Moral Dilemma

[Surlethe]

Drawing an analogy to language doesn't help the point that morality is universally something like utilitarianism or secular humanism; billions of people self-consistently reject each others' linguistic definitions by the very nature of speaking different languages.

"Wrong" and "right" are words, and therefore they are language. Because they are language, they are arbitrary by definition. They can represent any number of objective observables, like how well an action conforms to the teachings of [insert holy book here], or how well an action conforms to what I like, or (as is the case with Samuel's super-simplification of utilitarianism) its net contribution to human suffering or happiness. Pointing out that the word's meaning is arbitrary and then jumping to the conclusion that the thing the word is representing is arbitrary is laughable if you actually think it through - correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what it seems like you're doing. Of course "right" and "wrong" are arbitrary. So is "red".

The reason I asked Samuel for a justification of his definition of "wrong" was to illustrate that his responses to fuzzymillipede beg the question: he, when fuzzymillipede asked whether morality was objective, replied that measurement of suffering/happiness is in principle possible and hence that morality is in fact objective (think about that for a moment). I agree that whether a given action increases net suffering or happiness is, in principle, objective; the dispute is not over that, but rather whether the resulting method of measuring morality -- as denoted by "right" or "wrong" -- is ultimately arbitrary. The key here is that the symbol "right" connotes more than its definition; it connotes a code of behavior, and it is that code of behavior (which takes the definition of "right" and "wrong" as inputs) which I claim is arbitrary. It is arbitrary because it relies upon (arbitrary) definitions.

For instance, someone can say "the definition of wrong is that suffering increases", and build his moral code from that, but I can as easily say "the definition of wrong is that knowledge is not advanced" and build my moral code from that. It's not that whether an action causes suffering or knowledge to increase is arbitrary, but that the foundation of the moral code is arbitrary.

Summary for clarity: you're not interpreting my posts correctly. I'm not saying that the arbitrariness of the choice of object assigned to "right" and "wrong" implies that the object is itself arbitrary; I'm saying that the arbitrariness of the choice of object assigned to "right" and "wrong" implies the arbitrariness of moral code.

[fuzzymillipede]

I never said people always go through the process of making logical deductions to make their decisions. I said it's the only way to defend such decisions.

What does an individual's defense of his actions have to do with what he actually thinks of the morality of those actions?

How about one that doesn't feel right either way? Trolley car problem. 5 people tied to the track about to get hit by the train (trolley car in original problem, hence the name). You can deviate the train onto a separate line, but a small child is playing on the track and will get hit, what do you do? Neither option feels right, but I bet you could still debate out an answer, couldn't you?

The decider will simply believe that the choice that feels the "rightest" is the moral choice. If the choice that feels the "rightest" to the decider is allowing the child to die, it was probably because the decider places unbiased value on human life. If the decider places more value on the child than the five people, then the choice to save the child will be the "right" one. If you believe that no choice feels the "rightest," then you are either lying to yourself or believe that both choices are morally equivalent.

What you're saying here is that what feels right IS moral, and thus everyone has their own morality. Jack the Ripper thought he was being moral by killing prostitutes, so he was. Ditto for abortion clinic bombers. I'm saying, just like in these very obvious cases, there is an answer to whether porn (and everything else) is moral or not that can be debated and settled upon with an objective code of ethics, ie one that can be written down and adhered to.

What feels right IS moral to the individual making the decision, but not necessarily to anyone else. Yes, terrorists think they are being moral. We do not. Just because someone thinks they are making a moral decision doesn't make it an absolute moral decision, because there is no objective morality. You keep insisting that these people have to be judged objectively, but that is impossible. All you or I can do is subjectively judge objective facts.

Not sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like you mean that if you're actions conform to society's expectations, then you're moral. If so then the reverse should also apply, if your actions do not conform to society's expectations, then you're not moral. Which means there are still plenty of society's in the world where homosexuality is immoral. Sounds like a terrible way to judge morality.

Exactly. If you think you are moral, and your society also thinks you are moral, then you and your society have reached a consensus. You could claim that your beliefs are objectively moral, and your society may agree with you. This doesn't make you objectively moral, because that is impossible. However, you and your society may believe that.

As a result of this, there are societies in the world where people believe that homosexuality is objectively immoral. But this "objective" morality is nothing more than a group consensus on what feels "right" and "wrong." Why do you insist that people must be either objectively moral or immoral, when they can only be subjectively judged by those around them?

[Surlethe]

Interestingly, one of the draws of a religion+morality combination, like Christianity, is that it claims morality, as simply another set of laws laid down and enforced by a deity, is objective. So you don't have to worry about whether all morality is subjective, which morality works best for society, etc.; you just have to follow the rules.

[Magus]

Interestingly, one of the draws of a religion+morality combination, like Christianity, is that it claims morality, as simply another set of laws laid down and enforced by a deity, is objective. So you don't have to worry about whether all morality is subjective, which morality works best for society, etc.; you just have to follow the rules.

How is a set of laws laid down and enforced by a deity objective? It's as arbitrary and subjective a situation as laws laid down by a king.

[Ace Pace]

Interestingly, one of the draws of a religion+morality combination, like Christianity, is that it claims morality, as simply another set of laws laid down and enforced by a deity, is objective. So you don't have to worry about whether all morality is subjective, which morality works best for society, etc.; you just have to follow the rules.

How is a set of laws laid down and enforced by a deity objective? It's as arbitrary and subjective a situation as laws laid down by a king.

Once you are inside the 'loop' of believing in the diety, your line of thinking goes:
Since this diety created the universe, with a purpose, then his laws contribute towards this purpose and they are 'objective' in the sense that this is what the creator intended for the universe.

[Magus]

How is a set of laws laid down and enforced by a deity objective? It's as arbitrary and subjective a situation as laws laid down by a king.

Once you are inside the 'loop' of believing in the diety, your line of thinking goes:
Since this diety created the universe, with a purpose, then his laws contribute towards this purpose and they are 'objective' in the sense that this is what the creator intended for the universe.

Right - I understand how the train of thought goes - I subscribed to it for years. I just don't find it especially robust.