Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

Consider the possibility that your idea of how a person is supposed to behave without believing there are universal rights, is wrong.

Do you mean if there were no universal rights and wrong? That would mean that right and wrong are up to the individual and therefore there are many rights and wrongs and no one moral position is ultimately correct.

Then no one could say to another person that they should not hold their moral rights and wrongs. That their view is wrong. They would have to say I have my views about what is right and wrong and you have your views and although I may think your views are abhorrent and wrong I will accept that you have the right to hold and express them.

 

[Ken-1122]

Okay, so for people that are hurt right in front of you, can I assume your explanation for what it means to "care" is the same as the one you gave for people that you know personally?

No. The more I know a person the more I care

And then folks that aren't hurt in front of you that you don't know you don't care about.

I care, just not as much as I would care if I knew the person; but more than I would care about a rat that got hurt.

I know. You are convinced that your car will start because it has done so in the past.

That is the exact explanation I gave you!

You don't understand that's what's happening but it is. I don't have the time or patience to explain all of that to you. You'll have to do some research on behavioral psychology to get it. Really basic 101 stuff, don't worry.

Really? So you repeat what I just told you, tell me that I don’t understand what you repeated and suggest I do research to understand the explanation I gave you which you, which you repeated back to me. You jokin’ right?

What else do I need?

I doubt there is anything you could tell me that I would find convincing. However you are welcome to try (and fail)

 

[Ken-1122]

Do you mean if there were no universal rights and wrong? That would mean that right and wrong are up to the individual and therefore there are many rights and wrongs and no one moral position is ultimately correct.

There is no universal right or wrong, each person has their own perception of right and wrong and they vary from person to person.

Then no one could say to another person that they should not hold their moral rights and wrongs. That their view is wrong. They would have to say I have my views about what is right and wrong and you have your views and although I may think your views are abhorrent and wrong I will accept that you have the right to hold and express them.

Well; there is nothing preventing people from trying to impose their perceptions on others, but the reason we have laws that we enforce instead of enforce morality is because nobody agrees on morality, but we are able to agree on laws.

 

[Speedwell]

So if someone who supports subjective morality reacts to a situation that the wrong the other person did can never be considered right no matter what subjective morality says and that it is always universally wrong to do are they acting like that morality is objective.

No, they are not. They are acting as if morality was subjective which just happens to be the way a person who believed morality was objective would act.

 

[Speedwell]

When they say that other people should hold and use their moral values they are then changing and taking an objective stand.

No, they are not "taking an objective stand." You are just accusing them of it for rhetorical purposes.

 

[Ken-1122]

But they don't act and react like morality is subjective.

You need to understand, that which is subjective is what you believe to be true.

They act like certain rights and wrongs are universal and apply to all.

If you believe “X” to be true, you believe it should be applied to all (even though a quick look at the real world you realize it is not)

That is not subjective morality. Subjective morality only applies to self, the person expressing the moral values. When they say that other people should hold and use their moral values they are then changing and taking an objective stand.

No, if you believe “X” is true and should be applied to all (subjective), you will behave the same as if you believe “X” is true and is applied to all.(objective)

 

[Tinker Grey]

No, they are not "taking an objective stand." You are just accusing them of it for rhetorical purposes.

Sounds like "taking an objective stand" is an admission that those who claim "objective morality" just want you to do things their way. Or to be charitable, they want assurances that their choices are right.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am not accusing you of not having empathy. I am showing you through independent research from academic papers on how empathy cannot completely account for why humans choose to do treat others right and good rather than wrong or bad. You haven't even addressed the article I linked, therefore, it makes me think you have just dismissed it without reading it. Here are some points from it that you need to address.

Studies have shown that empathy can be innumerate, biased, parochial, and inconsistent and can push us towards inaction at best and racism and violence at worst.

It has been shown how empathy can depend on how a situation is presented and how the individual feels about the situation. An example is given where a child is suffering a life-threatening disease. But there is a waiting list for her to get treated. On the one hand, reading about the situation, what the child is going through, and how she tells her personal story causes people to move her up the list thus denying more worthy children. But taking an objective measure this does not happen.

The point is that because empathy is a feeling which is not a good way to judge things it is open to bias and even cruelty as people turn a blind eye to others suffering worse in favor of personalized feelings. Another example is with cruel dictators like Starlin who only empathize with their inner circle and kill millions because they are viewed as less favorable. Such as people from different races, ethnic backgrounds, and even the sick and disabled.

So empathy is not a guarantee for acting nice towards one another because of the fact it is based on feelings and can evoke good and bad responses depending on the circumstances and individuals involved.

Rather than empathy, compassion is a better gauge of good moral behavior. Studies have shown that compassion and empathy affect different parts of the brain. Empathy often leads to distress, inactivity, and a lack of engagement because it is a feeling that is unpredictable and arbitrary often causing negative reactions.
Empathy is crucial to being a good person, right? Think again

Haha, no, empathy does not support an ”objective moral”.

And no, I wont read you rubbish links as I know from experience that you misuse and misunderstand everything and its very appearant that you have not studied the subject, but I have and are very familiar with the different aspects.

 

[Speedwell]

Sounds like "taking an objective stand" is an admission that those who claim "objective morality" just want you to do things their way. Or to be charitable, they want assurances that their choices are right.

"It's not playing fair to act as if morality was objective while ignoring the consequence of objective morality--that the Bible God exists."

 

[Tinker Grey]

"It's not playing fair to act as if morality was objective while ignoring the consequence of objective morality--that the Bible God exists."

Sounds like another fair assessment. I.e., it's an argument from consequences.

 

[Moral Orel]

No. The more I know a person the more I care

Okay, so the feelings are stronger the more you know a person, but the same general description of caring that you provided fits, right?

I care, just not as much as I would care if I knew the person; but more than I would care about a rat that got hurt.

Just to be clear, when you said "nothing" you were just exaggerating and in reality you always feel at least a tiny bit in the way that you have described "caring"? Is that correct?

That is the exact explanation I gave you!

It is not. You said that you "believe for no reason". See the word "because" in my sentence? What comes after that is the reason you believe. That's how the word "because" works. The fact that your car has started in the past is the reason that you believe it will start again.

Really? So you repeat what I just told you, tell me that I don’t understand what you repeated and suggest I do research to understand the explanation I gave you which you, which you repeated back to me. You jokin’ right?

Sadly, no, I'm not joking. I have to explain the things you say, I wish I didn't either.

I doubt there is anything you could tell me that I would find convincing.

You sound absolutely religiously dogmatic in your non-evidenced beliefs.

However you are welcome to try (and fail)

You said my explanation was lacking. What is it lacking? If you don't know what else I need to make ice cream a moral issue, then how can you even think you've defined "moral issue" well enough for yourself to use the phrase?

 

[stevevw]

There is no universal right or wrong, each person has their own perception of right and wrong and they vary from person to person.

Therefore one person cannot tell another person that their own perception of right and wrong is wrong.

Well; there is nothing preventing people from trying to impose their perceptions on others, but the reason we have laws that we enforce instead of enforce morality is because nobody agrees on morality, but we are able to agree on laws.

don't steal, don't kill or don't rape are laws and morals. We make them universal despite individual subjective views.

 

[stevevw]

Haha, no, empathy does not support an ”objective moral”.

Empathy cannot be used to determine anything. It is a feeling that can be unpredictable, arbitrary, biased, and even hurtful to some by a person showing more empathy to someone they may feel more personal about over someone who is more worthy. It all depends on the individual with empathy and how they feel about the situation. Therefore feelings are not a good way to determine how we should treat others.

And no, I won't read you rubbish links

How do you know they are rubbish if you haven't read them.

as I know from experience that you misuse and misunderstand everything and its very apparent that you have not studied the subject

So you are judging the content of the articles on my credibility and not the articles themselves.

, but I have and are very familiar with the different aspects.

Is that just another way of saying I am wrong no matter what and you are right regardless of what I say. Isn't that an objective position you are taking.

 

[Speedwell]

Therefore one person cannot tell another person that their own perception of right and wrong is wrong.

Yes, one can--by the use of reasoned arguments or appeals to tradition.

don't steal, don't kill or don't rape are laws and morals. We make them universal despite individual subjective views.

We make them laws my majority consensus.

 

[VirOptimus]

Empathy cannot be used to determine anything. It is a feeling that can be unpredictable, arbitrary, biased, and even hurtful to some by a person showing more empathy to someone they may feel more personal about over someone who is more worthy. It all depends on the individual with empathy and how they feel about the situation. Therefore feelings are not a good way to determine how we should treat others.

How do you know they are rubbish if you haven't read them. So you are judging the content of the articles on my credibility and not the articles themselves. Is that just another way of saying I am wrong no matter what and you are right regardless of what I say. Isn't that an objective position you are taking.

Nope, but I can only judge you by what you post and you are clearly unfamiliar with even the basics of moral philosophy. Your thoughts and ”arguments” are very basic and flawed.

 

[stevevw]

You need to understand, that which is subjective is what you believe to be true.

Not really. Anyone can make a claim that morality is relative. But then when they are wronged react like morality is objective. It is the reaction that shows what people really believe. If I tell you I am a liberal but then act like a socialist what is the true indication of what I believe. What I tell you or how I act.

If you believe “X” to be true, you believe it should be applied to all (even though a quick look at the real world you realize it is not)
No, if you believe “X” is true and should be applied to all (subjective), you will behave the same as if you believe “X” is true and is applied to all. (objective)

No your getting them mixed up. If you believe (X) were subjective then you would not believe it should apply to all. You would know that your views and beliefs only apply to you as other people have their own beliefs and views. If you believe (X) is objective then you would believe it applies to all as it is not your belief that (X) is true but some independent transcendent moral lawmaker that sets morality for all.

 

[stevevw]

Nope, but I can only judge you by what you post and you are clearly unfamiliar with even the basics of moral philosophy. Your thoughts and ”arguments” are very basic and flawed.

Fair enough then.

 

[VirOptimus]

Not really. Anyone can make a claim that morality is relative. But then when they are wronged react like morality is objective. It is the reaction that shows what people really believe. If I tell you I am a liberal but then act like a socialist what is the true indication of what I believe. What I tell you or how I act.
No your getting them mixed up. If you believe (X) were subjective then you would not believe it should apply to all. You would know that your views and beliefs only apply to you as other people have their own beliefs and views. If you believe (X) is objective then you would believe it applies to all as it is not your belief that (X) is true but some independent transcendent moral lawmaker that sets morality for all.

This is wrong on so many levels.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, one can--by the use of reasoned arguments or appeals to tradition.

And on what basis do they measure that this reasoning and tradition is truly correct or just some personal view based on feelings or faulty reasoning and tradition.

We make them laws my majority consensus.

And on what basis is that consensus determined to be right. It cannot be a group agreement. I thought people against objective morality were saying that just because many people agree on something doesn't make it right. Besides isn't that a fallacy of popularity. I can cite many examples of how consensus has shown to be wrong. How organizations, politicians, even world bodies that are supposed to look out for our interests have done the wrong thing by people.

Individuals, groups, are subject to groupthink, biases, ulterior motives, corruption, money, and power. In fact, it is when morality is subjective that it is vulnerable to be dictated by small groups who can wield the most power to get into a position to dictate what is right and wrong for the rest. And if people think that these are laid upon us by consensus then they ought to think again.

 

[stevevw]

This is wrong on so many levels.

Are subjective moral values universal?