NationStates

Vovodoco wrote:First of all, this thread needs a poll.

Second of all, I'm an individualist. I believe that the moral and intellectual maximum begins and ends with the individual.

Sounds like the antithesis of civilization.

As I grow older, morals seems to be a mixture of both objectivity and subjectivity. Subjectivity in that yes, as OP pointed out, they tend to be influenced by culture and even family and these can be very different according to place and familiarity. And objectivity due to some morals being universal, like do not murder.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:As I grow older, morals seems to be a mixture of both objectivity and subjectivity. Subjectivity in that yes, as OP pointed out, they tend to be influenced by culture and even family and these can be very different according to place and familiarity. And objectivity due to some morals being universal, like do not murder.

Wouldn't you say that the "objectivity" or the idea of murder being immoral simply subjective to the society you're born into? Some societies and groups, in certain circumstances condone and the promote use of violence and murder, and may even consider it moral. ISIS, as the most extreme example, believed murdering people whether it be belligerents actively combating them or innocent civilians to be justified and moral.

This thread has many big words.

Cute Puppies wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:As I grow older, morals seems to be a mixture of both objectivity and subjectivity. Subjectivity in that yes, as OP pointed out, they tend to be influenced by culture and even family and these can be very different according to place and familiarity. And objectivity due to some morals being universal, like do not murder.

Wouldn't you say that the "objectivity" or the idea of murder being immoral simply subjective to the society you're born into? Some societies and groups, in certain circumstances condone and the promote use of violence and murder, and may even consider it moral. ISIS, as the most extreme example, believed murdering people whether it be belligerents actively combating them or innocent civilians to be justified and moral.

You have to understand that groups like Daesh, as the example you provided, although formed from members of the Muslim world (in most instances), are fringe groups. Could we really measure the objectivity or subjectivity of morals in a particular society based on its fringe groups? I understand from where you're coming from, just FYI, but do think about this for a second.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:As I grow older, morals seems to be a mixture of both objectivity and subjectivity. Subjectivity in that yes, as OP pointed out, they tend to be influenced by culture and even family and these can be very different according to place and familiarity.

Morality is independent of culture. What is moral is to be rationally deduced, thus is universal to all rational beings.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:And objectivity due to some morals being universal, like do not murder.

What is your metaethical basis for such? Why is murder bad? Where do you distinguish between the subjective and the objective?

Novskya wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:As I grow older, morals seems to be a mixture of both objectivity and subjectivity. Subjectivity in that yes, as OP pointed out, they tend to be influenced by culture and even family and these can be very different according to place and familiarity.

Morality is independent of culture. What is moral is to be rationally deduced, thus is universal to all rational beings.

Then why is it only now that something like homosexuality is becoming more accepted in society and people believe less in the idea that homosexuality is immoral? I would argue that it's because of our changing culture, and the greater representation of homosexual people on media.

Cute Puppies wrote:

Novskya wrote:Morality is independent of culture. What is moral is to be rationally deduced, thus is universal to all rational beings.

Then why is it only now that something like homosexuality is becoming more accepted in society and people believe less in the idea that homosexuality is immoral? I would argue that it's because of our changing culture, and the greater representation of homosexual people on media.

Probably because indeed, we as a society change.

Cute Puppies wrote:

Novskya wrote:Morality is independent of culture. What is moral is to be rationally deduced, thus is universal to all rational beings.

Then why is it only now that something like homosexuality is becoming more accepted in society and people believe less in the idea that homosexuality is immoral? I would argue that it's because of our changing culture, and the greater representation of homosexual people on media.

Refer to this:

Novskya wrote:...many people are conflating what is truly moral vs what is percieved moral.

I would agree with your last part on the "changing culture" and "greater representation" that has made homosexuality become socially acceptable. While people did consider the act of being homosexual to be a sin (although it was more so with the "acting upon homosexual tendencies is a sin" rather than being homosexual if I remember correctly), the actuality of homosexuals being immoral has since been thrown out if we secularize our perception. Even though I believe in a God, I don't base my moral system on the heteronomous wills of divinity, instead utilizing a synthetic a priori conception of morality to determine right and wrong.

What you assume with that is the same mistake many other people make: what is percieved moral is what is moral (although the thread here seems to add upon that with "...and since perceptions of what is moral differs, thus morality is subjective.").

Novskya wrote:

Cute Puppies wrote:Then why is it only now that something like homosexuality is becoming more accepted in society and people believe less in the idea that homosexuality is immoral? I would argue that it's because of our changing culture, and the greater representation of homosexual people on media.

Refer to this:

Novskya wrote:...many people are conflating what is truly moral vs what is percieved moral.

I would agree with your last part on the "changing culture" and "greater representation" that has made homosexuality become socially acceptable. While people did consider the act of being homosexual to be a sin (although it was more so with the "acting upon homosexual tendencies is a sin" rather than being homosexual if I remember correctly), the actuality of homosexuals being immoral has since been thrown out if we secularize our perception. Even though I believe in a God, I don't base my moral system on the heteronomous wills of divinity, instead utilizing a synthetic a priori conception of morality to determine right and wrong.

What you assume with that is the same mistake many other people make: what is percieved moral is what is moral (although the thread here seems to add upon that with "...and since perceptions of what is moral differs, thus morality is subjective.").

I'm confused. I believe subjective morals to be a moral system formed by what people experience and witness around them - essentially what they perceive. So in a way, are non-moral relativism somewhat similar to subjective morality?

Cute Puppies wrote:I'm confused. I believe subjective morals to be a moral system formed by what people experience and witness around them - essentially what they perceive. So in a way, are non-moral relativism somewhat similar to subjective morality?

No. Moral systems can be a posteori, however I formulate it in the a priori (I have a dispatch on a priori and a posteori: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=nov ... /id=999469 ). Even then, what you're saying is wrong. You're formulating your own moral system from what you see of other's acts, yet you provide no axiology for such a thing. I blame this to be due to a misunderstanding of how morality formulates itself into our daily lives. Morality is a code. By proclaiming "Murder is morally wrong", I declare "I shall not murder for it is wrong." What many people miss, and what often leads to the misconception of moral subjectivism is that they never think as to why it's wrong. For me, murder is self-contradictory when applied to the maxim (although I gotta admit, i'm more willing to shift on this because i heavily lean towards virtue ethics. Hume is keeping me deontological though.) As this morality, to which is to be applied equally to all universally as a system of guidance, to formulate as to why it is true is to do so in the realm of reason. Since reason is inherently a priori, it is independent of experience.

It's important we properly define what these two things mean. When I say "subjective morality", I refer to the fact that what is moral is dependent on the being defining it. For example, murder is bad because I deem it so. (This is not to be confused with emotivism although the two are closely connected.) There is no inherent right or wrongness of actions, only from what I deem it so. Consequently, other's perceptions on the right and wrongness of actions are equally valid as well. Murder is bad for I deem it bad, but another might deem it as good. We are correct to ourselves and wrong to each other, although none are truth for subjective morality is non-cognitivist in nature (moral statements cannot be expressed as true/false statements as they do not reflect an aspect of the world. I shouldn't have to say this but ppl were dumb enough before to confuse this but don't get non-cognitivism confused with truth relativism.)

Non-relative, objective, universal, whatever you call it morality is very much the opposite. In defining this, I would wish to cast away the notion that objective morality is "everyone having the same morality". As I have stated before in a previous post, when I use the term "objective morality" and thus "non-relative morality", I mean that morality applies to all rational beings equally. If I murder someone then the murder is wrong, even though someone might see it as right. This moral system is, as I've stated before earlier, is derived from reason rather than experience. Since non-relative/objective morality is (generally) derived from reason alone, this contradicts the empirically founded subjective morality.

Maybe they’re back subjective, maybe they’re objective, God has yet to talk to me so I lean towards the latter.

Saying that I my view Western moalrity seems best to me. Biased? Sure is. Do I care? Hell no.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:As I grow older, morals seems to be a mixture of both objectivity and subjectivity. Subjectivity in that yes, as OP pointed out, they tend to be influenced by culture and even family and these can be very different according to place and familiarity. And objectivity due to some morals being universal, like do not murder.

I don't think it's really a mixture, so much as evolved instincts are going to compel most people towards a shared orientation on some issues. Obviously rampant killing of in-group members isn't a great evolutionary strategy, so it makes sense that nearly all of us would have a strong aversion to murder.

Morality is primarily subjective. Given the large disconnect between moral codes around the world and throughout history, I don't understand how you could see it as objective. Certainly, as dogmeat said, there are some things that we consider "moral" that are controlled through evolutionary selection, but for the most part humans are just fine murdering, enslaving, torturing, and enacting all other manner of atrocities both while still being moral in the eyes of themselves and their society or even executing these atrocities for the sake of enforcing morality on those affected.

Cute Puppies wrote:Personally, I believe that morals are subjective - based off of cultural influences, the people around us, our own experiences, and the society we're born into. That's what I believe that one person may consider homosexuality immoral while I find it neutral, or why I consider stealing candy from a baby totally acceptable while others may contend that that's morally wrong.

We all know certain things are wrong - genocide, for instance.

Are you honestly suggesting the Holocaust was not immoral?

Krasny-Volny wrote:

Cute Puppies wrote:Personally, I believe that morals are subjective - based off of cultural influences, the people around us, our own experiences, and the society we're born into. That's what I believe that one person may consider homosexuality immoral while I find it neutral, or why I consider stealing candy from a baby totally acceptable while others may contend that that's morally wrong.

We all know certain things are wrong - genocide, for instance.

Are you honestly suggesting the Holocaust was not immoral?

The monsters doing it didn't think so.

Neutraligon wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Morality is subjective, of course. That seems obvious to me, but I suppose I could see a religion-based case being made for objective morality.

I can really only think of one where it would be subjective. Any religion that has a god dictating it would still be subjective.

Ah, the Euthyphro dilemma! "Is a thing pious because the gods hold it dear, or do the gods hold it dear because it is pious?"

Yes, the original was about piety specifically rather than about morality in general. And if you skeptics bothered to read the dialogue past the little magic bullet, you'd find a line of questioning that bites to the heart of the very notion of organized religion. But you never do.

Thanks for making things easy for us religious folks!

Novskya wrote:Non-relative, objective, universal, whatever you call it morality is very much the opposite. In defining this, I would wish to cast away the notion that objective morality is "everyone having the same morality". As I have stated before in a previous post, when I use the term "objective morality" and thus "non-relative morality", I mean that morality applies to all rational beings equally. If I murder someone then the murder is wrong, even though someone might see it as right. This moral system is, as I've stated before earlier, is derived from reason rather than experience. Since non-relative/objective morality is (generally) derived from reason alone, this contradicts the empirically founded subjective morality.

Couldn't agree more.

Albrenia wrote:

Krasny-Volny wrote:
We all know certain things are wrong - genocide, for instance.

Are you honestly suggesting the Holocaust was not immoral?

The monsters doing it didn't think so.

Ah, but that does not make the Holocaust any less immoral.

If I fervently believed the earth was flat, that would not make it any less spherical.

Albrenia wrote:This thread has many big words.

I wouldn't be able to follow a single argument in this thread if I hadn't just got done with two semesters of philosophy classes.

The language and most of the arguments here is the kind of stuff I had to write term papers about.

Otherwise though it would read to me like a whole lot of jargon and gobbledygook.

Krasny-Volny wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
The monsters doing it didn't think so.

Ah, but that does not make the Holocaust any less immoral.

If I fervently believed the earth was flat, that would not make it any less spherical.

Because that's based upon physical reality.

Grind the universe into the finest powder, and all that.

Dogmeat wrote:

Krasny-Volny wrote:
Ah, but that does not make the Holocaust any less immoral.

If I fervently believed the earth was flat, that would not make it any less spherical.

Because that's based upon physical reality.

Grind the universe into the finest powder, and all that.

I'm a believer in the objective morality Novskya discusses in the post I quoted above.

Just because something isn't empirically measurable - like say, the physical shape of the planet - that does not make it any less of an objective fact.

Krasny-Volny wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
The monsters doing it didn't think so.

Ah, but that does not make the Holocaust any less immoral.

If I fervently believed the earth was flat, that would not make it any less spherical.

No, but as far as we can tell there is no source or example of 'morality'. The Earth is always an oblate spheroid and provably so, but can art be 'objectively' better than other art? Is one type of music 'better' than another, and provably so, if so what metrics are used? Which food objectively tastes the best, and so on.

Krasny-Volny wrote:

Dogmeat wrote:Because that's based upon physical reality.

Grind the universe into the finest powder, and all that.

I'm a believer in the objective morality Novskya discusses in the post I quoted above.

Just because something isn't empirically measurable - like say, the physical shape of the planet - that does not make it any less of an objective fact.

It does make it less of an "objective" fact. Objective things are demonstrable.

Theris Carencia wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:I can really only think of one where it would be subjective. Any religion that has a god dictating it would still be subjective.

Ah, the Euthyphro dilemma! "Is a thing pious because the gods hold it dear, or do the gods hold it dear because it is pious?"

Yes, the original was about piety specifically rather than about morality in general. And if you skeptics bothered to read the dialogue past the little magic bullet, you'd find a line of questioning that bites to the heart of the very notion of organized religion. But you never do.

Thanks for making things easy for us religious folks!

That seems rather smug.