Morality or Obedience?

[carpedm9587]

Same thing:

1. I value happiness and prosperity
2. I can get that by robbing people and taking their stuff
3. Therefore as a rational being I ought to rob people because it furthers my values.

Your argument is more in line with what I have been saying, but it omits the social contract. Our existence in society then has us asking, "what if everyone functions that way?" The answer is, "my happiness and prosperity are increasingly likely to be compromised, because there are more of them than me. So I'm going to moderate that logic accordingly.

You also ignore the relationship between values. I also value trust, health, life, liberty and a variety of other things MORE than prosperity, and that may be compromised by your #3.

[carpedm9587]

Sorry...

I believe without God morality is inherently subjective. The reason being is that it can change based on societies collective opinions.

I agree - though I would say it is subjective with or without god. And you have not shown why "being subjective" is a problem. That is what I have tried to convey to Seer for a couple of months now.

While I believe this is theoretically irrational, in practice I don't think it is. Simply because even though it cannot be rationally justified, people live their lives as if their morality is objective.

No, I don't think they do. People determine what is moral and immoral according to what they value. As a consequence, they assess the actions of others (as well as themselves) according to their own, subjective, moral code. All of us do this. That does not make our moral code objective. It means we measure all action according to the subjective moral code we have framed. When someone has a different moral code, then we have a hierarchy of techniques we use to resolve the dilemma:

1. We attempt to convince them to change their moral code
2. We ignore the difference (if it is a minor issue that is not a constant irritant/problem
3. We isolate/separate
4. We content. In this last step, whichever moral agent haas the most power will successfully restrain/force/punish the other agent for their actions - but the moral code itself is unlikely to change

[carpedm9587]

Our understanding of objective morality is subjective. Objective morality does exist.

A basic of objective morality is truth.

A lie for example, as an evil, is contingent on there being truth.

Good and what it consists of must be identified. Evil is always contrary to the good. Evil, like the lie being contingent on truth, is contingent on there being good that can be deprived in some way.

Actually - I can think of several instances when a lie is the morally correct thing to do.

[Sparko]

I would say that that which is in the overall best interests of human society, the best rules of behavior, which result in the best overall living conditions for its members, whether their source be natural or supernatural are not writ it stone, so in either case we have to find and construct the moral framework bit by bit over time ourselves. And it isn't about agreement or subjective opinion. We may disagree about Capitalism vs socialism or any other ism, but that doesn't mean that one of the isms, regardless of opinion, isn't the best overall economic system for human society.

And again you are using a subjective value for "best interests/rules of behavior" and "best living conditions", etc. - in fact I bet you are imposing your own subjective ideas about what is "best" for society. You probably think that freely available abortions are good for society. I don't. Which is the "best interest" of society there? Your values or mine?

Your idea of "objective" is clearly not objective.

[carpedm9587]

I would say that that which is in the overall best interests of human society, the best rules of behavior, which result in the best overall living conditions for its members, whether their source be natural or supernatural are not writ it stone, so in either case we have to find and construct the moral framework bit by bit over time ourselves. And it isn't about agreement or subjective opinion. We may disagree about Capitalism vs socialism or any other ism, but that doesn't mean that one of the isms, regardless of opinion, isn't the best overall economic system for human society.

But if you cannot arrive at "what is best" - what purpose does it serve? And what is best in terms of what? Maximizing lifespan? Minimizing wage disparity? Maximizing happiness? Maximizing health? Sometimes, these are mutually exclusive things. You are speaking in terms of theory that does not seem to have a practical application.

[seer]

I agree - though I would say it is subjective with or without god. And you have not shown why "being subjective" is a problem. That is what I have tried to convey to Seer for a couple of months now...

I think there is a rational problem when two opposite behaviours for instance can both be right, depending on the culture. And the fact that there is no logical, deductive way to critique a moral cultural practice that you may find aberrant. Like the Holocaust. There are in the end, no right moral answers...

[Sparko]

But if you cannot arrive at "what is best" - what purpose does it serve? And what is best in terms of what? Maximizing lifespan? Minimizing wage disparity? Maximizing happiness? Maximizing health? Sometimes, these are mutually exclusive things. You are speaking in terms of theory that does not seem to have a practical application.

And yet your idea seems to be similar. You keep talking about happiness.

[element771]

I agree - though I would say it is subjective with or without god. And you have not shown why "being subjective" is a problem. That is what I have tried to convey to Seer for a couple of months now.

The reason that it isn't subjective is that God is the standard to which we compare our morality to.

I would have no issues saying that my own sense of morality is subjective given that it comes from my own consciousness. The key difference is that if I decided that I don't like one thing that I am compelled to do or not do, I simply cannot change my mind given the objectiveness of God's commands.

I think that is the key difference. I know that you will say that you have a similar yard stick in society's morals to compare your morals to. The reason that I don't agree with that being objective is that it is still subjective. Even a collective subjective opinion is still subjective.

I don't think that seer means that moral subjectivity is irrational in the sense that society will turn into chaos over night. I think what seer means is that you cannot rationally justify your own morals without an objective standard to compare it to. Without that objective standard, everyone just has an opinion.

There is no reason to base morals on what is good for society. There is no rational justification for that. I assume that your response will be that whatever leads society to prosper is morally correct. You still haven't rationally justified your view why society should prosper. This is just an assertion made by you with no objective reasoning behind it. If I said society should not prosper, you have no outside reference to point to in oder to say that I am wrong.

[Sparko]

The reason that it isn't subjective is that God is the standard to which we compare our morality to.

I would have no issues saying that my own sense of morality is subjective given that it comes from my own consciousness. The key difference is that if I decided that I don't like one thing that I am compelled to do or not do, I simply cannot change my mind given the objectiveness of God's commands.

I think that is the key difference. I know that you will say that you have a similar yard stick in society's morals to compare your morals to. The reason that I don't agree with that being objective is that it is still subjective. Even a collective subjective opinion is still subjective.

I don't think that seer means that moral subjectivity is irrational in the sense that society will turn into chaos over night. I think what seer means is that you cannot rationally justify your own morals without an objective standard to compare it to. Without that objective standard, everyone just has an opinion.

There is no reason to base morals on what is good for society. There is no rational justification for that. I assume that your response will be that whatever leads society to prosper is morally correct. You still haven't rationally justified your view why society should prosper. This is just an assertion made by you with no objective reasoning behind it. If I said society should not prosper, you have no outside reference to point to in oder to say that I am wrong.

A good example is homosexuality. Until recently, society considered homosexual behavior to be immoral. Today it is not considered immoral. Which one is the objective truth according to Carpe's criteria? They both can't be objectively true.

[JimL]

A good example is homosexuality. Until recently, society considered homosexual behavior to be immoral. Today it is not considered immoral. Which one is the objective truth according to Carpe's criteria? They both can't be objectively true.

If a behavior doesn't effect others in an adverse way, then it has nothing to do with morality. Again, in my opinion morality has nothing to do with personal opinion, homosexual behavior good vs homosexual behavior bad, it has to do with the effects of behavior on society as a whole.

[Sparko]

If a behavior doesn't effect others in an adverse way, then it has nothing to do with morality. Again, in my opinion morality has nothing to do with personal opinion, homosexual behavior good vs homosexual behavior bad, it has to do with the effects of behavior on society as a whole.

There you go with subjective opinions again.

[carpedm9587]

I think there is a rational problem when two opposite behaviours for instance can both be right, depending on the culture.

If one culture says "pot is illegal" and another says "pot it legal," no one seems to complain of a rational problem. But when we change the word to moral, suddenly we have a problem? Why? Both are about actions, what ought and ought not be done. So why is one irrational and the other rational?

And the fact that there is no logical, deductive way to critique a moral cultural practice that you may find aberrant. Like the Holocaust. There are in the end, no right moral answers...

First - you are again complaining that subjective/relative moral frameworks are not objective/universal - so you STILL are not actually saying anything other than affirming the definition of "subjective/relative."

Second, yes - there are possible logical/rational ways to critique another culture's (or person's) moral practices. If the culture values the same basic things (e.g., life, liberty, happiness, etc.), then it is possible to show now the moral code they have arrrived at is not consistent with the underlying values. Second, if they do NOT value the same things, it is logically possible to make a case for why these things can/should be valued by appealing to the benefits such valuing brings. There will be cases, however, where neither of those approaches works. You still have not explained why that is a problem. We have avenues for handling such moral disconnects.

[carpedm9587]

And yet your idea seems to be similar. You keep talking about happiness.

Happiness is only one of many things we value that drive our moral codes - and it is not necessarily the most important. And since my position is that the individual's moral code has primacy, I am not locked to a social "best" that cannot be determined or quantified.

[carpedm9587]

The reason that it isn't subjective is that God is the standard to which we compare our morality to.

First, to my knowledge, this god has never spoken directly to any of you, and you are attempting to align your moral framework to that documented in a book written by men over 2 millenia ago, in a language most of you don't speak, and for which you have no original copies. As a result, different individuals and different churches arrive at different interpretations, which differ from the other religions of the world, and leaves each person with a subjective interpretation of an objectively real text.

I would have no issues saying that my own sense of morality is subjective given that it comes from my own consciousness. The key difference is that if I decided that I don't like one thing that I am compelled to do or not do, I simply cannot change my mind given the objectiveness of God's commands.

And yet, that is exactly what we see. At one time, slavery was defended using "the word of god." Today, most people do not do that and do not believe that is what god intended. Some (I have discovered) still DO believe god endorses slavery under specific circumstances. For years, many saw homosexuality as evil, based on "god's word." now, an inctreasing number of churches and individuals no longer make that case, and point to other passages in "god's word" to make their case.

And this is not subjective? Your objective reality, Element, is as unfathomable and indeterminate as JimL's "best for society." It appears, from the outside, that any moral framework can be made to work on the basis of "god's word" if one is selective about the passages and interprets them to their satisfaction.

[QUOTE=element771;524877]I think that is the key difference. I know that you will say that you have a similar yard stick in society's morals to compare your morals to. The reason that I don't agree with that being objective is that it is still subjective. Even a collective subjective opinion is still subjective.

I don't think that seer means that moral subjectivity is irrational in the sense that society will turn into chaos over night. I think what seer means is that you cannot rationally justify your own morals without an objective standard to compare it to. Without that objective standard, everyone just has an opinion.

I understand what Seer means, and I fundamentally disagree with him. He is adding things to the concept of "rational" that are not part of the definition of the word. Rationality and objectivity are not necessary bedfellows. I can make a rational argument on the basis of subjective premises, and I do so all the time.

1) I do not like to eat pizza,
2) That restaurant only offers pizza
3) Ergo, I will not like to eat any food I can get at that restaurant.

Perfectly rational. Conforms to the rules of logic. One premise is subjective (1), one is objective (2), and the conclusion is valid if (and only if) I actually do not like pizza.

There is no reason to base morals on what is good for society. There is no rational justification for that.

Correct - morality is based on what the individual values, not what society values.

I assume that your response will be that whatever leads society to prosper is morally correct.

No - that is probably what JimL would say. It is not what I would say. I believe JimL's approach is fatally flawed.

You still haven't rationally justified your view why society should prosper. This is just an assertion made by you with no objective reasoning behind it. If I said society should not prosper, you have no outside reference to point to in oder to say that I am wrong.

I have no response, because I would not take this position.

[carpedm9587]

A good example is homosexuality. Until recently, society considered homosexual behavior to be immoral. Today it is not considered immoral. Which one is the objective truth according to Carpe's criteria? They both can't be objectively true.

There is no "objective moral truth" according to Carpe's criteria. That's the whole point. A subjective/relative framework cannot have an objective/universal outcome.