meritocrat

Most think rape wrong due to the harm caused.

Do you believe it to be correct? If a person's subjective ethics tell them it is right to rape, how can that be justified?

Shadowy Man

I think it's important to make the distinction between "objective" and "absolute".

If something is absolutely true, then it is true independent of the existence of humanity and humanity's conventions.

If it is objectively true, it is true within humanity's conventions.

If it is subjectively true, it can only be said to be true within one person's conventions.

Alonzo Fyfe

This is true about our beliefs about morality. But further argument needs to be made if one wants to argue that our beliefs about morality and morality per se are identical.

Culture and upbringing also determine our beliefs about such things as the cause of disease, or the existence of Gods. The mere fact that different people raised in different cultures come up with different beliefs is not sufficient to establish subjectivity.

Alonzo Fyfe

This bumps up against a standard "burden of proof" problem. Is it the rapist's job to justify rape, or is it the job of others to prove that it is not justified?

Indeed, try to "justify" most of the things that you do? You will discover that the only "justification" that is possible is to say, "Nothing can be said against it."

Now, perhaps it is true that something can be said against rape (as, indeed, I think it is) -- but this is quite consistent with the point being made here, that it is not the doer's job to justify their actions, it is the job of others to raise sound objections against it.

Alonzo Fyfe

I agree that the distinction is important, but the distinction cannot be drawn on the basis of what is about humans.

I always use location in my examples. You cannot give me the location of anything in the universe except to describe where it is in relation to something else. There is no "absolute" locations, but there are "relative" locations. And, yet, all locations are "objective." There is a knowable fact of the matter as to whether my car keys are in my coat pocket. They are there, regardless of what anybody believes or what anybody wants -- the location of the keys is an objective, yet nonabsolute, fact of the matter.

Lobstrosity

Alonzo, along with criticizing/questioning the ideas of others, maybe you could also contribute your own ideas to the mix. Now I have no problem at all with the questioning, it just seems that you have your own notions but are for some reason reluctant to share.

You say: "Now, I do believe in an objective morality."

So how about describing this objective morality? Or at the very least, why don't you explain how one goes about formulating such objective morals? I gave my suggestion of where they could come from but you shot that down by simply saying that it was still subjective without giving any further justification. This leaves me wondering where your solution obtains them.

For the record, I still maintain that my suggestion can dodge subjectivism. I claim that morality serves a concrete function in humans, just like, say, the eye. Just as I can objectively examine the functioning of the human eye (and perhaps even suggest ways in which the eye might be better designed), I feel one can also objectively examine the functioning of human morality. Both have very real purposes in that both physically impact human lives. It is this physical impact that provides the needed grounds for objective analysis.

DRFseven

And yet "right" and "wrong" cannot be established except as human sensibilities. Certainly we feel that actions are right or wrong, but at the same time, we are capable of realizing that we are applying the value judgements we have learned through experience to apply.

Majestyk

I think we may have to first sift thru the semantics here. Subjective/objective would best be termed as individual/societal when discussing morality. But then, that would assume a particular definition of morality. Which in turn leads back to the original question of what is moral.

To classify what is or is not moral, there must first be a definition of moral. The definition itself must have some established concept to be referenced against. It is this conceptual reference that is most often in dispute when people discuss morality. Whether an individual's frame of reference includes a set of laws derived from mythology or some form of logical derivation, will influence their definition of the word moral which is to say, their concept of morality.

Objectively, the term 'moral' is without meaning. Being objective is to preclude the notion of good or bad and view only the factual aspects of a situation.

Subjectively, the term 'moral' is without meaning. Being subjective is to be concerned only with what is beneficial to the subject and precludes the consequences to any other entity.

Therefore I submit that in the discussion of morality the terms 'individual' and 'societal' be used.

The question of morality deriving from the individual or the society then becomes moot. A society is merely a collective of individuals and an individual is influenced by their society. To identify one as the wellspring of morality is to deny the existence of the other.

Morality is and has always been our attempt at defining and validating the altruistic, while minimizing and denying the selfish, aspects of our nature as human beings. That which is altruistic is generally viewed as moral and that which is selfish is viewed as immoral.

These characteristics are inherent. They are a result of our evolutionary journey as a species. Developing, at the genetic level, care and concern for our fellows is one of the reasons we flourished as a species. Opposable thumbs and ability for problem solving didn’t hurt.

Lobstrosity

We may have learned through experience how to apply them, but this doesn't negate that there might exist an objective way to quantify them as well. In the past people might have learned through experience that certain events preceded a big storm (you know, a certain "feel" in the air, an eerie stillness as the wildlife grows quiet, etc), but this doesn't mean that those events are subjective. Similarly, maybe we feel that actions are right or wrong because such feelings are instinctually ingrained in our genes. Should this prove true, would it not in itself be an objective measure of "morality" in that it's something common to all humans? Perhaps the only reason humans have such trouble following a uniformly defined moral code is because these instincts are incredibly weak and can quite easily be over-ridden by our consciousnesses.

Alonzo Fyfe

Try the following link:

Ethics Without God

It is far from complete at this point, but it will address your concern here.


But what makes a function good or bad? What is the function of a hit man? There may be a particular set of (objective) characteristics that defines a good hitman vs. a bad hitman, but this provides no answer to questions about whether hitmen themselves are good or bad.

There is also the problem of determining the merits of demerits from fulfilling one's function. An axe's function is to chop wood, but there is nothing inherently wrong with using it to prop open a door.

The function of the sexual organs is for procreation. But does this imply that there is something "wrong" with using them in ways that do not lead to reproduction? Or, is that really their function anyway. Perhaps the function itself -- as well as the merits or demerits of that function -- is subjective.