Where does morality come from?

[Kylie]

The point I was making is that people who claim that morality is a subjective act and react like morality is objective. That's an important distinction. They are behaving contradictory to their professed views on morality. So rhetoric is one thing, it's one thing to sit around a table professing that morality is subjective and everyone gives their opinions which may be different. This is not necessarily what they deeply believe.

But when in life's situations, when they are wronged or when they are confronted with that wrong or injustice they react objectively, condemning and protesting against that wrong. So everything they said around that table like its OK to do this or that or I don't think and moral act is always wrong is contradicted. Because they react like people can't do this and that and that there are certain wrongs that are always wrong despite subjective morality. I would say how they act and react in real-life situations is the true indication of what they really believe.

It is not the popularity of objective morality that gives support that objective morals exist but that people react against their own professed subjectivity that gives empirical support for objective morality. There is something within them that is beyond their personal views that take over them to express the truth of right and wrong.

And why do you think that a person who considers morality to be subjective can't act like that? Why can't I be outraged at child abuse and say, "That is just wrong"?

 

[Kylie]

It is not that they share it as in discussing the topic. I am talking about reacting an action. Their action contradicts what they view and claim. If every reasonable person does this then you can begin to make a case that there is something going on. Some force is at work. Call it nature or whatever but it is causing people to act that way.

See I asked you a question about your subjective moral position. You find it hard to answer this question because if you do you will contradict your own moral position. That is what I am talking about. It is not just based on popularity but it is about being a hostile witness to your own moral position that lends support to objective morality. Something independent to you is causing a conflict with your moral position in that you find it hard to admit it.

I am using the word "share" in the sense of "You and I share the same basic body plan - one head attached to a body with a neck, two arms, and two legs." I think it was quite obvious that was what I meant.

Now can you stop quibbling about wordplay and actually address the points I raised?

 

[Moral Orel]

If I saw them being hurt I would care. But just them feeling bad, that isn’t enough for me to care.

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

No I am not kidding you

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

“because you like it” is the only explanation you gave for you considering ice cream a moral issue. That may be good enough for you, but it isn’t for me.

What else do I need?

 

[stevevw]

This so wrong. People act according to morals/ethics, they can only act according the morals/ethics they themself have, i.e. not ”objective” as an individual agent can never be objective.

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.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

Word salad, try again.

 

[stevevw]

I am using the word "share" in the sense of "You and I share the same basic body plan - one head attached to a body with a neck, two arms, and two legs." I think it was quite obvious that was what I meant.

Now can you stop quibbling about wordplay and actually address the points I raised?

But I am not just saying they share a morality. I am saying the person says that there is only one moral position for all. That is a different claim. That is an ontological claim that there is only one type of moral position that exists for that act. It is saying that anyone else views are not right or acceptable and that we should all have the one universal view.

 

[stevevw]

Word salad, try again.

OK do you think that sexually abusing a child for fun is always wrong despite subjective morality. Not sexually abusing a child should be the universal moral even if someone came up with some view that it was OK and good.

 

[VirOptimus]

OK do you think that sexually abusing a child is always wrong despite subjective morality. Not sexually abusing a child should be the universal moral even if someone came up with some sick reason that it was OK.

I think its wrong yes as I can argue why its wrong. Cant you?

Every moral position can be argued for or against, doesnt make them ”true” or ”wrong”.

If there where such a thing as ”objective morality” we wouldnt need to argue morals as things would be just right or wrong.

Also- I dont hold to ”subjective morality” and have stated so several times.

 

[stevevw]

I think its wrong yes as I can argue why its wrong. Cant you?

That's not what I asked. I asked if it was wrong for everyone else as well. That no one can say it is right to do.

Every moral position can be argued for or against, doesn't make them ”true” or ”wrong”.

Every moral argument can not be argued for or against. The one I just listed cannot be argued as being a good thing to do.

If there were such a thing as ”objective morality” we wouldn't need to argue morals as things would be just right or wrong.

Why is that don't we have free will. Even if there were objective morals why can't a person deny there are objective morals and argue against them. Why couldn't people be biased against objective morals and only believe in what they want to believe? They have a conscience.

Also- I don't hold to ”subjective morality” and have stated so several times.

OK, that's interesting. Then if you don't hold to objective or subjective morality then how do you see morality.

 

[stevevw]

And why do you think that a person who considers morality to be subjective can't act like that? Why can't I be outraged at child abuse and say, "That is just wrong"?

You can say and apply that to yourself. But how can you protest to others who may have a different view or think it OK, or condemn the person doing the act as though it is wrong for them to do it and should never be right to do? You are taking your personal view and applying it to others. In doing that you are sating their subjective moral position is wrong and can never OK to have or do.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's not what I asked. I asked if it was wrong for everyone else as well. That no one can say it is right to do.

Every moral argument can not be argued for or against. The one I just listed cannot be argued as being a good thing to do.

Why is that don't we have free will. Even if there were objective morals why can't a person deny there are objective morals and argue against them. Why couldn't people be biased against objective morals and only believe in what they want to believe? They have a conscience.

OK, that's interesting. Then if you don't hold to objective or subjective morality then how do you see morality.

No moral position is stronger than the arguments for or against. The reason you are against child abuse is because of the empathy you have for the victim. Not some ”objective right/wrong”.

I’m a value nihilist (as most academics, I would say, in northern europe).

 

[Kylie]

But I am not just saying they share a morality. I am saying the person says that there is only one moral position for all. That is a different claim. That is an ontological claim that there is only one type of moral position that exists for that act. It is saying that anyone else views are not right or acceptable and that we should all have the one universal view.

Show me where anyone has said that.

(I bet you have to go to an extreme example again, like the child abuse thing.)

 

[Kylie]

You can say and apply that to yourself. But how can you protest to others who may have a different view or think it OK, or condemn the person doing the act as though it is wrong for them to do it and should never be right to do? You are taking your personal view and applying it to others. In doing that you are sating their subjective moral position is wrong and can never OK to have or do.

Because I can point out how child abuse causes harm. It is an objective fact that people who were abused as children suffer emotional trauma. (And don't try to make that sentence about me admitting to objective morality, because it's not and you know it.)

 

[VirOptimus]

Because I can point out how child abuse causes harm. It is an objective fact that people who were abused as children suffer emotional trauma. (And don't try to make that sentence about me admitting to objective morality, because it's not and you know it.)

I dont think he debates in good faith.

 

[stevevw]

No moral position is stronger than the arguments for or against. The reason you are against child abuse is because of the empathy you have for the victim. Not some ”objective right/wrong”.

I have already addressed how empath doesn't work for accounting for right and wrong here. May 8, 2020#1734

I’m a value nihilist (as most academics, I would say, in northern europe).[/QUOTE] So without empathy what are you left with.

 

[VirOptimus]

I have already addressed how empath doesn't work for accounting for right and wrong here. May 8, 2020#1734

So without empathy what are you left with.

Why do you accuse me of lacking empathy?

And right/wrong are not concepts that have any real meaning.

 

[stevevw]

Show me where anyone has said that.

(I bet you have to go to an extreme example again, like the child abuse thing.)

What do you mean where has anyone said that. I am not saying you said that. I am correcting you on what I mean and am saying. I said people who claim a subjective moral position act and react like morals are objective. You said
But you claim that their actions mean the moral ideas they share are objectively true because they share it. How many times do I need to say that people acting like something is objective does not make that thing objective?

I then said it is more than just sharing a moral position. They are stating and claiming something. They are saying that unless people have the same moral position as they do they are wrong in their own moral position. That any subjective moral position the other person has is always going to be wrong and never right. That is more than just sharing a moral position. That is an ontological claim that objective morality exists and is the only morality.

Then I said when all reasonable people do this you can begin to build a case that there is something else going on. It is more than just evidence due to popularity but that there is something that is causing people to react this way beyond their personal views of morality.

This is an important distinction when it comes to supporting objective morality and this is what ethical and philosophical experts use as support for objective morality. That most reasonable people know that there are certain moral truths that are universal.

 

[stevevw]

Why do you accuse me of lacking empathy?

And right/wrong are not concepts that have any real meaning.

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

 

[stevevw]

Because I can point out how child abuse causes harm. It is an objective fact that people who were abused as children suffer emotional trauma. (And don't try to make that sentence about me admitting to objective morality, because it's not and you know it.)

But under subjective morality, your personal view would carry no weight as being ultimately the right moral position. As there is no moral grounding and no reference point to measure things objectively a pedophile could say I think abusing a child is good or a cult leader could make up some scenario where it is good for everyone to express their sexuality including children and their moral view could not be determined as wrong or sick.

To them, it doesn't make anyone suffer it actually brings freedom and fulfillment. How can you say they are wrong without any independent reference point from human's opinions.

And if you wanted to say that it is an objective fact that people who were abused suffer emotional trauma a case can be made as to why that doesn't mean anything about being ultimately good or bad morally. The idea that certain things make humans suffer is also a subjective thing. Why is human suffering a bad thing in the first place? Who says so. In other words, there is no basis for equating human happiness and suffering with moral right and wrong in the first place.

 

[stevevw]

But the reason people who act that way say morality is subjective is because they believe that it is! So when someone says morality is subjective, perhaps you should consider however they act and react to moral issues is how people behave when they believe morality is subjective.

But they don't act and react like morality is subjective. They act like certain rights and wrongs are universal and apply to all. 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.