StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I don't know if morals can be arrived on any objective basis because I believe that they are also still developing as we continue to develop as a society.

Do you think it is evil of me to think this way?

It depends on what you define as an "objective" basis. If you mean "objective" as equalling GOOD and EVIL written in the stars, then while some of the religious folk will argue with you, I won't. If you, however, mean objective in the sense of "there seem to be common moral beliefs among all human groups that are almost certainly rooted in our evolution and biology that translate to a number of common moral concepts", then I disagree.

Yeah, much as I hate to me too, this question isn't answerable unless you clarify 'universal moral principles'. I'm tending towards 'no', because the fact that there are morals that almost all humans instinctively hold doesn't really constitute an objective reason why an individual should also hold them.

Morals do change. There was a time, for example, when white southerners lived separate and segregated lives from black folks, and they saw this as the "right" thing to do. I remember my grandmother telling me how living in a segregated society was viewed as being "God's way."

Even the taboos which seem somewhat universal (cannibalism, murder, incest) have been and are still performed by some cultures, even if they're in a ritualized setting.

In regards to the OP we can't answer the question not so much because we don't have a definition, but rather since there are three different questions being asked. So, in no particular order.

Do I think subjectivism is a good position? No, I don't. Since I think it degenerates into a sort of nihilism, and a particularly gutless version at that. There are many good positions, but subjectivism is not one of htem.

Do I think subjectivism is "cool"? What the hell kind of question is that? Moral theories should be separate from the discourse on "cool" things. Except maybe insofar as I adopt positions just to annoy people, but I never consider that to be anything but me being a bitch.

Do I think you (Kathryn) are evil? Well, not in virtue of thinking this. I think you may be misguided, but it takes more than belief to make someone evil: it takes actions to do that, and I don't know anything about your behaviour.

Superman wrote:Morals do change. There was a time, for example, when white southerners lived separate and segregated lives from black folks, and they saw this as the "right" thing to do. I remember my grandmother telling me how living in a segregated society was viewed as being "God's way."

Even the taboos which seem somewhat universal (cannibalism, murder, incest) have been and are still performed by some cultures, even if they're in a ritualized setting.

This could be fodder for an interesting discussion, but it has been observed, the OP is so vague that it's hard to say how it might relate to the thread without a hijack.

But suffice to say, it's at least not obviously wrong that we could say that sure people have endorsed, say, murder or slavery, but they were morally wrong in doing so. It's not enough to have most people believe that something is morally acceptable to make it so. The difference between popular approval and moral permissibility is a rather important one since the former obviously evolves as mentioned, but the latter one is at least a matter of debate. (And confusing the two is a mistake I think the OP makes.)

We don't say, after all, that sure it may be wrong now to own slaves, but the Southern whites were in a different situation and were moral by their own standards. No, we say they were moral fucktards who had a twisted and immoral set of principles. Or at least, I do. Whether I'm right or not is a matter that would require some argument, which I'm really not willing to put in over this scant wisp of a topic.

Eris wrote:We don't say, after all, that sure it may be wrong now to own slaves, but the Southern whites were in a different situation and were moral by their own standards.

Consistency is an objective property. A morality that says that it's ok for whites to own black slaves but not for blacks to own white slaves is objectively inconsistent, if it's supposed to be a universal human morality. Of course the desireability of consistency is itself an arbitrary preference.

We are just a bunch of atoms. Where is the morality in that anymore than there is morality in grains inside a bag of cement ?Good and evil are an arbitary concept. But that does not mean it is useless. Acting in an ethical way is beneficial for everyone involved and thus a worthwhile goal.

What about the option for "Ethical Subjectivism is what we're stuck with, so my personal feelings are irrelevant"?

From the OP's comments that he expects that disbelief in universal moral principles might be considered "evil", I assume he's run across the "any morality not based on God is inherantly subjective!" argument. Even without our old friend Euthyphro, he might consider that 3000 years ago the highest form of divine service was to execute your eldest son, and offer his soul to the gods. Generally we disagree with that approach today.

Superman wrote:Morals do change. There was a time, for example, when white southerners lived separate and segregated lives from black folks, and they saw this as the "right" thing to do. I remember my grandmother telling me how living in a segregated society was viewed as being "God's way."

Even the taboos which seem somewhat universal (cannibalism, murder, incest) have been and are still performed by some cultures, even if they're in a ritualized setting.

Part of that is because our instinctive set of morals generally tends to only cover those we consider "people", or our tribal in-group. Even then, there's a gradation; someone who would feel absolutely terrible about cheating a cousin or brother might not be as hesitant as cheating a complete stranger, particularly if they could think of rationalizations. You can overcome this to an extent by understanding how it works and trying not to fall prey to it, but if you don't really think about it . . .

As for the stuff like incest, cannibalism, and so forth, well, remember that the rules, without enforcement, are more like guidelines.