The AntiChris

Jamie_L

I'm quite prepared to admit that this may well be a perception that I've mistakenly acquired from misinterpreting some of the exchanges on these forums (that's "fora", for the pedants here ).

I'm certainly not arguing for the existence of an objective morality (at least not as popularly defined by most subjectivists). However, moral objectivists (or, at least some) appear to define "objective" in a particularly nonstandard way (ie in a way which excludes independency of the human mind), with the intention, I think, of giving emphasis to the shared or basic elements of human morality.

My gripe is that much of the subjectivist/objectivist debate appears to concentrate on subjectivists debunking the use of the word "objective" and objectivists defending their use of it. Far more useful, to my mind, would be to debate the degree to which moral codes or instincts are genuinely universal.

I'd quibble over your use of the word "almost" here - I can't imagine a single culture which could survive if "Killing fellow humans without sufficient reason" were morally acceptable.

I do agree, though, that defining (or, more precisely, "agreeing") "sufficient reasons" is a problem. However, I can't help feeling that subjectivists would say that agreement is impossible, whereas the objectivists will insist the there is an objectively "true" answer but we may never know what it is.

Chris

The AntiChris

DRFseven

Agreed.

Ok, but I'd define "moral systems" as sets of desires, or goals, with associated strategies for achieving those goals.

No, the "moral systems" are different but I suspect the desires and goals at the basis of those systems are broadly similar.

I doubt that infanticide, child abuse and subjugation of women are basic goals or desires of any of these moral systems. More likely, these are the result of poor strategies based on insufficient, or incorrect knowledge skewed by superstition in pursuit of quite reasonable goals.

The conduct is merely a manifestation of the strategy. It does not necessarily follow that the underpinning desires and goals are significantly different.

I'm not sure of the point you're making here. This sounds more like adherence to local customs or rules of etiquette rather than morality.

You've lost me now. I thought the perceived lack of commonality was the justification for moral subjectivism?

I'm not arguing for the existence of an objective morality. All I'm suggesting is that, no matter how moral beliefs are formed, experience suggests that there is significantly more universality of moral belief than is typically admitted by moral subjectivists.

Chris

The AntiChris

Well, it's good to know that if I have got this badly wrong, I'm not alone!

Chris

tronvillain

Mochaloca:
It just seems unfair that a male should have parental responsibility forced upon him while a mother has a choice. Beyond the individual concerns, it might cut down on the incidence of single mothers and increase the number of children raised by two parents voluntarily. Of course, there might also be more abortions, but that doesn't bother me.

tronvillain

Mochaloca:
At its most basic, I would have to say that morality is judging acts to be right or wrong, and it is subjective because such judgements depend on one's own thoughts and emotions.

A certain action taken by someone else may be "wrong" while the same action taken by you may be "right." What is right in one situation may be "right" for one person in a given situation, but "wrong" for another person in the same situation. This is, of course, because people vary in their thoughts and emotions. On the whole, we have many thoughts and emotions in common, which often gives us many morals in common.

tronvillain

The Antichris:
I on the other hand sincerely doubt they doubt that they violate their own "moral codes" more than the norm. They simply have a moral code where stealing and cheating in a given situation is not wrong for them. Take me for example - I would be perfectly willing to steal or cheat without guilt in the correct situation.

The AntiChris

tronvillain

I still say it's a question of definition.

Assuming you agree with DRF-seven's statement that "we all sometimes violate our own moral codes", how many violations constitute a fundamental shift in one's "moral code"?

As would any rational person who didn't subscribe to the extremes of moral absolutism.

You appear not to draw any distinction between an act which may violate one's "moral code" and one which, though exceptional, can be rational ("moral" according to ones own personal code) in the "correct situation".

Chris

HelenM

I may be wrong, but I think what most people do is to redefine stealing and cheating so as to exclude what they are doing.

They see those words as referring to something wrong, and not referring to their own actions.

Like people who use work resources for personal use. And say "I deserve it" or "I don't get paid enough not to" or "everyone does it" or whatever. I doubt they'd say "Oh yeah, it's stealing but it's ok". I think they'd say it's not stealing. Even if the employer would say it is.

I know that some employers allow a certain amount of use of work resources for personal use so I'm not meaning to make a dogmatic assertion about where the line is crossed and it becomes morally wrong to do so...

love
Helen

DRFseven

Bingo! That is, in the case of lapses.

People redefine all the time. People also have completely different moral codes from other people. It's amazing to me how persistently some will deny this in the face of widely differing moral behavior the world over.

Mochaloca

DRF Seven: DRF Seven,

I know I said "agree to disagree," but I couldn't help but laugh when I saw this post! I had the exact same reaction after reading Helen's post, "Bingo!" But, of course, for very different reasons.

The thing is, I see a difference between saying, "redefining a moral concept" to saying "people have a different moral code". The moral code in this case is "stealing is wrong," so then the issue becomes "do my actions constitute stealing?"

In my view, "stealing is wrong" is objective in the abstract, but subjective in the application. Do you agree with this, or is this a case of being a "difference without a distinction"?

Tronvillan: Oh no! You used that word...."correct". I thought words like that didn't apply in subjective morality! (Just kidding!). I understand you to mean that the "ends can justify the means." I am not an extreme absolutist, and I do believe that there are exceptions to every rule. So, in some instances, stealing & cheating can be the "moral" thing to do.

Tronvillian: I'm still reading this as "whatever I want to do is morally right," which, basically takes any the word "morality" substantively meaningless.

ciao,

M.