Morality is subjective

[brianeyci]

So you're pro-life? Brainless fetii are potential sentient (or sapient you nitpicking assholes Razz ) beings.

I saw that one coming too.

The needs of the mother outweigh the needs of the non-sentient child. Potential is important, but so is the potential of the mother and her potential life is more important than a non-sentient child.

Next.

That's why morality SEEMS subjective. There's so many exceptions and special conditions to specific situations that it's more complicated than ten commandments.

I thought the comparision was for severely mentally disabled children though - ergo they aren't going to get any more sentient then they already..er...aren't?

They could recover, it depends on the degree of disability, and the disabled child would have loved ones who you would be causing hurt, etc., etc.

Brian

[Darth Cronos the Proud]

I did not, that's your strawman. I was showing that you can be qualitative and still follow the scientific method. I didn't even mention you or quote you.

It wasn't intended as a strawmman. Your post came right after I made a post commenting on one of your previous posts. It was a mistaken assumption on my part that you were responding to my comment on your previous post. I apologize.

[Pick]

Implicit is potential. Eating babies is ruining the potential of future sentient beings, and therefore immoral. I've thought this out.

Nice try .

Brian

Not true. Down's Syndrome children, for instance, are often infertile.

And what if that child has no chance of recovery and no family who might care about it? Or even family who would love to see the little bastard gone? Come on man, I'm getting hungry here!

Careful; the puppies will still belong to someone, and you're going to run into difficulty there. Other than that, you're right on the mark (except the part about expecting others to be perfectly all right with it, because what runs in line with your personal preferences might be against theirs).

How is abusing a puppy less morally objectionable than that unloved, mentally handicapped child (^above) assuming they have a similar brain capacity (though the dog could reproduce)?

[Pick]

On a similar note, "the severely (to the degree I mentioned not self-aware) brain damaged child might have offspring" seems to be your argument against eating them?

"Keep them alive, someone might rape them and then there's a possibility of a child!" ?

I probably misunderstood your reply... .

[Surlethe]

Careful; the puppies will still belong to someone, and you're going to run into difficulty there. Other than that, you're right on the mark (except the part about expecting others to be perfectly all right with it, because what runs in line with your personal preferences might be against theirs).

How is abusing a puppy less morally objectionable than that unloved, mentally handicapped child (^above) assuming they have a similar brain capacity (though the dog could reproduce)?

Would you care, then, to extend a moral code to animals which governs human-animal interaction, in order to demonstrate that a puppy is anything more than amoral?

[brianeyci]

Not true. Down's Syndrome children, for instance, are often infertile.

And what if that child has no chance of recovery and no family who might care about it? Or even family who would love to see the little bastard gone? Come on man, I'm getting hungry here!

Then you would need to consider the child's wishes before he was sick. And there would be other people who objected to what you do, and intervene causing you displeasure.

If it was something like Dawn's, then there would be other human beings who'd object and stop you, not to mention you would be legally liable, so you can't.

You missed my point about the seeming subjective because there's so many conditions and exceptions? We can do this all day.

Sorry, Pick no eat baby today .

If you are trying to get me to say I would have no problem with someone who ate something that looks like a human being, why don't you just ask that. No I wouldn't, if there wasn't a brain and no exeneuating circumstances. Do I get to ask you a question now? Would you care about someone eating something that looked like a human being, and if so what about tiny little baby feet that pop up, do you object to aborting anything that looks remotely like a human?

Brian

[Pick]

Not true. Down's Syndrome children, for instance, are often infertile.

And what if that child has no chance of recovery and no family who might care about it? Or even family who would love to see the little bastard gone? Come on man, I'm getting hungry here!

Then you would need to consider the child's wishes before he was sick. And there would be other people who objected to what you do, and intervene causing you displeasure.

If it was something like Dawn's, then there would be other human beings who'd object and stop you, not to mention you would be legally liable, so you can't.

You missed my point about the seeming subjective because there's so many conditions and exceptions? We can do this all day.

Sorry, Pick no eat baby today .

For the sake of the game, then:
1. What if the child was always this sick?
2. What if they didn't have anyone who would miss them or object? If I kept it under the table, who would be emotionally hurt, anyway?
3. You're the one missing the point. You keep adding extra reasons why I can't do it, despite the fact that I keep making the scenario meet your stated requirements. You aren't giving me objective rules or saying why objectively there is anything morally culpable about wanting to consume this tasty, tasty human.

If you are trying to get me to say I would have no problem with someone who ate something that looks like a human being, why don't you just ask that. No I wouldn't, if there wasn't a brain and no exeneuating circumstances.

I'm not asking about "looks." I'm asking what your objective reason is that I can't eat this human being with no objective value other than nutritional. I keep making my cannibalistic urge meet your requirements, and then you keep making more rules! This just isn't fair!

Do I get to ask you a question now? Would you care about someone eating something that looked like a human being, and if so what about tiny little baby feet that pop up, do you object to aborting anything that looks remotely like a human?

I don't think that cannibalism is universally wrong in the first place. I don't have any problems with, for instance, the ritual indocannibalism once historically documented in New Guinea (other than health concerns, completely different sphere.) If the thing in question merely looked human, then I would give it the same consideration as any animal with its shared mental characteristics (one reason I'd never eat dolphin or champanzee unless survivial required.) Also, I don't care if a child in the womb looks human. I only care about brain activity, and even then I take an extremely accepting view on when I think the brain activity is sufficient to make it worth deeming the child "human". I don't even know how abortion came up, much less the suggestion I'd have a restrictive view on it.

[brianeyci]

You question seems to be this,

"If it looks human and isn't intelligent enough to be human then it's morally okay to eat."

Then you're trying to get me to contradict myself by saying yes or no or maybe. If you wanted to ask whether eating something that looked human but wasn't intelligent enough to be human, why not ask that rather than put the child angle in. It looked like you were trying to get a hasty answer from me, then go "ah ha child eater!" Sorry not playing that game, if you want a straight answer ask a straight question that isn't ambigious (like what I have above in quotes), eating a child means a lot of other things to consider.

That's why all the conditions.

As for the abortion angle, it is just rewording your question to me to get to the crux of it with a more extreme example rather than a child which could be misintepreted. I basically asked you the same question you asked me.

Brian

[Pick]

You question seems to be this,

"If it looks human and isn't intelligent enough to be human then it's morally okay to eat."

"isn't intelligent enough to be human"? If it's got the genes and the requisite development, it's human. Or so by my definition. You might see my definition as wrong, and thus lead me to morally wrong actions, but I don't see any objective grounds that can let you discredit my perspective.

Then you're trying to get me to contradict myself by saying yes or no or maybe. If you wanted to ask whether eating something that looked human but wasn't intelligent enough to be human, why not ask that rather than put the child angle in. It looked like you were trying to get a hasty answer from me, then go "ah ha child eater!" Sorry not playing that game, if you want a straight answer ask a straight question that isn't ambigious (like what I have above in quotes), eating a child means a lot of other things to consider.

Actually, I just wanted to know your opinion on cannabalism, because it's a classic "universal wrong" to a lot of people and I'm not entirely sure why, personally. I could have easily used murder as an example. I just want to reach the core of what makes my actions objectively wrong --which you won't give me, instead skirting around the issue by refusing to explain what it is that draws the line between morally okay to eat and not morally okay to eat. You seem convinced that eating people is morally wrong, but you cannot seem to offer an answer as to the core of why, and until then I reserve my right to consider my hypothetical action also within the realms of morality as well.

As for the abortion angle, it is just rewording your question to me to get to the crux of it with a more extreme example rather than a child which could be misintepreted. I basically asked you the same question you asked me.

"More extreme example" than running down a mentally handicapped child and gorging myself on his flesh as I rend him with my teeth? Wow. See, (in real life, not hypothetical-land) I see abortion as being a little less morally wrong than that, actually.

[brianeyci]

Who said that eating people was morally wrong? Did I ever say that? If you asked me that I would have said no, but under certain conditions.

When I said extreme I didn't mean emotionally or physically extreme, I meant logically extreme, a being that is definitely not sentient versus your example of a child that I needed more details about before answering.

Brian

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

So what exact moral paradigm do you follow brian?

[Pick]

Who said that eating people was morally wrong? Did I ever say that? If you asked me that I would have said no, but under certain conditions.

The trouble, however, is that you're still not showing why my side is intrinsically morally wrong (latter examples where I keep running the gamut of improbable ways that it wouldn't hurt others, etc.) or, moreover, how where I draw the line is objectively wrong. What about people who are less lax than I am? Than you are? Are they objectively right? Wrong? How do you know? Where is The One Moral Truth on this issue and why is that where it stands? Why is my opinion not as correct as yours, or visa versa?

When I said extreme I didn't mean emotionally or physically extreme, I meant logically extreme, a being that is definitely not sentient versus your example of a child that I needed more details about before answering.

Brian

Ahh, different meaning of "extreme". My bad.

Truth be told, I think we've kind of beaten this one to death, so if you want and wait for new points for the both of us that's fine with me (or we can keep rambling, but I have homework and stuff so this is at least the end for tonight.)

[brianeyci]

So what exact moral paradigm do you follow brian?

If something is not intelligent enough to be considered sentient, then its existence is not worth as much as a sentient human, although if its at all possible live and let live since the being in question would still be able to perceive pleasure and experience life on some level.

I expect many hoo-yahs and accusations of hypocracy since I eat meat now .

I have homework and stuff so this is at least the end for tonight.)

I wrote a midterm tonight. I don't have homework (at least nothing I'm doing tonight) but I'm going to get cracking on Kuroneko's calculus question in the other thread, later. The horse is dead .

Brian

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

If something is not intelligent enough to be considered sentient, then its existence is not worth as much as a sentient human, although if its at all possible live and let live since the being in question would still be able to perceive pleasure and experience life on some level.

I expect many hoo-yahs and accusations of hypocracy since I eat meat now

Do you feel it is appropriate to weigh the intersts of beings of various levels of intelligence? Does every preferences of the higher intelligence dominate the lower? I am not saying you said this. I just want to clarify for myself. If not, do you universalize your core principles?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: what I am trying to say is that I think morality or "ethics" is a tool. Like any tool, it has a purpouse, no? We don't go inventing tools for no reason. The tool is for human survival, but that tool has been modified, over time, to include interactions with other beings that are non-human.

Morality as a tool is basically a guideline--this is the normative part of it. What creates those guidlines are all the mental masturbators in metaethics who sit around all day trying to figure out what is objectively moral. Morality can be objective in the sense that it is a tool creating hypothetical imperatives. Essentially, it is objectively true that if you want X and Y gets you X, you can do X to get Y. That is the objective part because it is goal-directed and can be universalized. That's partially what objectivism means in ethics.

However, normative ethics states not that you can do something, but you have a duty or you should do something. Now, this can also be objective if we compare it to the above hypothetical imperative. You should do X to accomplish Y. That's making a suggestion that is objectively true if you want Y. Therein lies the objectivity. It's like saying: if you want to live, you will take this anti-biotic. You should take it to live. Do you follow?


Ethics is not subjective because it is an idea. No. There are lots of ideas that are very objective insofar as they reflect some aspect about reality or describe reality.


I would like to know what your opinion of "objective art" is. Many meta-artists try to sit around all day and come up with the "intrinsically godo" art characteristics and then make suggestions to others about how they ought to do art based on those intrinsically good, beautiful characteristics.

[SVPD]

It would seem to me that eating children who are seriously mentally handicapped would be wrong because they are members of the species homo sapiens and it is wrong to eat the average member of the species homo sapiens because to do so involves killing said member for no reason other than the sustenance of some other member.

Barring extreme circumstances, there is no shortage of other forms of sustenance, therefore, there is no reason to allow any arbitrarily selected member of the species to assert inherent superiority over any other arbitrarily selected member by using him or her as food.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I would think it's wrong to eat mentally handicapped children too insofar as they will probably have parents, relatives, friends. More so, though, unless they are so heavily retarded, killing them will most likely cause pain/suffering. If it does not, you are still depriving them of pleasurable experiences/or any experiences that they had.

However, there would be nothing intrinsically wrong with killing extremely retarded children if they were not capable of experiencing. That's rather obvious though. If it can't experience due to severe retardation, then it's no more valuable than a rock.

I would think that's sufficiently rare. Although, there is one case--anacephalic infants--that I know of. They really aren't anything. Sure, Prima Facie, it is wrong to kill other average members of the species homo sapien, but I don't think it's a good idea to go from the general to the specific in these cases. There are lots of instances in which it is perfectly ok to kill a human.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: as a hypothetical, SVPD, what is the difference, morally, between a 30 year old Human who is of the mental capacity of a dog and a dog, given that they have no familiar/friend ties and will never be anything else? I don't think you should treat the human any better than you would the dog. They are on the same level, no?

Now, I know this is very unlikely to be the case in reality, but just for the hypothetical. I don't know of any humans who are dog-level intelligence without ties.

[B5B7]

Hey, for those people who think that morality is subjective because it involves human thought/humans make it up/it involves human society/etc etc., is science all of a sudden subjective because it involves human thought/humans make it up/it involves human society/etc etc? .

Science has qualitative analysis too. I can say this table is red by observation and it doesn't involve any numbers. I could make a hypothesis that spilling something on my red table would make it blue, test it, observe, aka go through the scientific method.

Brian

If I was asked before looking at these posts whether the meaning of the terms objective and subjective was objective, I would have said yes - now I am having doubts.

If I say that the Moon is not made of cheese, I would think I was being objective - yet what if have 1,000,000 people and 999,999 say I am right and 1 says I am wrong? In many SF and other stories, the plot revolves around the hero being right, and everyone else wrong. If we allow that this 1 person in a million is correct, then virtually nothing can be objective.

To solve this, we have as a general rule that we would say this person has made an extraordinary claim, and must therefore provide extraordinary evidence to substantiate their claim.
Therefore we can declare that our statement about the Moon is objective.

If science is objective, morality can still be subjective.
Two individuals can have different moral codes; but if one believes stars are far away, and the other that they are close (& they agree about what constitutes close and far), then one is right and one is wrong.
However, scientists will be the first to tell you that science is not completely objective, but is influenced by human viewpoints.

So, whilst science as a pastime has subjective elements, its results tend to be objective. Therefore science creates a consensus on how the universe and its parts operates.
But what then of morality? Morality has a mix of objectivity and subjectivity as it also tends towards certain consensus as time goes by.

If one mixes subjective and objective, but are only allowed to pick one as a label for morality, however, then subjective is closer as a current choice [in say Iain Banks's 'Culture' it may be closer to objective].

Also morality can be not a matter of free choice but what is imposed by nature. There is a tribe in New Guinea - the Fore - whose normal practice was to eat their own dead, including the brain. However, this tribe started getting sick from a disease they called kuru. A visiting scientist discovered that it was a microscopic organism within the brains causing the disease, and therefore the people stopped their practice.

I am sure everyone can think of similar examples if they thought a bit.
The point is that what is moral can change with circumstances and with knowledge gained.

[Zero]

My rationale is that killing animals for meat is okay for the sole reason that animals are not intelligent enough to be self-aware and live by instinct. That is objective. So you are correct, and no.

Brian

Sentience/sapience is NOT an objective quality. You can't prove or disprove that an animal is sentient or sapient. Your generalization that animals are not intelligent enough to be self-aware is only justified by your assumption that they necessarily live by instinct. What about higher level chimps, often capable of learning sign language and communicating thoughts? What about dolphins, sometimes believed to be as intelligent as a two year old child? The word sapient itself implies some kind of wisdom involved, and you can't really prove or prove or disprove wisdom in a creature you can't effectively communicate with.

And even if it were an objective quality, why would you choose that as your standard of what is and isn't moral? I happen to like puppies. I happen to dislike a great many people. Since my only specific guide is personal preference, I disagree with you.

Objectively prove your system is more valid than mine. You must remember that if you do this by saying that my system of hating humans that piss me off is unproductive towards the species, you're already establishing your own value of what's important for the species being important for the individual. Can you actually show that this value is objectively correct?

[Surlethe]

Objectively prove your system is more valid than mine. You must remember that if you do this by saying that my system of hating humans that piss me off is unproductive towards the species, you're already establishing your own value of what's important for the species being important for the individual. Can you actually show that this value is objectively correct?

It's not relevant whether or not importance for the species is also important for the individual, because the importance of the species is evolutionarily hardwired into humans. Those values form the basis of every modern moral code.

[Darth Wong]

I concede that I had the wrong idea of just what objective means, and that most of my previous posts were full of shit. Anything could be subjective if the only prerequisite is that creatures are required to observe and measure it. However, by the definition Wong gave of objectivity meaning that two independent observers will measure the same thing, morality is still subjective, by virtue of the fact that there are so many different stances on just what right and wrong are.

It means that morality can be subjective. It doesn't mean that it necessarily has to be. One could start from certain rules that follow logically from the purpose of a system of morality, and the most basic example of such a rule is that it would be bad to exterminate all of humanity since a moral system, by definition, is a code of conduct for society and is moot if that society ceases to exist.

In theory, one could try to start from that point and deduce a system of morality. However, avoidance of unnecessary assumptions is but one possible definition of "subjective morality". The other is the very important distinction between objective harm and subjective harm. Most systems of morality agree that something which is harmful is to be avoided, but even after one accepts this, one must then decide what is harmful.

And that's where you run into religion vs science. Scientifically, one must be able to show harm that occurs in objective reality, ie- someone being killed. The value judgment on whether murder is bad is secondary to the fact that this is a real event, ie- it occurs in objective reality. Religious morality, in contrast, typically justifies its precepts by citing outcomes that occur outside objective reality, and "exist" only in the belief system of that religion.

That kind of subjectivity is truly dangerous, because it allows people to justify objective harm with subjective benefit.

[Zero]

It means that morality can be subjective. It doesn't mean that it necessarily has to be. One could start from certain rules that follow logically from the purpose of a system of morality, and the most basic example of such a rule is that it would be bad to exterminate all of humanity since a moral system, by definition, is a code of conduct for society and is moot if that society ceases to exist.

In theory, one could try to start from that point and deduce a system of morality. However, avoidance of unnecessary assumptions is but one possible definition of "subjective morality". The other is the very important distinction between objective harm and subjective harm. Most systems of morality agree that something which is harmful is to be avoided, but even after one accepts this, one must then decide what is harmful.

And that's where you run into religion vs science. Scientifically, one must be able to show harm that occurs in objective reality, ie- someone being killed. The value judgment on whether murder is bad is secondary to the fact that this is a real event, ie- it occurs in objective reality. Religious morality, in contrast, typically justifies its precepts by citing outcomes that occur outside objective reality, and "exist" only in the belief system of that religion.

That kind of subjectivity is truly dangerous, because it allows people to justify objective harm with subjective benefit.

I don't believe that systems of morality that don't appear to promote any benefit for society are necessarily smart. They are self-destructive, and generally stupid, but since the definitions of morality I've read only deal with what's considered good and bad for personal conduct, there could be people who subscribe to systems of morality that promote their own destruction, or the destruction of others.

I wouldn't try to say that such systems are right/good, or even entirely valid, I'm just trying to point out that since people disagree about what right and wrong conduct are, and even the purpose of morality (fundies think morality is a means of glorifying god; most reasonable people believe it's a means of having a stable sociel system/society). Because there are disagreements about that sort of thing, and because the values that one chooses are made on a personal basis, morality is subjective.

Once again, I'm not saying that all moral systems are equally valid. The smartest objective for a moral system is promotion of the system itself, which means that the system should to appeal to many, and should promote the well-being of those that adopt it, as well as those around them that may adopt it. However, this objective itself is based on a value judgement I've already made, which is that the purpose of the moral system is to survive. It's still subjective, it's just smarter then those moral systems that tend to cause elmination of societies that try to follow it.

The purpose of morality is subjective, but the logical outcomes of whatever values/principles you decide to be the center of your moral system aren't. Does that make any sense, or am I full of shit?

[Darth Wong]

Morality can be subjective. However, once you acknowledge the idea of judging a system of morality itself, you are no longer constrained to accept each morality system's ideas of what is right and wrong and you must seek an objective standard. Even if that standard is considered to be arbitrary (although I believe that is unnecessary), it can still be objective. You seem to be confusing "arbitrary" with "subjective"; for the second time, mutilating the definition of objectivity.

[Zero]

If something's arbitrary, it's up to individual discretion, and isn't fixed by any external rules. At least that's what I intended by my usage of the word arbitrary. What definition of subjective are we using in this thread? That would definitely be necessary to decide whether morality is subjective or not. I had thought it meant a quality existing only in the mind, but I may be mistaken.