meritocrat

Most would state that morality is to a large degree subjective. Nonetheless, does this mean traditional moral 'absolutes' are invalid?

For example, many would say it's wrong to steal, murder, etc. Since morality is subjective is it acceptable for a person to state that it's RIGHT to steal or kill?

dk

To have a meaningful discussion on subjective morality it needs to be defined objectively.

meritocrat

But there arre objective morals.

Isn't rape considered immoral by most? Or slavery?

When is it acceptable to believe either of those actions are 'ethical' from a subjective viewpoint?

Lobstrosity

I try to take an objective view of morality because otherwise it's meaningless. Sure, if your notion is that morality is wholly subjective then anyone can assert than any act is moral and you don't get anywhere. The word loses all meaning. Morality--or ethics, I don't really care what you call it--governs interactions between humans. More generaly, your morals govern how you interact with your society and vice versa. As such, I think it makes the most sense for morality to be defined as a function of your society. I see it as the written and unwritten rules of conduct that you adhere to in order to be a productive member of that society. Written rules are the laws enacted by that society and would include things like "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal" (although probably with less Bibly and more lawyery language). Unwritten rules would be things like "don't lie." If you are caught violating the written rules, society physically punishes you. If you are caught violating the unwritten ones often enough society ostracizes you (i.e. you don't have friends, people shun you...essentially you can become isolated from the members of that society). Basically, morals are there to allow society to function. You place tremendous trust in other members of your society by simply letting them get so close and personal. Morals are a way to ensure that your trust is not misplaced...an informal agreement of what sort of behaviors you expect from your fellow members of society. Rape, for example, will always violate this trust--what woman would want to live so close to males who could rape her at any time? What man would want to bring his wife into such a danger zone? Sure, people can violate this agreement, but those are the people you and the rest of socieity will view as immoral. These are the kind of people you will lose trust in and avoid (or, depending on the rule violated, these are the people who will be forcefully removed from society). The desire to remain both a part of society and in the good graces of society is often enough to motivate someone to adhere to society's morals. As far as what those morals are specifically...well that's a whole other topic I think. Basically, all secular moral philosophies I think wrestle with explaining morality on the societal level. I have my own personal moral philosophy that's sort of a combination of several standard philosophies, but it's a bit long and probably outside the scope of this thread.

Alonzo Fyfe

First, the wrongness of "murder" and "stealing" is there by definition. Murder is wrongful killing; stealing is the wrongful taking of property.

Of course wrongful killings are wrong. That's no surprise. The real question is: Which killings count as wrongful and which do not?


Second, there is no logical leap that gets one from "Many people believe X is true," to "Therefore, X is true." If one wants to prove an objective ethics, one needs to do far more than show some universal agreement on some principle or another.


Now, I do believe in an objective morality. To say that morality is subjective is to say that much of our traditional talk about right and wrong refers to something that does not exist. We should quit using those terms, and we should quit basing real-world decisions on the myth of traditional right and wrong.

(Which itself is not an argument -- just an observation. The subjectivist is perfectly free to shrug her shoulders at this and say, "Yeah. And?")

Lobstrosity

First off, defining morality as a simple social contract does objectify morality out to the societal level. Every member of that society has an objective view of what morality means. The notion is still subjective with respect to societies in general, however, because each society might have its own unique social contract (in fact this is what you actually find in the real world). I do belive that it is possible to fully objectify morality, however, such that it applies universally to all humans and thus does not fall victim to the requirement that a certain number of people believe it is true.

I think to fully objectify morality you need to (a) look at the specific function morality serves (I have argued that this function is to provide a social contract that ensures protection to the individual and in return requires he sacrifice his right to harm others, amongst other things) and then (b) look at how to logically maximize that function. This is where debates over utilitarianism, contract egoism, and Kant's absolute moral rules come into play. I do believe that such a maximum exists in this function (i.e. that there is a way to objectively define morality). Furthermore, this belief is based on logic and is independent of how many people believe it is sound. Of course, this is a complicated function so the real difficulty comes in determining precisely where the true maximum lies!

Alonzo Fyfe

I don't think that this answers the question of subjectivity, it simply moves it to a new location. Because now the question is: Is the "function" of morality objective or subjective?

Lobstrosity

Ideally it's objective. That's the whole point. Otherwise how does anyone come up with an objective system of morality? On what, then, do you base your ideas of objective morality?

At the very least it's possible to objectively search for the function morality serves. Morality isn't around because it's a fun, cool, hip thing to do. It actually has a purpose. For example, it's pretty obvious that societies could not exist if humans had no "morals." So take that negative defition, invert it, refine it, and objectively/scientifically seek to eke out exactly what is needed to allow for the viability of societies. Specifically what behaviors at the level of the individual combine en mass to allow for a functioning, stable society. Then seek to optimize those behaviors in such a way as to minimize cost to the inidividual while maximizing reward to the individual. It's a complex problem and as such different people will come up with different solutions, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the process is an attempt at objectivity. The problem itself can be viewed in an objective light...I think that's the most important thing. Morality can be postulated objectively. Whether that's done in practice is a whole other matter.

Valmorian

Belief by majority doesn't make something objectively true. It was once believed that the sun went around the earth. Does that make it objectively true?

Valmorian

Through consent and coercion.

Moral codes are subjective. Where you GET those moral codes depends largely upon your upbringing, although natural selection may play a role for particular moral preferences.