Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[JimL]

Yes, but you are still subjectively deciding what things constitute significance, then when you act on them you are significant. It would be like me saying that drowning cute little kittens is a moral good, then declaring myself a moral man when I do it...

Wrong. Based on what logic would drowning little kittens be morally good. Human morals are based on reason and logic seer, we don't just make them up willy nilly.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, but you are still subjectively deciding what things constitute significance,

Yes I am... though in concert with input from family, society, etc.

then when you act on them you are significant.

Yes, I perceive myself that way...

It would be like me saying that drowning cute little kittens is a moral good, then declaring myself a moral man when I do it...

You folks do love to try to make these associations. As I have said multiple times, moral codes are not whimsical. They are rooted in what a person values. A person cannot just "declare" that "X is moral." Their code is deeply embedded as a result of upbringing, social pressures, religius pressures, reason, etc. Then they serve as governing principles. They will only change if a paradigm shift causes the underlying valuations to change. These are siesmic shifts in a person, not whimsical ones like what socks I prefer, despite all of your attempts to paint them in those terms. Indeed, your attempts to trivialize subjective morality with such language suggests this is the best argument you can muster, and it's not really much of an argument.

Is it possible someone could truly see "drowning kittens" as a moral good. Yes, it is possible. Is it likely? Not very, but not impossible. Have you shown that subjective moral codes fail because they can change or differ between people? No - you've just managed (yet again) to reassert that they're subjective and, by implication, their not universal/absolute/eternal. So you've successfully uttered the same tautology, for the bazillionth time...

Seer, if you're actually serious about this discussion, and not just "baiting" for yet another response, it would be useful if you took subjective morality as it is being described and positioned, rather than simply labeling it with dismissive terms so you can sweep it under the rug. You aren't really making an argument - you're just posturing. It's not very helpful, nor does it lend itself to examining the issue with any seriousness.

[Tassman]

I really don't care what the Jews thought, and that varied. It does not change the fact that that is a human being at the moment of conception. And what is considered a "full person" is completely arbitrary and useless. There are a number of academics, and even our own Starlight, who don't think born children are full persons deserving of rights.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...origins-107133

Because he is better than a baby killer and is putting conservative judges on the federal courts, who may one day end this holocaust?

[Tassman]

Well of course, a man wants to believe his life is significant despite the facts.

One does not need the fiction of a deity and eternal life to make them significant.

Yes, but you are still subjectively deciding what things constitute significance.

So are you. The difference is that what you deem significant is based upon folk-tales, not substantive facts.

[seer]

Yes I am... though in concert with input from family, society, etc.

Yes, I perceive myself that way...



You folks do love to try to make these associations. As I have said multiple times, moral codes are not whimsical. They are rooted in what a person values. A person cannot just "declare" that "X is moral." Their code is deeply embedded as a result of upbringing, social pressures, religius pressures, reason, etc. Then they serve as governing principles. They will only change if a paradigm shift causes the underlying valuations to change. These are siesmic shifts in a person, not whimsical ones like what socks I prefer, despite all of your attempts to paint them in those terms. Indeed, your attempts to trivialize subjective morality with such language suggests this is the best argument you can muster, and it's not really much of an argument.

Is it possible someone could truly see "drowning kittens" as a moral good. Yes, it is possible. Is it likely? Not very, but not impossible. Have you shown that subjective moral codes fail because they can change or differ between people? No - you've just managed (yet again) to reassert that they're subjective and, by implication, their not universal/absolute/eternal. So you've successfully uttered the same tautology, for the bazillionth time...

Seer, if you're actually serious about this discussion, and not just "baiting" for yet another response, it would be useful if you took subjective morality as it is being described and positioned, rather than simply labeling it with dismissive terms so you can sweep it under the rug. You aren't really making an argument - you're just posturing. It's not very helpful, nor does it lend itself to examining the issue with any seriousness.

Carp, my point is that the kitten example is no less subjective than anything you laid out. There no difference in kind. A Hitler and his followers find significance in ridding the world of the Jewish race, the Maoist finds meaning in slaughtering millions of dissenters to solidify power and control. Then you said: A person cannot just "declare" that "X is moral."That is not correct is it, men do break from the mores they were raised with and morally do strike out on their own, even against the social norms - this is not uncommon. So when a Hitlerite or a Maoist find significance in such things, or even you with your criterion, can you at least understand why I would not find this kind of reasoning meaningful, or the argument compelling?

[seer]

One does not need the fiction of a deity and eternal life to make them significant.

More significant than a house fly? Why? Because you say so?

[seer]

Again I don't care, but you are wrong. Here are quotes from many early Church Fathers: http://www.priestsforlife.org/magist...herscover.html

And again, of course personhood is an arbitrary marker, tell me Tass - when does a human being become a "full person?" Then tell me who is right - you? Starlight and the academics I linked who support infanticide?

Of course they are baby killers, and it will change, but it will take time and more federal judges in place.

[seer]

Wrong. Based on what logic would drowning little kittens be morally good. Human morals are based on reason and logic seer, we don't just make them up willy nilly.

Why can't they be willy nilly? Why can't a man hate cats and want to destroy them?

[JimL]

Why can't they be willy nilly? Why can't a man hate cats and want to destroy them?

Because morals serve a purpose, ya know, they have meaning. Man can do whatever he wants, and what he wanted was to create a moral system advantageous to human existence.

[seer]

Because morals serve a purpose, ya know, they have meaning. Man can do whatever he wants, and what he wanted was to create a moral system advantages to human existence.

I had a friend growing up who hunted cats, he believed it was a "good" to rid the neighborhood of cats. And who are you to decide what a man finds morally acceptable or not? "

[Charles]

Seer, if you're actually serious about this discussion, and not just "baiting" for yet another response, it would be useful if you took subjective morality as it is being described and positioned, rather than simply labeling it with dismissive terms so you can sweep it under the rug. You aren't really making an argument - you're just posturing. It's not very helpful, nor does it lend itself to examining the issue with any seriousness.

I don't know if seer is doing it on purpose or not, but he usually keeps making the same points and keeps asking the very same questions even if you have given a detailed account of your view and have actually answered the questions. For those who do not read carefully it may give the impression that he has got some strong points that cannot be answered when in fact he just does not agree with or does not understand the answer.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, my point is that the kitten example is no less subjective than anything you laid out. There no difference in kind. A Hitler and his followers find significance in ridding the world of the Jewish race, the Maoist finds meaning in slaughtering millions of dissenters to solidify power and control.

Congratulations. You have once again objected tha subjective morality can't function because it's not absolute/universal/eternal, which means you've affirmed the definition of "subjective morality" without actually making an argument, yet again. Interestingly, we have a completely subjective legal system that appears to be functional, given that every country government in the world has one. And (unlike math) legal systems have a lot in common with moral systems.

Then you said: A person cannot just "declare" that "X is moral."That is not correct is it, men do break from the mores they were raised with and morally do strike out on their own, even against the social norms - this is not uncommon.

You are confusing "changing a moral system" with "not following one's own moral system." Even the universal/absolute/eternal moralist fails to achive their moral ideals frequently. So does the subjective moralist. That does not mean the moral framework shifts on a whim. If someone is raised by Charles Manson and indoctrinated by the "commune" that follows his "rules," then what they value and do not value will be significantly different from what you and I value, and their moral code will likewise be significantly different. Getting someone like that to change their moral view is extremely difficult. It often takes years of trying to indoctrinate them to what most of society finds of value, so their moral code likewise shifts.

So when a Hitlerite or a Maoist find significance in such things, or even you with your criterion, can you at least understand why I would not find this kind of reasoning meaningful, or the argument compelling?

Oh I understand it, Seer. I used to hold that view, remember? I know how tempting it can be. It seems so "solid." It seems so "dependable." Unfortunately, it has no argument. You have yet to see that your argument, so far, is to do nothing other than continually reassert that subjective morality is not absolute/universal/eternal. That's a tautology. We already know that. I've acknowledged that multiple times. You just keep repeating this definition of "subjective morality" and then claiming you've shown it fails. You're not making an argument; you're reciting a definition.

So how does subjective morality deal with a Hitler or a Mao? Exactly the way we did. Because we share a common humanity, and a common planet, the vast majority of us value things like living and health. Because we see how dysfunctional a society becomes when trust is eroded, we value things like truth. So we share some common moral codes around lying, killing, and harming ourselves or others. When a Hitler or Mao arises, they can, with the right power, begin indoctrinating a large number of people to their view. Do they actually HAVE that moral view - or are they simply failing to live up to their own ethics? That we will probably never know. But the rest of society will do what we always do when someone (person, group, or even country) is professing or acting on moral norms that deviate from the social norm: work to convince and, if that does not succeed, separate/isolate.

We have been doing this for centuries. It's perfectly functional. It's exactly how legal systems work - and they are also quite functional. No one says, "gee, your laws are not exactly the same as our laws - I guess laws are useless." The same thing happens with moral codes. If two groups have differing moral codes and are never in contact with one another, they will never know the difference. If they come in contact (which is increasingly common in this highly mobile/global world), then there is friction. The groups begin by trying to convince one another why their moral code is "better." If that does not succeed, then they either try to separate/isolate, or they contend. In the latter, the group with the more power will be the one to encode their moral framework into law. That does not necessarily change the moral codes of individuals - it simply means that the stronger group's moral code becomes framed into law.

The process is not neat - it's messy. Nailing a moral code on the wall and declaring it an absolute, certainly appears, on the face of it, neater. But the reality is - it's not. Moral codes show exactly the same type of variation among those claiming that there is an absolute/eternal/universal standard as it does among those not making that claim. Religious groups with contending moral codes do the same things I outlined above: convince, isolate/separate, or contend. Your world of "absolute/eternal/universal" has no more claim to being functional. Worse still - it has no argument. Thsi is the part you still haven't gotten. You have STILL not made an argument for it - except to repeat, over and over and over, that a subjective moral framework can change, and can differ from person to person. No poop, Penelope - that's the definition of "subjective."

[carpedm9587]

Well, my last post is my usual wordy "dump." My suspicion is they are mostly not being read, for which I bear some responsibility due to my propensity for verbosity.

So I'll simply restate the challenge I made originally: make the case for why subjective morality is not functional WITHOUT merely reasserting the definition of "subjective moral framework." Some of the ways you do this:

1) It's not universal/eternal/absolute (that's right - it's subjective)
2) It can change (that's right - it's subjective)
3) It provides no framework for comparison (umm... you mean it doesn't provide an absolute/eternal/universal code? Yup - it's subjective...)
4) It's like mathematical laws (other than asserting this, you havent actually shown it. You appear to have chosen mathematical laws because (wait for it), they're based on absolute/universal/eternal roots! I, on the other hand, have shown how moral codes are similar to legal ones, which are functional AND subjective)
5) Various arguments from outrage/incredulity (Hitler's moral code, Mao's moral code, etc.).

The entire argument for moral codes needing to be "absolute/eternal/universal," when it is closely looked at, is one large tautology. No one has ever been able make a different case, in my experience. It's why I eventually let the whole concept go. It has no basis. It always reduces to exactly the same thing: subjective morality is not universal/absolute/eternal. That's right - it's not. That proves nothing except that you know the definition of the terms.

[seer]

Well, my last post is my usual wordy "dump." My suspicion is they are mostly not being read, for which I bear some responsibility due to my propensity for verbosity.

Ya think?

So I'll simply restate the challenge I made originally: make the case for why subjective morality is not functional WITHOUT merely reasserting the definition of "subjective moral framework." Some of the ways you do this:

1) It's not universal/eternal/absolute (that's right - it's subjective)
2) It can change (that's right - it's subjective)
3) It provides no framework for comparison (umm... you mean it doesn't provide an absolute/eternal/universal code? Yup - it's subjective...)
4) It's like mathematical laws (other than asserting this, you havent actually shown it. You appear to have chosen mathematical laws because (wait for it), they're based on absolute/universal/eternal roots! I, on the other hand, have shown how moral codes are similar to legal ones, which are functional AND subjective)
5) Various arguments from outrage/incredulity (Hitler's moral code, Mao's moral code, etc.).

The entire argument for moral codes needing to be "absolute/eternal/universal," when it is closely looked at, is one large tautology. No one has ever been able make a different case, in my experience. It's why I eventually let the whole concept go. It has no basis. It always reduces to exactly the same thing: subjective morality is not universal/absolute/eternal. That's right - it's not. That proves nothing except that you know the definition of the terms.

I think the whole argument comes down to one thing. You find subjectivism, when it comes to meaning or morality, satisfying. Others do not, theists don't, moral realists don't, etc... The Hitlerite does what is right, to him and according to his culture, the Maoist the same, the Huttu the same. There is no moral high ground by which to judge such things. You or your culture may not agree with the Nazis or Huttus, but that is only right for you, not them. So gassing Jewish children was a moral good in their culture. I think you would have to agree that rape is not always wrong - that it can be right given cultural mores and such. And if all these concepts are really subjective, is that claim also subjective? In other words, can one demonstrate that subjective morality is an objective truth - if not, logically where does that lead?

[carpedm9587]

Ya think?

Yeah...

I think the whole argument comes down to one thing. You find subjectivism, when it comes to meaning or morality, satisfying.

Yes and no. As I said, it's messy. I'd love to have a "better" system, but I do not find one exists. So I accept subjective morality as "what is" and live with it.

Others do not, theists don't, moral realists don't, etc...

Then, IMO, they have not truly looked at the nature of their argument. As I said, it's a tautology. Tautologies don't say anything. Building an entire system on a tautology does not, to me, make any sense.

The Hitlerite does what is right, to him and according to his culture, the Maoist the same, the Huttu the same.

Presumably. We never know whether a person has a twisted moral code, or if they are simply failing to live up to the more normal code they actually have.

There is no moral high ground by which to judge such things.

There is no UNIVERSAL moral high ground from which to judge these things. There is no ABSOLUTE moral high ground from which to judge these things. There is no ETERNAL moral high ground from which to judge these things. But then this sentence is (again) just another way of repeating, "it's subjective." You haven't said anything. There IS a moral "high ground" that is the basis for judgment - but it is a subjective one.

You or your culture may not agree with the Nazis or Huttus, but that is only right for you, not them. So gassing Jewish children was a moral good in their culture.

Maybe - you cannot know that. See comment above.

I think you would have to agree that rape is not always wrong - that it can be right given cultural mores and such.

In my moral framework, rape is always wrong. In the moral framework of most societies and most people, rape is always wrong. If we encounter a society/person that attempts to defend rape as a moral good, we will attempt to reason/convince otherwise, then we will attempt to isolate/separate, then we will contend.

And if all these concepts are really subjective, is that claim also subjective? In other words, can one demonstrate that subjective morality is an objective truth - if not, logically where does that lead?

Subjective morality is what we observe all around us. Until someone can demonstrate 1) why morality MUST be absolute/universal/eternal and 2) that such a moral framework actually exists, subjective morality appears to be what we have to work with. So far, no one has done either 1) or 2). You certainly have not. Even in this post, all you have done is a) reaffirm that subjective morality is subjective, b) complain that it's not objective, and c) attempt another argument from outrage with references ot Hitler, Mao, gassing children, rape, etc. You still have not tackled, in any coherent way, 1) and 2).

Meanwhile, I have drawn a parallel between ethics and law (which you continue to ignore), noted that law appears to be perfectly functional as a subjective framework (which you continue to ignore), explained how subjective frameworks deal with differing moral precepts, and given multiple examples of how that plays out individually and culturally.

Do you actually have an argument that does not reduce to, "but - it's not universal/eternal/absolute!?"