-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
'Natural Law' or objective morality.
- Thread starter irmerk
- Start date
Aught3 said:
You plainly do need one. The authority to act based on a value comes from the autonomy of the valuing agent. This is why, for example, we talk about 'consenting adults' in reference to, among other things, sexual acts. This is why reasonable people recoil at legislating sexual morality as it pertains to consenting adults. There simply is no other agent who has a right to intervene between two consenting adults. Nor is there an agent who has a right to intervene when one agent is involved. We intuitively see this in relation to sexual morality.
In short, it's a positive claim to say that an objective moral code carries any weight whatsoever.
And the point isn't so much that there needs to be an external valuer, but that the concept of an objective moral law refers to values that are held by no agent in particular. Values must be held by a particular agent, so the concept of an objective moral law is incoherent.
Keep in mind that when we say 'objective morality,' we have to mean a morality that is correct and authoritative for all those subject to it, otherwise we are just talking about some third-party wanker's ideas about what we should be doing with our time.
It's not enough to say that I can write down my code, or you can write down yours, or that when we both do, they come out the same. That does not imply objectivity. If it did, we could grab a group of people that like banana ice cream and say that banana ice cream objectively tastes good. What is important is not that the values do vary from individual to individual, but that they can vary, in that they arise from the individual and depend on his/her make-up, experience, and choices.
I do fundamentally agree that each agent is the valuer for his own moral decisions. My point is that this is the essence of subjectivity, and also that the agent's autonomy is the source of his authority to enact his/her own moral law. Furthermore, to get to an 'objective' moral law, you're going to have to--because it's a positive claim--point to an 'objective' moral authority. If you don't, then you're not pointing to a 'moral' law, because the term 'moral' implies agency and authority. You're just pointing to a(n explicitly not moral because not authoritative) code.
Weirdtopia
New Member
I don't think that there must be a top valuer or a specific person to set the values that make up the morals of a society, it is based on the values that the society make. So the valuer would be the people who make up the societies morals not a king nor a dictator. Revolutions and movements like anti-discrimination and civil rights are motivated by the majority of the people that push for that morals to be set in the society. This moral is objective since it is not set up by one person.
So, yes there is not valuer and there is no need for one.
Yes, i agree that if the majority of the people condemn the stoning of a homosexual person, then the majority would still see it as wrong to do so but there are always people that oppose and the minority would be the people how think it's o.k but they can have there opinion but they can tolerate the decision that the majority have put in place and accept that the majority of the people don't want to see this happen.
Now lets say that a king or dictator rules the society and sets rules of forbidding homosexuality, then the society is not totally based on that kings morality since the majority make up the morals of the society in which would cause a revolution or an uprising, i.e french revolution. Many people were still religious and dedicated to the church but still felt it was wrong that religion played a role in the government system. That's why most religious people in the western society say that separation of state and church is a good things even thought they still think that there morality is the best one. So it's not contradictions but the tolerance of other moral beliefs.
I think we are almost thinking of the same thing but in a different manner. I'll use your example to explain mine and will see were we end up.
The society saw that discrimination of African-Americans was wrong but the societies reflection of African-Americans was discriminating. Millions of Americans had a moral sense that discrimination was wrong so the majority of the people were willing to fight against it. But there was many people who were afraid to say that they were against it. But the stop of discrimination did not happen from one-person, but one-person can have a major influence on changing event, no doubt. If we look at Martin Luther King, we has a big spoken man for the anti-discrimination movement in the states but there was millions of other people that helped out too. People from all racial and ethical backgrounds, that shaped U.S. So this moral shift did not happen from one person, it happened from the majority who want to see this to stop. But we do still have discrimination against African-Americans but that is always expect for all negative things in the world, there will always people think that. But the majority of the people don't think that way which is a good thing, makes this notion of discrimination of African-Americans taboo.
I can condemn, all i want, and everyone can condemn all they want but if people know why something is right and wrong, would you think that they will be more likely to fallow it? There must be an action for there to be a re-action to happen. If the people don't want it to happen again, then they must take an action. The deceleration of human rights was made by more then one individual and was developed from Humanist values that every citizen has the same right as the next person. This moral code is still in effect because the majority of the people do not oppose nor do they condemn it. I have to saw the majority because not everyone is on the same boat. If a leader knows why that genocide is wrong, he would know that it would not be a good idea to do so. This would be better than to say we condemn it. If we can stop the problem before it happens then why not try that but that would be a discussion on free will v.s determinism. The biggest example is the Rwandan genocide, the U.N condemned it a lot but failed to do an action against it. They saw it as wrong but only condemned it. This would imply that we would (as the people of North America and Europe) to take an action against this genocide and we would act as if we were the oppressed and that they would need help.If the people knew that it was wrong to kill Hutu and Tusis people then i would of been prevented.
Now, i know there is problem with the concept of the majority of the people that make the decision of anything which this criticism is in political philosophy against democracy but it's a contentious search for the best solutions which is a part of philosophy discussions. But if we don't think and fallow and act then we would go nowhere in ethnics or philosophy in that manor. But i think there is common sense in people to know through thinking that something is not right and can evaluated the situation and come to a conclusion that benefits everyone or the majority of the people.
We can pull up lots of different types of philosophical Humanistic stances, like Utilitarianism and Marxism. Wouldn't they have a say in the morality in an objective form? Happiness for the greater good?
The idea of a valuer is need for there to be a moral code or to have morals for a society is like saying "Without God, everything is permitted". Many people believe that this leads to a form of nihilism. But you don't need a valuer. People see that a valuer is need so that the people will fallow that code of morality, that God is the law-giver and he is also the role of the judge. but Morality is not like the law. The law need morality to know how to punish and what to reward not the other way around. So morality is the standard that is determined independently of a system of laws. If there is a valuer then how does the people know that fallowing valuer that what they are doing is good because the valuer says it's good or that it's good beacuse it's good already? Murder or Torture is good, making morals, arbitrary. Which can be said for Utilitarianism too, is torturing a human being bring happiness for the majority of the people, right? There is no need for a valuer to set morals for a society, why can't the people of the society set there own morals, it seems in history that people have done just that, which is the reason why i beleive that people will not change there laws to suit the needs of immigrants thoughts on how law should be because we fought to have it that way and we don't want them to change because they are fine were they are and if something happens then the people can make a rational decision of what side of the fence to be on.
We don't need to believe in a superior being or supernatural to tell us right or wrong, we just got to summon it from ourselves.
Socrates would agree too since we proclaimed that the answer of any question came from the person themselves.
i said enough now lol
So, yes there is not valuer and there is no need for one.
Yes, i agree that if the majority of the people condemn the stoning of a homosexual person, then the majority would still see it as wrong to do so but there are always people that oppose and the minority would be the people how think it's o.k but they can have there opinion but they can tolerate the decision that the majority have put in place and accept that the majority of the people don't want to see this happen.
Now lets say that a king or dictator rules the society and sets rules of forbidding homosexuality, then the society is not totally based on that kings morality since the majority make up the morals of the society in which would cause a revolution or an uprising, i.e french revolution. Many people were still religious and dedicated to the church but still felt it was wrong that religion played a role in the government system. That's why most religious people in the western society say that separation of state and church is a good things even thought they still think that there morality is the best one. So it's not contradictions but the tolerance of other moral beliefs.
I think we are almost thinking of the same thing but in a different manner. I'll use your example to explain mine and will see were we end up.
The society saw that discrimination of African-Americans was wrong but the societies reflection of African-Americans was discriminating. Millions of Americans had a moral sense that discrimination was wrong so the majority of the people were willing to fight against it. But there was many people who were afraid to say that they were against it. But the stop of discrimination did not happen from one-person, but one-person can have a major influence on changing event, no doubt. If we look at Martin Luther King, we has a big spoken man for the anti-discrimination movement in the states but there was millions of other people that helped out too. People from all racial and ethical backgrounds, that shaped U.S. So this moral shift did not happen from one person, it happened from the majority who want to see this to stop. But we do still have discrimination against African-Americans but that is always expect for all negative things in the world, there will always people think that. But the majority of the people don't think that way which is a good thing, makes this notion of discrimination of African-Americans taboo.
I can condemn, all i want, and everyone can condemn all they want but if people know why something is right and wrong, would you think that they will be more likely to fallow it? There must be an action for there to be a re-action to happen. If the people don't want it to happen again, then they must take an action. The deceleration of human rights was made by more then one individual and was developed from Humanist values that every citizen has the same right as the next person. This moral code is still in effect because the majority of the people do not oppose nor do they condemn it. I have to saw the majority because not everyone is on the same boat. If a leader knows why that genocide is wrong, he would know that it would not be a good idea to do so. This would be better than to say we condemn it. If we can stop the problem before it happens then why not try that but that would be a discussion on free will v.s determinism. The biggest example is the Rwandan genocide, the U.N condemned it a lot but failed to do an action against it. They saw it as wrong but only condemned it. This would imply that we would (as the people of North America and Europe) to take an action against this genocide and we would act as if we were the oppressed and that they would need help.If the people knew that it was wrong to kill Hutu and Tusis people then i would of been prevented.
Now, i know there is problem with the concept of the majority of the people that make the decision of anything which this criticism is in political philosophy against democracy but it's a contentious search for the best solutions which is a part of philosophy discussions. But if we don't think and fallow and act then we would go nowhere in ethnics or philosophy in that manor. But i think there is common sense in people to know through thinking that something is not right and can evaluated the situation and come to a conclusion that benefits everyone or the majority of the people.
We can pull up lots of different types of philosophical Humanistic stances, like Utilitarianism and Marxism. Wouldn't they have a say in the morality in an objective form? Happiness for the greater good?
The idea of a valuer is need for there to be a moral code or to have morals for a society is like saying "Without God, everything is permitted". Many people believe that this leads to a form of nihilism. But you don't need a valuer. People see that a valuer is need so that the people will fallow that code of morality, that God is the law-giver and he is also the role of the judge. but Morality is not like the law. The law need morality to know how to punish and what to reward not the other way around. So morality is the standard that is determined independently of a system of laws. If there is a valuer then how does the people know that fallowing valuer that what they are doing is good because the valuer says it's good or that it's good beacuse it's good already? Murder or Torture is good, making morals, arbitrary. Which can be said for Utilitarianism too, is torturing a human being bring happiness for the majority of the people, right? There is no need for a valuer to set morals for a society, why can't the people of the society set there own morals, it seems in history that people have done just that, which is the reason why i beleive that people will not change there laws to suit the needs of immigrants thoughts on how law should be because we fought to have it that way and we don't want them to change because they are fine were they are and if something happens then the people can make a rational decision of what side of the fence to be on.
We don't need to believe in a superior being or supernatural to tell us right or wrong, we just got to summon it from ourselves.
Socrates would agree too since we proclaimed that the answer of any question came from the person themselves.
i said enough now lol
WizardofCalculus
New Member
irmerk said:
Part of morality is based upon cultural norms, predominately created to ensure group safety. Another part of morality is just natural, and more or less helps to form the other morality, but it is itself very fundamental to all cultures. Empathy, sympathy, caring for offspring, etc. This is the closest thing to a natural law, but it is itself incomplete.
Weirdtopia
New Member
Weirdtopia said:
Weirdtopia
New Member
For someone deny that there can be an objective morality has to explain "group think" which is related to what i said in post in which i wrote a lot. I said that the people make the values of the society making them the valuer. When the people think that there morals are not set in there society then they change them, the majority does. If the majority think the same thing about how the standards of morals in a society should be and they revolt then they are group thinking, they are all individuals in a group that believe in the same thing, they talk about the something about the morals to be changed, so they change it.
If that does not suit then explain "collective consciousness", when a society shares beliefs and morals that make the standards in that society and becomes powerful due to the amount of people that beleive in the something. Which is also what i argued too, that the king nor dictator sets the values of the society since the society in which the people make set the values and rise against what they do not see as right.
If those two don't suit you then explain the "golden rule". Do not do onto other that you wouldn't want done to you. It is completely objective and anyone can use it as there own morals and lots of people do. There is also the platinum rule in which states treat others the way they want to be treated.
If all that doesn't suit then you would have to explain how "utilitarianism" is not an objective morality. The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, it is completely objective. States that everything should be done for the consideration of others happiness. Punishments are done on those who makes another persons life unhappy. There are weak and strong utilitarianism rules.
And again if this does not suit you, you must explain "social contract", that people accept morals in a discussion. People see this all the time, when you move into a person's house, there is always a discussion what the rules of the house will be, there will input from all people and/or parties.
I have said this before and I'll say it again, i think it's pointless to discuss weather morality is subjective or objective they are both true.
Chocolate=Subjective
Vanilla=Objective
You can debate weather to have chocolate or to have vanilla, but what's the point there both offered, why not have both? a chocolate+vanilla icecream.
You can fallow an objective moral code like the golden rule and still have subjective morals about abortion. The best way to explain this with religion, people who are religious have a moral code to the bible, it tells them not to kill or steal, etc. it's an objective choice to fallow it but it does not say anything about the decision of (keep talking to some when cellphone goes off and ignore the cellphone or answer the cell phone and stop the conversation). When objective does not explain how you live in a certain way, you can use a subjective morals for what is not explained.
So i think that question should be weather to discuss which is more beneficial to us and why?, why is there so that if do find which is better than we know why to elaborate on.
I hate repeating myself lol
If that does not suit then explain "collective consciousness", when a society shares beliefs and morals that make the standards in that society and becomes powerful due to the amount of people that beleive in the something. Which is also what i argued too, that the king nor dictator sets the values of the society since the society in which the people make set the values and rise against what they do not see as right.
If those two don't suit you then explain the "golden rule". Do not do onto other that you wouldn't want done to you. It is completely objective and anyone can use it as there own morals and lots of people do. There is also the platinum rule in which states treat others the way they want to be treated.
If all that doesn't suit then you would have to explain how "utilitarianism" is not an objective morality. The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, it is completely objective. States that everything should be done for the consideration of others happiness. Punishments are done on those who makes another persons life unhappy. There are weak and strong utilitarianism rules.
And again if this does not suit you, you must explain "social contract", that people accept morals in a discussion. People see this all the time, when you move into a person's house, there is always a discussion what the rules of the house will be, there will input from all people and/or parties.
I have said this before and I'll say it again, i think it's pointless to discuss weather morality is subjective or objective they are both true.
Chocolate=Subjective
Vanilla=Objective
You can debate weather to have chocolate or to have vanilla, but what's the point there both offered, why not have both? a chocolate+vanilla icecream.
You can fallow an objective moral code like the golden rule and still have subjective morals about abortion. The best way to explain this with religion, people who are religious have a moral code to the bible, it tells them not to kill or steal, etc. it's an objective choice to fallow it but it does not say anything about the decision of (keep talking to some when cellphone goes off and ignore the cellphone or answer the cell phone and stop the conversation). When objective does not explain how you live in a certain way, you can use a subjective morals for what is not explained.
So i think that question should be weather to discuss which is more beneficial to us and why?, why is there so that if do find which is better than we know why to elaborate on.
I hate repeating myself lol
Weirdtopia
New Member
I don't get the concept of scaling morality, or scaling "Natural Law". You could ask what type of natural law are you fallow, like: Hobbes Natural Laws, Consciousness through evolution, Christan natural laws or Islam, etc. I don't think you can scale morality, you fallow subjective morality or you fallow objective morality. You can say to what point someone can fallow an objective morality until they use there subjective morality. I would agree that people have subjective and objective morality which i have argued. Well objective morality is universal morality, how can it never be non-universal, but universal to whom? Example: The declaration of human rights is a universal moral framework but not everyone fallows is or even recognize it. I argued that objective morality is based on a society's subjective morals that are similar and so a morality is formed objectively by many individuals that have the similar morals that make up that society. There of course lots of problems of having an objective moral framework. In one discussion i talked about utilitarianism, that is the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Sounds nice but if is also kind scary, would this society torture a person for the greater good of the people or kill someone the greater happiness for the people? What about the minority, don't they deserve happiness? So objective morality is universal because if it isn't, it's a subjective moral. It becomes subjective because it's not only an opinion of an individual put it's set for one individual.Sam said:
??? What about social contact or the conscious it's self? When you do something wrong and you fell it, then you have comprehend the idea of conscious. The meaning of the conscious is to inform us that we have done wrong, wrong in what we or the individual has done wrong. The feeling of guilt. If we can talk about it and discuss it then it can be comprehended, but if we can't get words or the don't know were to start on it then there is no meaning until we try to understand it.Sam said: