Morality is subjective

[Spoonist]

Um, again since moral is needs a perspective or a scenario to become valid, the concept in itself can be both objective and subjective.


Without the perspective morality as a concept becomes meaningless.

Normally the default perspective is in the best interest of the current society/culture.
But it is easily imaginable to have a different perspective which would lead to other actions becoming objectively or subjectively wrong.

The concept of morality does not need humans to work, since the idea could be just as applicable to animals given the right perspective.
Or to sentient aliens/AIs for that matter.

[brianeyci]

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

[Lord Zentei]

And these are immoral positions to hold. Otherwise you could claim that the Holocaust, the Cultural Revolution and the Cambodian killing fields were moral because they were consistent with the philosophy of the asstards who perpetrated these acts. In other words, relativistic horse shit.

Immoral based on your personal perspective. To the nazis, the chinese fellows who worshipped Mao, the people doing the killings in the Cambodian killing fields, these actions are moral. In their worldview, they're just elimiting scum and righting wrongs. How is this inconsistant with my position that morality is based on an individual perspective (IE is subjective) if all of these people believe they're doing something wrong? I disagree with these things based on personal taste: I don't like them.

More relativistic horeseshit. And yet again, the point sails over your head. You have not adressed the fundamental problem of your bullshit which is this: you define "morality" as being a set of principles that dictate which actions are right as opposed to wrong. Yet you also claim that right or wrong are subjective and based on personal morality. What the fuck is wrong with you that you fail to see what is illogical about this?

Because the codes that do not lead to a more prosperous society are demonstrable bullshit, hence to be discarded. Their proponents claim that these codes of conduct lead to condition XYZ, whereas they do not. Case in point: the fundamentalist ranting about the evils of atheism and how if God and his commandments are not held as being sacred, the rest of society goes out the window. This is demonstrable bullshit, since atheists have a lower divorce rate than mainstream Christians and mainstream Christians have a lowe divorce rate than fundamentalists.

A prosperous society is your goal, not mine.

Then you are not seeking a moral philosophy.

The proponents of fundamentalists say that certain codes of conduct lead to pure evil because they believe it to be so. Their position is that all things in the bible must be true, so the ten commandments are right. To them, society is out the window by mere virtue of the fact that there are those disobeying the first commandment by not holding God as God, and that people not believing in "God and his commandments" represent a evil in and of itself.

And here you trot out an outright lie. They beleive that obeying the commandments leads to a certain set of values being realized in society. That their philosophy fails even by its own standards is measurable.

And atheists have lower divorce rates because atheists on average occupy a higher economic status then the general populace, and fundamentalists typically are low on the economic ladder. I don't have any statistics to support this, <snip>

Then shut up about it, moron, and concede the point.

[Zero]

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.

+http://www.vhemt.org/
+http://www.nambla.org/
+http://www.christocracy.net/
+http://www.prochoice.org/
+http://www.prolifeaction.org/
+http://www.uspacifistparty.org/PacLk.html
+http://www.americannaziparty.com/
+http://www.blackpanther.org/
+http://www.wzo.org.il/en/default.asp
+http://www.studentorg.vcu.edu/fpn/faq.html
+http://www.ainfos.ca/
+http://www.lucyparsonsproject.org/about ... bsite.html

When all of those groups and peoples agree on what's right, then you can say that there's an objective basis for morality. As is, no reasonable consensus on what constitutes right and wrong can be reached for all independant observers.

Morality consists of what's considered right and wrong. Since what's considered right and wrong is different for almost every person, right and wrong are subjective values. If morality consists of these values, then morality, too, is subjective. And that isn't circular logic. I'm defining morality by saying it encompases what's considered right and wrong. I didn't say that morality defines what's right and wrong. I'm saying that morality consists of what a person considers right and wrong, not that morality dictates right and wrong and that right and wrong dictate morality and that morality dictates right and wrong and etc., etc.. Morality is based off of what's considered right and wrong, and this varies from person to person, so morality is subjective.

[Darth Cronos the Proud]

Moral codes are rules of social conduct, so if a moral code is applied to prehistoric man and leads to the extinction of humanity, it's a pretty lousy moral code.

As a Homo Sapien, I am not disputing whether a moral code that allows humanity the thrive is good or bad, of course I think it's good. But I believe that my answer is itself subjective based on my membership in said species.

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.

Isn't the starting and end result of your experiment predicated on your ability to only see along a narrow stretch of the color specrum? Numbers are totally objective. 1+1 will always equal 2 and so on up through the highly complicated math (unless someone can correct me if I'm wrong, I do not know anything above mid-level algebra).

[brianeyci]

My math is a little better algebra (actually a lot lol), but when it comes to science I'm not much better than you I only have high school.

I know the first thing they teach you in science class in middle school is that human beings apply the scientific method everyday but just don't know it. I also know there's qualitative analysis and just because there's no numbers that doesn't mean it's not science if it follows the scientific method.

Brian

[Pick]

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.

Objectively define red, please. Also, I've heard that red pigment can mix with yellow pigment to create something known as "orange". Please tell me what orange is. I do not know exactly when something stops becoming red and starts becoming orange! Please tell me the objectively true point at which this transformation occurs.

That is, science is not subjective, but the means we use to describe it (without numbers/arbitrarily defined measurements) are.

[Lord Zentei]

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.

<snip bullshit links>

Wow. And I imagine that the question of whether evolution takes place or not is also subjective because people disagree on that. Here's a hint: just because people claim to know something does not mean that they do.

Morality consists of what's considered right and wrong.

No, you asswipe. Morality is a guide that helps us make right as opposed to wrong descisions. You cannot also define right and wrong in terms of morality.

Since what's considered right and wrong is different for almost every person, right and wrong are subjective values. If morality consists of these values, then morality, too, is subjective.

Blah, blah, blah. Cyclic logic. Again.

And that isn't circular logic. I'm defining morality by saying it encompases what's considered right and wrong. I didn't say that morality defines what's right and wrong. I'm saying that morality consists of what a person considers right and wrong, not that morality dictates right and wrong and that right and wrong dictate morality and that morality dictates right and wrong and etc., etc.. Morality is based off of what's considered right and wrong, and this varies from person to person, so morality is subjective.

Yes it is cyclic. And you are contradicting yourself right here. If morality consists of what a person considers right and wrong, then you ARE defining morality cyclically, because the fucking POINT of having a moral philosophy is precisely to serve as a guide to human conduct.

[brianeyci]

An anthropologist can take a human skull and identify parts of the skull, names, based entirely off of his experience with previous human skulls. He doesn't need a measuring tape to do this, he can tell through observation what's the jawbone, whether the skull's a neanderthal...

...the idea going around in this thread seems to be that if there's no numbers around, it's not objective is silly I think.

As for the color example, scientists can deal with that -- experimental error. Experimental error for human perception telling what's red or orange would be vast, but with an adequate sample size you could cut off the anamalous data points, find the standard deviation, etc. If you don't like the color example see the skull one.

Brian

[Rye]

Don't be a fucking moron. By this logic, the statement "this piece of metal is 1.5 metres long" is also subjective, by virtue of requiring perception.

To be fair though, that is a quantitative statement, and morality isn't based on quantitative truths; it's based on qualitative truths. "Right" and "wrong" are not quantitative. Measurement is a simple, mathematically set arbitrary means of defining things in numbers precisely so perception does not become troublesome in communication. It does not seem not exactly comparable to, say, "Murder is wrong."

A better comparison would be to the statement, "This 1.5 meter piece of metal is sizeable", which would be subjective.

I agree with this appraisal of the situation. The morality of any action is a matter of personal taste, and personal tastes vary, though there are certain profitable tastes, like chocolate. Personal morality preferences vary, many of which can be "profitable" (mutually or not) in a bunch of ways if subscribed to.

The "uncaring universe" point was that morals are reducable to values, and values are personal preference, they do not exist outside our own experiences. Beauty is something recognised by almost all people, and with a very solid evolutionary foundation, beauty, ultimately, though is a subjective value that can and does vary from person to person.

[brianeyci]

I think it's just a problem of iff. That is, if something is subjective then it definitely does not involve numbers. But just because it doesn't involve numbers, that does not mean it is subjective. See A => B is not equivalent to B => A, that is A => B is not the same as its converse. The equivalent would be the contrapositive ~B => ~A that is if something involves numbers then it is not subjective.

Morality consists of what's considered right and wrong.

So no, it does not. There are other definitions, note the or.

Brian

[Zero]

Still, the principles that concern the distinction between right and wrong do vary for every individual person. If individual observers don't agree upon these principles, how in hell are they anything but subjective?

[Lord Zentei]

Still, the principles that concern the distinction between right and wrong do vary for every individual person. If individual observers don't agree upon these principles, how in hell are they anything but subjective?

Individual observers do not agree on whether evolution is real. It is. The naysayers are wrong. As were the Nazis.

And you are still using:

principles distinguishing right vs wrong => morality
morality => principles distinguishing right vs wrong

[Darth Cronos the Proud]

An anthropologist can take a human skull and identify parts of the skull, names, based entirely off of his experience with previous human skulls.

How can you equate the objective study of a piece of the human skeleton which (with a few exceptions) is of the same design in everyone to a set of moral standards that, as I states in my previous post about Aztecs and Medieval Japanese Samurai, can vary to such amazing degrees when comparing different cultures and societies?

[Zero]

And you are still using:

principles distinguishing right vs wrong => morality
morality => principles distinguishing right vs wrong

Then suggest something else already.


And evolution is an idea. Only the observations that lead to our ideas about it are objective. These observations are undisputed, the disputes are typically over what they mean.

Now hurry up and tell me how you can prove that one set of moral principles is any better than another without basing your argument on either position. For instance:

Society is evil! Promote anarchy! vs Society is all that matters, promote a productive society!

Explain, objectively (that is, subscribing to neither view) why either one is better than the other.

The various positions are only seen as correct or incorect because you analyze them based on your own position. There's no way to qualify one or the other as correct or incorrect if you're only speaking objectively, with no principle or position of your own in mind.

[Pick]

Well how about a real-life example?

I have friends who are vegetarians. They believe that my choice to eat meat is morally wrong (though they don't bug me about it.)

I am not a vegetarian. I do not think my choice to eat meat is morally wrong.

Which one of us is objectively morally correct? Additionally, if society changed, for instance, we had a completely perfect meat substitute (taste, texture, etc.) that did not harm animals, would I then be morally culpable for eating meat? If you are thinking 'yes', then why now would I be culpable if not before?

[brianeyci]

An anthropologist can take a human skull and identify parts of the skull, names, based entirely off of his experience with previous human skulls.

How can you equate the objective study of a piece of the human skeleton which (with a few exceptions) is of the same design in everyone to a set of moral standards that, as I states in my previous post about Aztecs and Medieval Japanese Samurai, can vary to such amazing degrees when comparing different cultures and societies?

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.

Brian

[brianeyci]

Well how about a real-life example?

I have friends who are vegetarians. They believe that my choice to eat meat is morally wrong (though they don't bug me about it.)

I am not a vegetarian. I do not think my choice to eat meat is morally wrong.

Which one of us is objectively morally correct? Additionally, if society changed, for instance, we had a completely perfect meat substitute (taste, texture, etc.) that did not harm animals, would I then be morally culpable for eating meat? If you are thinking 'yes', then why now would I be culpable if not before?

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

[Surlethe]

Well how about a real-life example?

I have friends who are vegetarians. They believe that my choice to eat meat is morally wrong (though they don't bug me about it.)

I am not a vegetarian. I do not think my choice to eat meat is morally wrong.

Which one of us is objectively morally correct? Additionally, if society changed, for instance, we had a completely perfect meat substitute (taste, texture, etc.) that did not harm animals, would I then be morally culpable for eating meat? If you are thinking 'yes', then why now would I be culpable if not before?

I don't know if such a choice is governed by a moral code, or should be; morals exist to govern human interactions, and consumption of inhuman food is not a behavior which, in of itself, is human interaction.

[brianeyci]

Of course if animals became as intelligent as people, then morality would apply...

....and nobody entirely follows their own moral standards. Yes I think treating animals brutally is wrong, but I still eat meat that probably came from badly treated animals--I'm a badass self-contradicting motherfucker, and here's a secret, nobody's entirely consistent in every part of their life. We can only try our best.

Brian

[Pick]

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.

Then can I eat children with a horribly debilatating mental condition? Mmm-mm!

They're not intelligent enough to be self-aware and live by instinct. That is objective.

I don't know if such a choice is governed by a moral code, or should be; morals exist to govern human interactions, and consumption of inhuman food is not a behavior which, in of itself, is human interaction.

Not part of a moral code? Then I can go around stabbing puppies and eating their bleeding intestines and expect others to be perfectly all right with that because it has no bearing on morality? Woo, there's a load off my mind! I mean, isn't that the argument of most vegetarians? That meat is cruel? Well as long as there is apparently no moral correlation, then I guess I don't need to worry about animal rights and still be a perfectly moral person.

Now excuse me while I go kick a fox.

[brianeyci]

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.

Then can I eat children with a horribly debilatating mental condition? Mmm-mm!

They're not intelligent enough to be self-aware and live by instinct. That is objective.

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

Nice try .

Brian

[wolveraptor]

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

[Surlethe]

I don't know if such a choice is governed by a moral code, or should be; morals exist to govern human interactions, and consumption of inhuman food is not a behavior which, in of itself, is human interaction.

Not part of a moral code? Then I can go around stabbing puppies and eating their bleeding intestines and expect others to be perfectly all right with that because it has no bearing on morality? Woo, there's a load off my mind! I mean, isn't that the argument of most vegetarians? That meat is cruel? Well as long as there is apparently no moral correlation, then I guess I don't need to worry about animal rights and still be a perfectly moral person.

Now excuse me while I go kick a fox.

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).

[AniThyng]

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

Nice try .

Brian

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?