Morality or Obedience?

[seer]

Yes it is - but you can get yourself some good drugs for that...

Nice come back! For someone of your mental accume that is...

[seer]

Of course it is perfectly subjective when deciding right or wrong. Yes objectively we have innate desires, but those also include cruelty, dominance, greed, lust, etc... And that is where the absurdity comes in. One culture believes that wife rape is legitimate for instance, another culture believes that it is morally wrong. Neither is right or wrong, it would be like saying that one culture believes that 2+2=4, and another that 2+2=5. That would make mathematics absurd. Just as subjectivism makes ethics absurd.

And I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since the majority of countries have not signed on to it. It is not, in any sense, universal.

[carpedm9587]

Nice come back! For someone of your mental accume that is...

Umm...I feel like CP here... I think you mean "acumen?"

If you did - "mental acumen" would be a tad redundant...

And there is something oddly ironic about that post...



(P.S. I hope you know that, as I do with CP, I intend this in a spirit of play, not animosity.)

[seer]

Umm...I feel like CP here... I think you mean "acumen?"

If you did - "mental acumen" would be a tad redundant...

And there is something oddly ironic about that post...

Don't even jump on me for misspelling Homer, that would be the pot calling the kettle black!

[carpedm9587]

Don't even jump on me for misspelling Homer, that would be the pot calling the kettle black!

Me? I never mispel anithyng!

[JimL]

Of course it is perfectly subjective when deciding right or wrong. Yes objectively we have innate desires, but those also include cruelty, dominance, greed, lust, etc... And that is where the absurdity comes in. One culture believes that wife rape is legitimate for instance, another culture believes that it is morally wrong. Neither is right or wrong, it would be like saying that one culture believes that 2+2=4, and another that 2+2=5. That would make mathematics absurd. Just as subjectivism makes ethics absurd.

It's not that neither moral belief or behavior is right or wrong, it's that neither moral belief or behavior is objectively right or wrong. I know, that's a sticking point for you. But whatever moral behaviors are in our best interests are good, i.e. whatever moral behaviors that are in the best interests of human beings together with human society as a whole are good. Such a moral system needn't be objectively grounded in an external source.

[seer]

It's not that neither moral belief or behavior is right or wrong, it's that neither moral belief or behavior is objectively right or wrong. I know, that's a sticking point for you. But whatever moral behaviors are in our best interests are good, i.e. whatever moral behaviors that are in the best interests of human beings together with human society as a whole are good. Such a moral system needn't be objectively grounded in an external source.

Again Jim, good being what is best for society as a whole is merely your opinion. This is exactly why your position is absurd. It is as absurd as saying that math sums are subjective.

[JimL]

Again Jim, good being what is best for society as a whole is merely your opinion. This is exactly why your position is absurd. It is as absurd as saying that math sums are subjective.

Well, that's where we disagree and why I said that I understand that my perspective is a sticking point for you. In my opinion moral rules that best serve society as a whole, and so too the best interests of individual members, best serve us whether we subjectively agree that they do or not. Opinions can of course be wrong, so you may have the opinion that (wife rape) is in the best interests of society as well as in the best interests of yourself and family, and I may be of the opposite opinion, but only one of us is correct as to which behavior is actually in the best interests of ourselves and the society we belong to. Opinion only means we don't know with certainty, it doesn't mean there is no certainty.

[seer]

Well, that's where we disagree and why I said that I understand that my perspective is a sticking point for you. In my opinion moral rules that best serve society as a whole, and so too the best interests of individual members, best serve us whether we subjectively agree that they do or not. Opinions can of course be wrong, so you may have the opinion that (wife rape) is in the best interests of society as well as in the best interests of yourself and family, and I may be of the opposite opinion, but only one of us is correct as to which behavior is actually in the best interests of ourselves and the society we belong to. Opinion only means we don't know with certainty, it doesn't mean there is no certainty.

You are still missing the point, it is still your opinion that what best serves society is a moral good. Opinion and nothing else. Which as I explained reduces ethics to absurdity.

[element771]

In my opinion moral rules that best serve society as a whole, and so too the best interests of individual members, best serve us whether we subjectively agree that they do or not.

In my opinion moral rules that best serve the most capable individuals, and are not concerned with lesser individuals, best serve us whether we subjectively agree that they do or not.

How do you counter that?

[carpedm9587]

Again Jim, good being what is best for society as a whole is merely your opinion. This is exactly why your position is absurd. It is as absurd as saying that math sums are subjective.

And, of course, we've already discussed why that argument fails...

[carpedm9587]

In my opinion moral rules that best serve the most capable individuals, and are not concerned with lesser individuals, best serve us whether we subjectively agree that they do or not.

How do you counter that?

Ooo... Oooo... Mr. Kahtah... Mr. Kahtah....

[seer]

And, of course, we've already discussed why that argument fails...

No, no it didn't. If there were no objectively right answers for mathematics, math would not be rational. Why should we think that ethical questions with no objectively right answers would be any less irrational?

[carpedm9587]

No, no it didn't. If there were no objectively right answers for mathematics, math would not be rational. Why should we think that ethical questions with no objectively right answers would be any less irrational?

The reason the argument fails, Seer, is that you have randomly selected something that IS objective/absolute to make the claim that morality is too. You haven't actually shown that morality actually IS objective/absolute.

It would be like me randomly deciding that a turtle is like a car because I want to prove to you that turtles have trunks. But I chose my analog specifically because it has a trunk - without showing that it was like a turtle in any other way. The entire analogy fails as a consequence.

I asked you to show me how you could show me that math and morality were analogous in any other way - and you had no answer.

Here - let me use your analogy the way you are using it:

• Legal systems are irrational - they have no universal/absolute basis. It's like mathematics - without an absolute basis - mathematics would be irrational. Since legal systems also lack an absolute basis - they are irrational.
• Philosophical systems are irrational - they have no universal/absolute basis. They're like mathematics - without an absolute basis - mathematics would be irrational. Since philosophical systems also lack an absolute basis - they are irrational.
• Monetary systems are irrational - they have no universal/absolute basis. It's like mathematics - without an absolute basis - mathematics would be irrational. Since monetary systems also lack an absolute basis - they are irrational.
• Languages are irrational - they have no universal/absolute basis. It's like mathematics - without an absolute basis - mathematics would be irrational. Since language systems also lack an absolute basis - they are irrational.

I suspect you would find few people who would agree that most of these "systems" are "irrational." They are subjective, and relative to the societies that create them. They are not irrational.

[JimL]

You are still missing the point, it is still your opinion that what best serves society is a moral good. Opinion and nothing else. Which as I explained reduces ethics to absurdity.

No, what my opinion is concerning a moral good, is only my opinion, and I could be either right or wrong concerning it. It could be my opinion that "wife rape" serves the best interests of both myself and society, but it is possible that my opinion on that is wrong, it's possible that "wife rape" does not serve the best interests of myself or society no matter my subjuctive opinion to the contrary. Just because it is only a subjective opinion doesn't mean that it isn't a correct opinion, nor does it mean that it is necessarily a wrong opinion. What serves the best interests of society, ergo the best interests of the members therein, is itself objective, regardless of anyones subjective opinion. In my humble opinion, of course.