-
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
Objective or Subjective
- Thread starter infrared
- Start date
LogicalSanity
New Member
subjective. you might say, but many people think kiling is wrong, so why isn't that objective? in that case, it's a construct of society where we strive to survive as well as allow others to survive. that's part of what makes us human 
Outis
New Member
Largely I would agree it is subjective but I do not think it is society that sets out the bases for morals but rather nature. I should go so far as to stipulate that it is the selective force of sexual selection (kept in check by natural selection of course) that drives the evolution of the moral zeitgeist.
Ozymandyus
New Member
BOTH. Though individual humans and cultures are different, and the moral standards for best living as that human or culture are different, there is a best culture and best morality for the human species. Both culture and morality are and should be coerced to 'evolve' towards that, imo.
This is to say that for an individual living in a specific culture may have a different 'best moral code' than another culture. However, there is still an Overall standard by which both can be judged. Acting exactingly in a Universally moral manner in a culture that would not accept or understand those morals would be subjectively Immoral, though universally More moral.
My basis for believing this is that although we are individually different in many ways, we are OBJECTIVELY similiar in many more. Our differences are mainly subjective, and our culturally subjective morals come from those subjective differences. The objective morality I am talking about would come from our objective similarities as members of the same species on the same planet etc.
This is to say that for an individual living in a specific culture may have a different 'best moral code' than another culture. However, there is still an Overall standard by which both can be judged. Acting exactingly in a Universally moral manner in a culture that would not accept or understand those morals would be subjectively Immoral, though universally More moral.
My basis for believing this is that although we are individually different in many ways, we are OBJECTIVELY similiar in many more. Our differences are mainly subjective, and our culturally subjective morals come from those subjective differences. The objective morality I am talking about would come from our objective similarities as members of the same species on the same planet etc.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Subjective.
Ozymandyus
New Member
No.Trinitron said:
When people thought the earth was the center of the universe... it didn't changed the fact that it was not. Just because creationists think that macro-evolution is impossible, there is still an objective truth to the matter. There are people who are correct, and people who are incorrect.
That's not the same thing, morality as we are discussing it isn't scientific fact, not once did I say something that has been proven by science was something to have an opinion about. Morality is something that sits in the realm of philosophy, where as the subjects you suggested are in the realm of science and facts. Don't confuse philosophical debates with scientific ones.
Ozymandyus
New Member
That's silly. Philosophy is not unscientific. In fact, philosophy used to include everything we now call science. I was merely pointing out the flaw in your definition of subjective - that is not the meaning of subjective at all.
Most philosophical thinking has to do with systems of beliefs that are tautologies, that are true by definition. People believe all sorts of things that are False by definition, that are categorically false, and their opinions on the matters don't change that objective truth. The presence or lack of physical evidence to back them up doesn't change that. Example: Most of us here Know the God of the Bible cannot be real, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and have dictated the Bible because those traits contradict each other. We can prove that and know it to be true, its not subjective.
Morality is substantially easier, it has an abundance of physical evidence - we can measure morality by human suffering and human happiness. We can test and have tested moral codes throughout history.
Most philosophical thinking has to do with systems of beliefs that are tautologies, that are true by definition. People believe all sorts of things that are False by definition, that are categorically false, and their opinions on the matters don't change that objective truth. The presence or lack of physical evidence to back them up doesn't change that. Example: Most of us here Know the God of the Bible cannot be real, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and have dictated the Bible because those traits contradict each other. We can prove that and know it to be true, its not subjective.
Morality is substantially easier, it has an abundance of physical evidence - we can measure morality by human suffering and human happiness. We can test and have tested moral codes throughout history.
I know that philosophy and science are intertwined, what I was getting at was that saying something that is factually true cannot be compared to something such as morality, because there are varying opinions on the subject of morality, versus something such as macro evolution, which is fact. You say that morality can be tested by measuring human suffering and happiness, and there is an abundance of physical evidence. Evidence supporting what I might ask? Are you suggesting that that morality IS objective? That there is only one way that is right? I'm not being confrontational, I'm simply curious.
A harder question than it would seem on the face.
I used to be a moral relativist, until I read a moral objectivists argument.
This moral objectivist made an argument against morality stating that moral relativists view morality as simply different, and that there was no basis for saying that slavery or child abuse or the suppression of scientific research over faith yielded bad consequences for society.
Naturally being sceptical, I immediately recognized that this person was making an argument from consequences. However, after further consideration, I realized that this is exactly what morality is: attempting to yield the fairest and best consequences possible for the members of society. Any action ever taken can objectively be determined to have unfair consequences for members of society as a whole.
I used to be a moral relativist, until I read a moral objectivists argument.
This moral objectivist made an argument against morality stating that moral relativists view morality as simply different, and that there was no basis for saying that slavery or child abuse or the suppression of scientific research over faith yielded bad consequences for society.
Naturally being sceptical, I immediately recognized that this person was making an argument from consequences. However, after further consideration, I realized that this is exactly what morality is: attempting to yield the fairest and best consequences possible for the members of society. Any action ever taken can objectively be determined to have unfair consequences for members of society as a whole.
ebbixx
New Member
LogicalSanity said:
I suppose one reason it remains subjective is that at least some societies declare killing wrong, but allow for certain exceptions, from widespread encouragement of carnivorous diets, to exceptions to the rule in cases where the state licenses killing in such cases as state-sponsored execution, or state-sponsored, church-endorsed "human hunting" in the "special case" of warfare, police enforcement actions and so on, or more passive "killing" that occurs when some are denied medical processes that might prolong life.
The longer you look, the more special cases emerge. Perhaps a more interesting question would be, why do we regard certain acts as "killing" and classify others as something else?
ebbixx
New Member
Trinitron said:
Not only are there varying opinions, but there are varying moralities. For instance, under the right circumstances, in ancient Rome or traditional Japanese societies, suicide could be a highly moral act, whereas in most current Western societies whose morality is grounded, admittedly or not in Christianity, suicide is a crime and generally considered immoral. There are those who don't share that view, but the currently remain a minority with very little influence in changing laws or gaining public acknowledgment or acceptance that suicide is not a universally bad thing.
Perhaps, though, I am missing some special, "term of art" definition of "objective" and "subjective" in this discussion? I'd certainly be interested to read some sensible argument in favor of considering morality as having some fully objective standard. Of course the fact that this is a question up for discussion seems to point out that the bias is pretty strong for considering it relatively subjective, compared to, say gravity or some other physical constant.
Ozymandyus
New Member
Even if we could scientifically determine an objective morality, there would still be special cases - thats not at all an argument against objective morality for me.
The special cases would come from where you have to choose between two objectively Good Moral choices or two objectively bad choices... or where a single decision does both a morally good thing and a morally bad thing. The exact weighting of those morals will always be terribly difficult in any complex moral situation, just as it is terribly difficult to determine how complex chemical systems will behave, even when we know the forces that affect them very well. Look at folding proteins for example, we know the mechanisms but the actual balance of those forces is so razor thin that it is sometimes very hard to tell precisely how they will fold or what they will do in different environments.
I do believe in an objective morality by the way. I don't believe that it is effectively enforceable, but I believe it exists. There is a BEST possible environment for a human life that could be achieved if everyone made the Exact right decisions. That is the objective standard. Can we accurately discern that? No. But we can guess at its shape.
The special cases would come from where you have to choose between two objectively Good Moral choices or two objectively bad choices... or where a single decision does both a morally good thing and a morally bad thing. The exact weighting of those morals will always be terribly difficult in any complex moral situation, just as it is terribly difficult to determine how complex chemical systems will behave, even when we know the forces that affect them very well. Look at folding proteins for example, we know the mechanisms but the actual balance of those forces is so razor thin that it is sometimes very hard to tell precisely how they will fold or what they will do in different environments.
I do believe in an objective morality by the way. I don't believe that it is effectively enforceable, but I believe it exists. There is a BEST possible environment for a human life that could be achieved if everyone made the Exact right decisions. That is the objective standard. Can we accurately discern that? No. But we can guess at its shape.
Armondikov
New Member
Ozymandyus said:
Interesting. I suppose in principle it's possible to say that something that is objectively moral is just the best course of action. But then you have the issue of defining your "best course of action". Is "best" just a case of averaging it all out across the whole human race? Then it would potentially be morally acceptable for one person to live in absolute misery because enough people get a barely noticable increase in their happiness to "balance it out". So, as you said, it'd be very difficult to actually define it and I'm sure if you did, there would be plenty of people who would like to disagree.
To some degree, the dichotomy is invalid. All morals have a source, as well as a reason why we feel they are valid.
I believe that what humans feel in regards to what is appropriate behaviour between humans is based on a mixture of inherent traits (all humans come with some pre-programming), what we learn first hand, what we experience first hand, applying logic and empathy, as well as what our hopes and fears are for the future. Nature definately plays a role, both by influencing some initial emotional beliefs, and shaping how we learn. This is particularly evident when comparing ourselfs to other social creatures. We both want the same things, and fear the same things.
To make sense of morality, keep in mind that in many situations, when we benefit society, this benefits us (especially in times when communities were smaller, say less than 500), from that person being stronger and better able to help society (thus helping us) to that person now liking and trusting us (gaining a friend, ally or romantic partner) as well as possibly gaining a favour later, or them saying what we did, improving others oppinion of us etc. We also fear social condemnation (ie if we killed for no good reason, members of the community would feel we are dangerous to them and those they care about, therefore exiling us from their group, which is something social animals fear).
But these are just the building blocks. The specifics of an individuals morality are shaped by what they are taught, what they experience and applying logic to decide if one event is similar or different to another.
I believe that what humans feel in regards to what is appropriate behaviour between humans is based on a mixture of inherent traits (all humans come with some pre-programming), what we learn first hand, what we experience first hand, applying logic and empathy, as well as what our hopes and fears are for the future. Nature definately plays a role, both by influencing some initial emotional beliefs, and shaping how we learn. This is particularly evident when comparing ourselfs to other social creatures. We both want the same things, and fear the same things.
To make sense of morality, keep in mind that in many situations, when we benefit society, this benefits us (especially in times when communities were smaller, say less than 500), from that person being stronger and better able to help society (thus helping us) to that person now liking and trusting us (gaining a friend, ally or romantic partner) as well as possibly gaining a favour later, or them saying what we did, improving others oppinion of us etc. We also fear social condemnation (ie if we killed for no good reason, members of the community would feel we are dangerous to them and those they care about, therefore exiling us from their group, which is something social animals fear).
But these are just the building blocks. The specifics of an individuals morality are shaped by what they are taught, what they experience and applying logic to decide if one event is similar or different to another.
ebbixx
New Member
Ozymandyus said:
If the "objective" standard it's to be measured against is "what's best for humanity" or especially what's best for an abstracted human life, how is that truly objective? Why would that particular standard be especially valid? Particularly if weighting "best for an abstracted individual" turned out to be the worst case for living beings on earth in general, let's say?
There are two problems I see here.
First: determining in any consistent, objective way just what IS beneficial to humanity in general, or to a given human organism. Especially the latter, since humans vary considerably and may have valid, albeit subjective reasons to argue that what someone else declares as "for their own good" may not in fact be provable as such, but rather, a vague generalization based on too many foregone assumptions, too little data and a tendency to objectify other individual specimens.
Second: the particularism of choosing humanity as a measuring post. I think it's just as probable as any of a few thousand other possibilities that humans were an evolutionary "misstep" when considering living beings and general notions of ecology and balance within nature. Actually, my beef is with consciousness rather than with humanity, but it boils down to much the same thing. After all, I'm fairly sure that true believer Nazis thought they were doing the best thing for humanity, and felt they had objective reasons for doing so. And humanity in general would be hard put to do the "right thing" if, after thorough analysis they were to collectively conclude that the best thing would be for humanity not to exist.
Perhaps I'm missing your meaning? Could you spell out more specifically what you mean by an objective morality?
Well, there are three terms there that probably need some clarification. First, what do we mean by 'morals?' Do we mean the particular list of behavioral rules that an individual holds? Or do we mean some embodiment of moral law outside of an individual? And don't be tempted to conflate this with the question of subjectivity or objectivity. For example, a king might say, "These are the moral laws of the land because these laws are pleasing to me," and then proceed to cultivate them in the populace. This would be a subjective moral law that lives outside of the individuals in the kingdom. In contrast, it might be possible that what is moral for one member of society is immoral for another. Eating meat sacrificed to idols, to cite a New Testament area of concern. Another, more compelling example for our time might be that what is moral for a soldier is immoral for a private citizen, or vise versa. Soldiers might morally attack where you or I could not do so morally, but for us it is not generally immoral to forget our training, whereas for a soldier that is probably one of the higher sins. And this might go down to the individual level as well. Nietzschean perspectivism would permit us each a morality that is in tune with each of our own wills to power. These manifold moralities would, by definition, exist inside each of us, but the question of their objectivity/subjectivity would still remain.
Now, what do we mean to say that a moral code (if morality can be codified) is subjective or objective? Do we mean by 'objective' that we can write down the rules, however chosen, and point at them? Or do we mean that those laws, once written down, can be judged the 'correct' or 'incorrect' ones? Also, by 'subjective' we could mean, 'varying by the individual, but in a repeatable and verifiable manner not dependent on the individuals preferences.' Also, we could mean by 'objective' that we do take the individual's or group's feelings into account, but we come up with a demonstrably (and therefore objectively) true set of morals given the emotional landscape. (For example, 'Given that cloning is so contentious, it is best that we outlaw it altogether.')
After coming up with the above questions, I'm sort of wondering if the whole question really isn't just a theistic canard. That is, maybe 'objective morality' is just a stand-in for those snippets of Levitical and New Testament law that churchgoers want us to abide by, and 'subjective morality' is just a bogeyman at the low end of the slippery slope of "unfettered moral relativism,"--in plainer speak, 'not listening to church folk.' Note that I don't mean to impugn user infrared with these motives, but rather wish to point out that the objective/subjective simplification may have crept in to the discussion through the back door of evangelistic scaremongering.
My honest hunch is that morality may not even be subject to articulation, and that what stands in for it is a combination of cultural mores and evolutionary heritage. The issues just unravel so quickly. Should the Boy Scout help the little old lady across the street? I dunno. What about the dignity of the old lady. Perhaps she'd be insulted. How much traffic is there? Can we meaningfully weigh her risk of getting hit against the risk to her dignity? What if she's the Queen of England? Should any teenage boy be charged, even temporarily, with the care of an elder in such a precarious circumstance? Maybe he should instead stop her from crossing and seek professional guidance as to whether this little old lady should be out on her own. The example isn't entirely sincere, but it does give the flavor of the troubles I see in trying even to articulate morality.
(Ignoring all posts)
It is subjective, a construct of society and evolution.
Look at what is consider wrong in different cultures: human sacrifice, rape, killing, eating meat, having sex, homosexuality, etc etc.
Homosexuality was common please in Greece.
Human sacrifice was consider good in Inca religion.
By all means it is subjective.
It is subjective, a construct of society and evolution.
Look at what is consider wrong in different cultures: human sacrifice, rape, killing, eating meat, having sex, homosexuality, etc etc.
Homosexuality was common please in Greece.
Human sacrifice was consider good in Inca religion.
By all means it is subjective.
Th1sWasATriumph
New Member
Yup, subjective. There are very very few things that are considered to be morally wrong (or right), by everyone the world over, all the time. There are plenty of things considered morally wrong to plenty of people, but not everyone. I think tribal scarification (and circumcision) is morally reprehensible, but my view is clearly not shared by everyone.