The Moral Wars

[PloverWing]

I suspect that morals are fixed and objective.

My own guess is that morals are fixed and objective but difficult to discern, and that different cultures/religions/philosophies make different guesses at the fixed-objective morality, with varying degrees of accuracy.

Possibly, though, things appropriately vary by culture. What's best for nomads might be different from what's best for city-dwellers.

On the morality-conspiracy-theory idea, I do have one thought:

The only thing that seems unclear to me is why personal immorality is favorable to the governing/ruling class.

And if over time they can dull the human conscience, then persons feel better about their immorality.

I think there's something to this. If we think about one of the important clusters of moral questions in our present culture -- racism, sexism, and the exploitation of underpaid workers -- those in power personally benefit from having an unpaid or underpaid class of people to do the jobs they don't want to do. So this would be an example of personal (and collective) immorality being favorable to the governing/ruling class.

If the level of comfort is high enough, that in itself can dull the conscience; if I'm comfortable, I may not want to notice that my comfort is coming at the cost of other people's well-being. And if I don't notice other people's pain, then -- as you say -- that can help me feel better about my immorality.

 

[durangodawood]

My own guess is that morals are fixed and objective but difficult to discern....

I suspect that morals are fixed and objective....

Ok. So please show them to us. Thats what objective means, right?.....something apparent enough to all that personal opinion has no place.

 

[PloverWing]

Ok. So please show them to us. Thats what objective means, right?.....something apparent enough to all that personal opinion has no place.

Objective means that a thing or property exists independent of my ability to perceive it.

Something can be objectively true and still difficult to perceive. Objectively, the Sombrero Galaxy M104 does, or does not, contain a planet with liquid water, but it is difficult for astronomers to answer the question because of the distances involved.

Moral goodness could be an objective property of human actions and still be difficult to perceive correctly.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Moral goodness could be an objective property of human actions and still be difficult to perceive correctly.

You'd think a moral god would have made morality obvious.

 

[PloverWing]

You'd think a moral god would have made morality obvious.

No objection here. The whole "guess the right religion" endeavor would be easier if God made things more obvious.

 

[Speedwell]

You'd think a moral god would have made morality obvious.

He did, really, He gave us--or so it is said--a list of general principles and left us to apply them in particular situations. Other civilizations have had similar lists and some also claimed divine inspiration of them, but in general there is little disagreement about them. But I don't think we are talking about moral principles of that kind. It more often seems to me that we are talking about moral edicts deduced from sacred texts rather than explicitly stated in them.

 

[Tinker Grey]

He did, really, He gave us--or so it is said--a list of general principles and left us to apply them in particular situations. Other civilizations have had similar lists and some also claimed divine inspiration of them, but in general there is little disagreement about them. But I don't think we are talking about moral principles of that kind. It more often seems to me that we are talking about moral edicts deduced from sacred texts rather than explicitly stated in them.

Well, my interlocutor was just saying that it's difficult to discern.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, my interlocutor was just saying that it's difficult to discern.

What I meant is that even if I acknowledged divine authority for the "big ten" it would difficult for me to take claims of divine authority for deduced precepts as a given. And since the deduced axioms play such a big part in the "moral wars" I am not inclined to take a religious defense of them seriously.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What I meant is that even if I acknowledged divine authority for the "big ten" it would difficult for me to take claims of divine authority for deduced precepts as a given. And since the deduced axioms play such a big part in the "moral wars" I am not inclined to take a religious defense of them seriously.

Fair enough.

 

[durangodawood]

Objective means that a thing or property exists independent of my ability to perceive it.

Something can be objectively true and still difficult to perceive. Objectively, the Sombrero Galaxy M104 does, or does not, contain a planet with liquid water, but it is difficult for astronomers to answer the question because of the distances involved.

Moral goodness could be an objective property of human actions and still be difficult to perceive correctly.

Thats such a weird comparison because phrasing a claim about objective morality in those terms would go something like this: "objectively, the universe (including the divine realm if you want) does or does not contain rules for human behavior", which is such a vague commitment that I would be forced to agree.

Also, obviously we have rules for human behavior. You can point to them in effect in our own society. And I would agree, those rules are in effect regardless of my opinion on the matter. So there we have it: objective morality. But I think you mean something.....more?

 

[Bradskii]

Thats such a weird comparison because phrasing a claim about objective morality in those terms would go something like this: "objectively, the universe (including the divine realm if you want) does or does not contain rules for human behavior", which is such a vague commitment that I would be forced to agree.

Also, obviously we have rules for human behavior. You can point to them in effect in our own society. And I would agree, those rules are in effect regardless of my opinion on the matter. So there we have it: objective morality. But I think you mean something.....more?

I think the question should be: Are those moral rules objectively true in themselves. Not simply whether they objectively exist. We could all agree on any particular moral position but that doesn't make it objectively true.

 

[durangodawood]

I think the question should be: Are those moral rules objectively true in themselves. Not simply whether they objectively exist. We could all agree on any particular moral position but that doesn't make it objectively true.

We could certainly argue whether a moral position is objectively effective, detrimental, or neutral in furthering values that are natural to humans.

 

[PloverWing]

Thats such a weird comparison because phrasing a claim about objective morality in those terms would go something like this: "objectively, the universe (including the divine realm if you want) does or does not contain rules for human behavior", which is such a vague commitment that I would be forced to agree.

Also, obviously we have rules for human behavior. You can point to them in effect in our own society. And I would agree, those rules are in effect regardless of my opinion on the matter. So there we have it: objective morality. But I think you mean something.....more?

What I mean is that human actions can have an ethical component that is independent of what I think of the action, and independent even of what society thinks of the action. If I say that "It was wrong that Alice killed Bob", I mean something more than just "I'm unhappy that Alice killed Bob" or "Society will frown on Alice for killing Bob". I mean that the action had an objective ethical component.

For some actions, most humans agree on their ethical rightness or wrongness. For other actions, it's much harder to figure out whether they're right or wrong or a murky combination of the two. But I see that latter situation as a difficulty of perception, not an absence of objective morality.

 

[durangodawood]

What I mean is that human actions can have an ethical component that is independent of what I think of the action, and independent even of what society thinks of the action. If I say that "It was wrong that Alice killed Bob", I mean something more than just "I'm unhappy that Alice killed Bob" or "Society will frown on Alice for killing Bob". I mean that the action had an objective ethical component.

For some actions, most humans agree on their ethical rightness or wrongness. For other actions, it's much harder to figure out whether they're right or wrong or a murky combination of the two. But I see that latter situation as a difficulty of perception, not an absence of objective morality.

I agree that our actions have an objective ethical component. Our actions can advance or hinder the natural values of other people in an objectively apparent way. Is that what you mean?

 

[Bradskii]

We could certainly argue whether a moral position is objectively effective, detrimental, or neutral in furthering values that are natural to humans.

I think we could agree on a position being effective or not. The problem would be agreeing as to who's values are being best represented by that moral position.

 

[Bradskii]

What I mean is that human actions can have an ethical component that is independent of what I think of the action, and independent even of what society thinks of the action. If I say that "It was wrong that Alice killed Bob", I mean something more than just "I'm unhappy that Alice killed Bob" or "Society will frown on Alice for killing Bob". I mean that the action had an objective ethical component.

For some actions, most humans agree on their ethical rightness or wrongness. For other actions, it's much harder to figure out whether they're right or wrong or a murky combination of the two. But I see that latter situation as a difficulty of perception, not an absence of objective morality.

All moral positions are relative to the circumstances. So it might be morally good for Alice to kill Bob. But wrong for Ted to kill Carol (points awarded for the references).

The killing itself may be entirely legal and justified. But if it's murder then it's not. And some people class murder as an example of an objective morality. But murder already defines the circumstances. It's killing relative to those circumstances.

 

[Occams Barber]

All moral positions are relative to the circumstances. So it might be morally good for Alice to kill Bob. But wrong for Ted to kill Carol (points awarded for the references).

The killing itself may be entirely legal and justified. But if it's murder then it's not. And some people class murder as an example of an objective morality. But murder already defines the circumstances. It's killing relative to those circumstances.

Bob & Carol, Ted & Alice. American comedy movie 1969. I had just turned 21.

It was a very good year.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

Mmm. Natal

Bob & Carol, Ted & Alice. American comedy movie 1969. I had just turned 21.

It was a very good year.

OB

I was a 16 year old hopelessly in love with Natalie Wood...

 

[Occams Barber]

The killing itself may be entirely legal and justified. But if it's murder then it's not. And some people class murder as an example of an objective morality. But murder already defines the circumstances. It's killing relative to those circumstances.

Back in January I started a thread on the subject of murder based on the 'Thou shalt not murder' commandment.

My point was; while murder was proscribed, the commandment did not define what constitutes murder. As a result the commandment is morally vacuous: that is ; it fails to define what killing is morally wrong. Since rules about who 'Thou shalt not kill' have varied across time, culture and circumstance, the rule lacks any moral meaning.

Thou Shalt Not Murder

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Mmm. Natal


I was a 16 year old hopelessly in love with Natalie Wood...

For me it was Sophia Loren. I think I preferred her acting.
OB