it, until I see someone prove to me they question it, I will continue to believe that they have preference of one stateof things over another…especially when it comes to their arm suddenly erupting into excruciating pain. Most people would think that event would be undesirable. I’d have to see them show me it is not undesirable to them for me to believe that person believes in subjective morality. He would have to show me that he thinks nothing is preferred over anything else.

The thing is, it won't happen. That person will sooner question his sense of logic regarding subjective morality than he would his belief regarding the morality of pain/pleasure. That moral standard is concrete in his head. More concrete than many things, more concrete than science to him possibly. If a belief in an objectivity of a idea is not tied to how much that belief is questioned...well, then the following makes sense....

self-proclaimed subjectivist:

Morality is subjective, yet I think it immoral to have personal pain. It is wrong, I don't want it to happen, I have never questioned it my measures to avoid it, yet nothing at all is wrong (morality is subjective).

Morality all depends on your point of view. No point of view is better than anothers. Yet, I choose my point of view as a guide to my actions so I have some kind of preference for my point of view.

Ok, what if I claimed to be a Christian yet I don't believe in Christ? Am I a Christian? What If I claimed to be the president yet I had not executive authority. Am I the president?

Mate, you're not making sense at all. Morality has nothing to do with the liklihood of someone's stabbing themselves in the arm.

Morality has everything to do with preferable action. Is hurting oneself or being hurt a preferable action/event? If you have a preference, your claims to believe in subjective morality mean little as a qualitative analysis of your own beliefs. The idea of subjective morality is just a ploy, one used against some forms of morality but not others as it is more easily used against one rather than the other.

For instance, "your belief that homosexuality is wrong is your opinion" may sound like a good argument. Yet, does "your belief that the persecution of homosexuals is wrong is just your opinion" sound as legitimate? Both use the same logic of subjective morality and you "shall not think something wrong" just because you have the opinion that it is wrong. They both use the argument of Morality is subjective, yet those arguments are in support of two clashing ideas.

To sum up, you don't believe in subjective preference of events if you have a set of preferences for things yourself. You don't believe in subjective morality if you think some things are right and some things wrong. The idea means nothing otherwise. A person that thinks homosexuality is wrong has just as much claim to believing in subjective morality as one that thinks personal pain is wrong. Yeah, they both have no claim to it. Also, even if they claim "all this doesn't matter", and pain is not objectively wrong, they still think it so. It is easily extrapolated from their actions. Actions that almost without fail prefer pleasure over pain.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Ok, I didn‘t optimally word that. My other statements should have provided enough context for you to deduce what my argument was.

"subjectively come to their own objective morality" should read "subjectively come to their own view of objective morality". There is not much indicating that they are right, but they treat it as if they are right. You do the same thing, in all probability.

Okay, now I understand you. In that case, I'd say your statement is simply wrong. Certainly we all subjectively come to our own view of morality - however, not everyone views it as objective. I sure don't, and (of course) no objective relativist does. I view my moral view as mine alone; I make no claim to its objectivity. I treat it as right FOR ME.

I hope the category is explained better now

Yes, it is - as explained above, I think it's simply wrong.

Morality has to do with preference of events. Aversion to suffering is just one example of a "preference of events". I don't think I indicated or implied that it was the only form of morality excluding ideas on homosexuality.

No, morality hasn't to do with preference of events at all (unless 'preference of events' means 'preference of that which is moral'). It has to do with what you think is 'right'. There are many situations in which I'd prefer to do that which is IMmoral - it might be more advantageous or preferable to me. However, I don't do it, precisely because I think it's immoral.

The usually strongest desire is that of personal reduction of pain and increase of pleasure. This is the thing that I observe to be the one moral guideline that is (from my experience) never broken.

And, as previously stated, this isn't a moral guideline at all. I can imagine many situations in which I act according to my views of what is moral despite the fact that acting that way increases my pain and reduces my pleasure. Running into a burning house to save children is but one example.

Does this statement exclude other things that can be labeled under morality? No, I was given an example. As that particular moral guideline is hardly broken, I find that people generally believe it to be objectively a solid 'moral guideline'. In other words, they believe avoidance of pain to be a solid and logical 'preference of events'.

Certainly, the generally (see above) believe avoidance of pain to be a solid and logical preference of events, but that doesn't make that a moral guideline.

Someone stabbing themselves in the arm (just one example) would be an indication that they could be living under no preference of events that they are attached to (that they see as unquestionably legitimate). Until I see it, until I see someone prove to me they question it, I will continue to believe that they have preference of one stateof things over another…especially when it comes to their arm suddenly erupting into excruciating pain. Most people would think that event would be undesirable.

Certainly true.

I’d have to see them show me it is not undesirable to them for me to believe that person believes in subjective morality. He would have to show me that he thinks nothing is preferred over anything else.

Again you confuse what morality is. It's not morality that prevents me from stabbing myself in the arm; it's my desire not to experience pain. That has nothing to do with morality.

The thing is, it won't happen. That person will sooner question his sense of logic regarding subjective morality than he would his belief regarding the morality of pain/pleasure.

Again, morality has nothing to do with pain/pleasure.

That moral standard is concrete in his head. More concrete than many things, more concrete than science to him possibly.

Agreed.

If a belief in an objectivity of a idea is not tied to how much that belief is questioned...well, then the following makes sense....

self-proclaimed subjectivist:

Morality is subjective, yet I think it immoral to have personal pain. It is wrong, I don't want it to happen, I have never questioned it my measures to avoid it, yet nothing at all is wrong (morality is subjective).

Morality all depends on your point of view. No point of view is better than anothers. Yet, I choose my point of view as a guide to my actions so I have some kind of preference for my point of view.

I would say the person that said that is wrong. He views having personal pain as something undesirable - fair enough, so do I. But that doesn't make it a moral view.

Ok, what if I claimed to be a Christian yet I don't believe in Christ? Am I a Christian? What If I claimed to be the president yet I had not executive authority. Am I the president?

No and no.

Morality has everything to do with preferable action.

No, it doesn't. It has to do with 'right' action.

Is hurting oneself or being hurt a preferable action/event? If you have a preference, your claims to believe in subjective morality mean little as a qualitative analysis of your own beliefs.

No, because again you confuse what morality is. It has nothing to do with a preference for being hurt.

The idea of subjective morality is just a ploy, one used against some forms of morality but not others as it is more easily used against one rather than the other.

No, it's not. You have entirely the wrong end of the stick here.

For instance, "your belief that homosexuality is wrong is your opinion" may sound like a good argument. Yet, does "your belief that the persecution of homosexuals is wrong is just your opinion" sound as legitimate?

Yes, both are precisely as accurate and legimate as each other. Obviously, they are contradictory, but each is as valid as the other.

Both use the same logic of subjective morality and you "shall not think something wrong" just because you have the opinion that it is wrong. They both use the argument of Morality is subjective, yet those arguments are in support of two clashing ideas.

Yes, to everything in that last paragraph. I don't get your point here.

To sum up, you don't believe in subjective preference of events if you have a set of preferences for things yourself.

Again, morality isn't about a preference of events.

You don't believe in subjective morality if you think some things are right and some things wrong.

That's just wrong. You DO believe in subjective morality, regardless of whether or not you think some things are right and some things wrong, if you believe there is no objective moral law.

The idea means nothing otherwise.

The idea means precisely what it says. I believe that homosexuality is not morally wrong. I do not claim that that is an objective moral truth. It is, nevertheless, my opinion.

A person that thinks homosexuality is wrong has just as much claim to believing in subjective morality as one that thinks personal pain is wrong.

Yes, they do, if only because personal pain is irrelevant.

Yeah, they both have no claim to it. Also, even if they claim "all this doesn't matter", and pain is not objectively wrong, they still think it so. It is easily extrapolated from their actions. Actions that almost without fail prefer pleasure over pain.

Again, pleasure over pain is completely irrelevant. Morality isn't about pleasure or pain. It's about 'right'.

From dictionary.com:

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

You won't find anywhere in there anything about pleasure or pain, or even about what is preferable or desirable.

 

[philosopherthales]

Again, pleasure over pain is completely irrelevant. Morality isn't about pleasure or pain. It's about 'right'.

Yeah, and 'right' can have many qualifications. Lets say that a person tortures another person and inflicts pain. Is that morally wrong? I would say yes, as would many. So, pain is viewed as undesirable. The lack of it is viewed as desirable, or right.

No, morality hasn't to do with preference of events at all (unless 'preference of events' means 'preference of that which is moral'). It has to do with what you think is 'right'. There are many situations in which I'd prefer to do that which is IMmoral - it might be more advantageous or preferable to me. However, I don't do it, precisely because I think it's immoral.

If you didn't do that immoral thing, you obviously did not see it as preferable. You seem to be limiting the word 'preferable' to things that affect an individual's self. Preferable can involve much greater things from world peace to freedom. 'Preferable' can include other people's situation as greater and more important than your own. "It is preferable for another person to get something rather than it is for you to get that same thing" is a legitimate use of the word.

What is wrong with these definitions?

preferable: that which is desirable.
moral: that which is desirable.

What things that you or other people include as moral wouldn't fit that definition of preferable?
1.)gay rights?
2.)world peace?
3.)freedom?
4.)selflessness?
5.)devotion to God?
6.)compassion for other people's suffering

These things are preferable because they are moral.

What is moral that is not preferable?
What is preferable that is not moral?

The answer: nothing

Name one moral that doesn't fit that definition that I proposed. So, it is not too narrow. It is not too broad. It seems basically right to me. Preference for pleasure goes under that and including it isn't making 'moral' too broad. Lets say you lobby for gay rights and that leads to homosexuals being happier. Is that moral? Why is it moral? The difference between sadness and happiness is the thing that I see in that situation, and that is what qualifies it as moral. Many morals go back to that concept of human/animal suffering.

You say that moral has to do with "right". Well, what is wrong with saying that eating cake is "right". Is that a misuse of the world "right"? If someone eats cake, they obviously thought it was "right" to do so compared to all the millions of other options for actions.

'Morality' is saying what should be in our society and in ourselves. 'Preferable' is saying what our society and ourselves would be better as. The concepts are the same and in common language use, 95% of the time the words can be used as synonyms without any objection made by anyone.

The fact is: preferable and moral are inseparable as concepts. There seems to be subtle differentiation between the two in language, but as concepts in a debate, it can be useful for understanding to see them very much as identical terms describing identical concepts. Seeing them as this is cutting through the fog of language and getting at the root concept being described even though people can misuse the concept/word.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Yeah, and 'right' can have many qualifications. Lets say that a person tortures another person and inflicts pain. Is that morally wrong? I would say yes, as would many. So, pain is viewed as undesirable. The lack of it is viewed as desirable, or right.

It's doing it to somebody else that makes it a moral choice. If I torture you, I would find that immoral, too. But if I torture myself, it might be stupid, but it's not immoral - it's amoral (meaning 'without' morality - it's neither moral nor immoral).

If you didn't do that immoral thing, you obviously did not see it as preferable. You seem to be limiting the word 'preferable' to things that affect an individual's self. Preferable can involve much greater things from world peace to freedom. 'Preferable' can include other people's situation as greater and more important than your own. "It is preferable for another person to get something rather than it is for you to get that same thing" is a legitimate use of the word.

But it completely dilutes it. On one level, nobody EVER does anything that they don't want to do. If you change a tyre in your tuxedo, it's because you'd rather do that than be late to the Oscars. Sure, if you dilute the word 'preferable' to mean 'what you want most because it's moral', then of course what's moral can be defined as what's preferable. But that's not how most people use the word, and using it interchangably with 'moral' removes its meaning.

Nobody would say it's pleasurable to rush into a burning house to save a stranger's child - yet many would say it's moral. Of course, on one level, it's pleasurable to you that you acted morally and saved the child. But on another level, of course rushing into a burning building is anything but pleasurable. We must keep these different meanings of pleasurable separate or the words moral and pleasurable become interchangable. And they shouldn't be. Tell someone it was pleasure that urged you to run into the burning building, and they'll think you're an idiot (or a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]). Tell them it was morality, and they'll applaud you.

What is wrong with these definitions?

preferable: that which is desirable.

moral: that which is desirable.

As above, they make the two words synonymous. Sure, one could say that what is moral is desirable; however, the word moral has far greater connotations.

What things that you or other people include as moral wouldn't fit that definition of preferable?

1.)gay rights?

2.)world peace?

3.)freedom?

4.)selflessness?

5.)devotion to God?

6.)compassion for other people's suffering

These things are preferable because they are moral.

No, they're not. You are missing the entire meaning of the word 'moral'. Have you read any of the major philosophers on the subject?

What is moral that is not preferable?

What is preferable that is not moral?

It's preferable to me to have lots of sex with different beautiful women. It's not moral to me to do so, because I'm married. Yes, you can say that deep down I prefer not to have lots of sex with beautiful wome because it gives me more pleasure to be married, but in so doing you conflate the meanings of the two words.

The problem with equating the two words is that you then go on to use them in different contexts and draw wrong conclusions. For example, your claim that it's moral decision whether or not to stab your own arm.

Name one moral that doesn't fit that definition that I proposed. So, it is not too narrow. It is not too broad. It seems basically right to me. Preference for pleasure goes under that and including it isn't making 'moral' too broad. Lets say you lobby for gay rights and that leads to homosexuals being happier. Is that moral? Why is it moral? The difference between sadness and happiness is the thing that I see in that situation, and that is what qualifies it as moral. Many morals go back to that concept of human/animal suffering.

Yes, many do. That does not mean they are equal.

You say that moral has to do with "right". Well, what is wrong with saying that eating cake is "right". Is that a misuse of the world "right"? If someone eats cake, they obviously thought it was "right" to do so compared to all the millions of other options for actions.

Now you conflate the different meanings of the word 'right' together.

'Morality' is saying what should be in our society and in ourselves. 'Preferable' is saying what our society and ourselves would be better as. The concepts are the same and in common language use, 95% of the time the words can be used as synonyms without any objection made by anyone.

Nonsense. Go tell someone you ran into a burning house for pleasure.

The fact is: preferable and moral are inseparable as concepts. There seems to be subtle differentiation between the two in language, but as concepts in a debate, it can be useful for understanding to see them very much as identical terms describing identical concepts. Seeing them as this is cutting through the fog of language and getting at the root concept being described even though people can misuse the concept/word.

No, it's not. It's completely missing the entire point. You are conflating preferable with moral, whereas moral is a SUBSET of preferable. Something might be preferable to me for any number of reasons, only ONE of which is that it is moral. It's preferable for me to get a raise, but it's not moral - it's amoral. It's preferable for me to have a pretty woman give me a compliment, but it's not moral - it's amoral. It's preferable for me not to stab myself in the arm, but it's not moral - it's amoral.