long winded fool

Tom Sawyer, would say that things like mathematics and the rules of logic exist independently of human perception? Aren't these things really just descriptions of an objective reality, and aren't they going to be the same for any being capable of abstract thought?

If you apply logic, you can discern the best course of action for a given situation. If you ask yourself what the goal of an act is, there is a logical formula for systematically eliminating those things which will not achieve this goal and then the things which will achieve the goal too slowly and so on. Eventually you come to a course of action which acheives the goal in the desired time frame without undermining another goal. Immoral actions are actions which either do not achieve the desired goal, or achieve one specific outcome which conflicts with another desired outcome. If I desire to live in a free society, it is immoral to engage in any action which undermines the foundation of said society. If I do not desire to live in free society, then it is immoral not to remove myself from free society. Any action that doesn't achieve one's desires is immoral.

Now, this can be a pretty impractical way of judging morality, since I don't know anyone who is aware of every single one of their own desires at a given time, much less anyone else's. One could easily say, "I desire to murder my brother." The best way to judge an action as immoral is to say: "If you desire this, then it is illigocal to do this." You can replace "illogical" with "immoral" in a situation where the illogical action results in harm to something or someone you care about. If someone claims that they desire something so their action must be moral, you can simply follow their logic back and if it becomes clear that their action has precluded another desire from being fulfilled, you can conclude that they are mistaken in their logic/morality.

It may seem easy to refute this logic. For instance. "I am hungry. Therefore it is logical for me to eat this candy bar." Of course if the candy bar is in a store and I desire not to be caught shoplifting, I logically ought to be sneaky when I eat it. Of course, if I desire to live in a society of free capitalism, it is logical to obey the laws which provide free capitalism and if stealing undermines them, it is logical to purchase the candy bar or go hungry. Of course, if I am on the verge of starving to death and there is no time to purchase the candy bar, then I ought to simply eat it, since I cannot live in a free society if I am not alive. Then, if I still enjoy free capitalism, I ought to ensure that I set no precedent to anyone else that the laws can be arbitrarily ignored, and I ought to pay for the candy bar as soon as I get the money.

In this way of critical analysis and eliminating the immoral/illogical courses of action, one can determine the best moral route. I agree that no one person has the monopoly on morality. I disagree that morality in itself is any more fluid or subjective than logic, mathematics, or physics. I don't know what the "absolute morality" would be, but I can objectively find out if another's actions are immoral, (logically conflicting.) If they disagree in the face of proof that their behavior is illogical/immoral without a logical defense, then they are wrong.

long winded fool

The absolute moral source I refer to is hard logic and nothing more. I believe that logic is absolute in the sense that it describes objective reality. I suppose that I was assuming that moral subjectivists are also against dogmatism. They seem to logically go hand in hand. To say that morality is subjective to the individual, and that it is unacceptable to kill Nathan's sister seems like a contradiction in terms. It's like saying, "Morality is subject to interpretation. My interpretation, not yours." If morality is what is acceptable, then anything unnacceptable must be immoral. If a thing you find immoral applies also to those who don't find it immoral, how is this subjective? If a majority agrees on a particular morality and enforces it, then morality is dogmatic and "absolute" in the sense that it applies to everyone because we have decided that it does. Not everyone thinks that they have all the answers, but everyone thinks they at least have some. "There are some things that are just wrong!" A moral subjectivist cannot logically say this with any conviction, because those wrong things might be right to someone else. I don't understand how a moral subjectivist can have an intellectual problem with any morality. Believing that morality is subjective to individual interpretation and then having a problem with any action seems dogmatic and hypocritical.

Again, I do not have a source for all the moral things that should be done. I have a source for immoral things that should not be done. Give me enough logical variables and I'll be able to determine if a thing is immoral. While I can suppose that some things are probably moral, this doesn't preclude the possibility that I have not examined the variables which make it immoral. Once I find a logical contradiction between action and goal, I can assume that the action is objectively immoral until I am given a variable which clears up the contradiction.

njhartsh

That's not morality, that's tactics. "If I want to go to K-Mart, I will take a left on Sixth Street." Come on--surely you can see how silly that is as a theory of morality.

So it's immoral for me to take a right on Sixth Street? Er, color me confused.

Besides the very strange discussion of tactics, you have entirely neglected to explain how, precisely, we are to come up with the goals in question. This seems to me a rather important issue.

You do entertain the theory that one might pursue goals that seem pretty troublesome:
The most important response to this (and the most important point I would like you to take away from my post) is, of course, "So what?" So what if my goal is illogical or somehow self-defeating? That fails to prove that it is absolutely morally wrong. Until you demonstrate a connection between a test you suggest and absolute morality, all you have done is tell us what characterizes (im)moral actions in your subjective opinion.

But for some reason you don't even apply the test you urge, above. Let's see: I desire to murder my brother. I read: "If you desire this, then it is illigocal to do this." Given my desire to murder my brother, is it illogical to murder my brother? No, in fact, it is the very essence of my desire. Perhaps negative external consequences will arise from pursuing my goal (quite possibly I'll be incarcerated), but nonetheless I stand a good chance of murdering him. In fact (and here's the real tactical clincher), I am incapable of reaching my goal if I do not pursue it--this follows from the definition of "murder." It appears that murdering my brother is supremely moral!

I'm afraid my subjective moral inclinations don't match up with the results of your test.

Why?

Ho ho--I can defy logic. Check this out: "This statement is a lie." (I think Spock killed a computer on Star Trek once with that bit.) So have I just done something horribly immoral? Oh, the humanity!

I hazard to guess that human beings do lots of illogical things every day. Undoubtedly many of these are on a par with turning right to get to K-Mart when turning left is much simpler and faster. You don't seriously believe that a mere wrong turn is immoral, do you? It does happen to fit the description you've provided perfectly.

Regardless, your statement above contains an unsubstantiated assertion: "'Hard logic' is an absolute moral source." Prove it.

Then show me the contradiction.

Compare: "Taste in food is subjective. Chocolate ice cream tastes terrible." Is that a contradiction? What relevant epistemological difference is there between taste in food and morality?

Because within subjectivism, all of these "acceptable"s and "unacceptable"s are indexed to and dependent upon the being(s) whose moral perspective(s) they come from--in this case, to and upon me. You have the (unbounded) epistemic right to believe that killing my sister is morally good or that chocolate ice cream is delicious. I disagree on both counts.

I think you, like most moral absolutists, are having a very difficult time conceptualizing the idea of (im)morality without presuming absolutism. The statement "If morality is what is acceptable, then anything unnacceptable must be immoral," while arguably true within a given subjective notion of right and wrong, trips plenty of "false premise" alarms when I read it from you. I hope it's clear to you that the phrase "be immoral" means something different within subjectivism (see previous paragraph) than it does within absolutism.

Because it's based on my subjective notion of what people ought and ought not to do. Undoubtedly those people have their own subjective notions (such as, perhaps, "The best way to judge an action as immoral is to say: 'If you desire this, then it is illigocal to do this'"). So what?

Majority? Who said anything about majorities? You, I or anyone else is capable of believing that the actions of a majority (or an oligarchy, or a monarchy--you name it) are wrong. Now you're talking politics, not morality.

Re "dogmatism," I should point out that a subjective human (which is to say, a human ) is perfectly capable of finding a given moral question indeterminate. For example, I think the bombing hypothetical suggested by "Tom Sawyer" above is at best very, very difficult. I certainly don't "have the answers," because at least in the abstract, I can't say whether I would consider that bombing acceptable or not. Forgive me, but that seems to me rather un-dogmatic.

Well, that's "absolute" taken in a very special and quite irrelevant sense. The fact that a given policy (say, the Fugitive Slave Act) facially applies to me hardly demonstrates that it constitutes absolute morality, much less that it's right.

Again, compare: "'There are some things that just taste horrible!' A taste subjectivist cannot logically say this with any conviction, because those horrible-tasting things might be delicious to someone else."

Pretty silly and irrelevant, huh? I suppose you're right that subjectivists do realize that things aren't "just wrong" but rather "wrong given the principles I hold," which strikes me as a far humbler stance--but otherwise I fail to see how the existence of moral disagreement somehow shows a fundamental flaw in subjective morality.

What do you mean by "intellectual"? I suppose you probably mean "epistemological," in which case you may have a point; but I fail to see the relevance of that. Recognizing the mere epistemic right of people to disagree with me is not exactly difficult.

You keep asserting this, but you haven't explained why. Where's the hypocrisy? You are perfectly welcome to believe that it's good to kill my sister. (I daresay a creative person like yourself could think of several goals that, in your tactical-analysis steamroller, killing my sister could theoretically serve.) I believe it is not good, and I will therefore act to stop you. Which one of us succeeds (or commands a majority, or whatever) has, in the abstract at least, little to nothing to do with the question of the nature of morality.

Yikes! Now that I've read this, the next time I make a wrong turn driving home I'm going to feel just awful.

Suffice it to say that my subjective moral principles do not match yours.

- Long-Winded Nathan

Dr. Retard

I'd just say there's no logical contradiction in desiring a goal, and yet not desiring the means to that goal. It's irrational, it's tragic, it's unpleasant, sure; but there's nothing illogical about it. In other words, there's no rule of logic against it.

I think Spock has hijacked the word.

excreationist

Dr. Retard:
I'd just say there's no logical contradiction in desiring a goal, and yet not desiring the means to that goal. It's irrational, it's tragic, it's unpleasant, sure;
I'd say it is laziness or fear or other stronger desires.... e.g. I'd like to have more money but I'm too lazy. (I actually value spare time and relaxation more than unnecessary money)

Dr. Retard

It can be. Everyone values leisure to some degree, and sometimes people trade off on other values so they can consume more leisure.

But some people are irrational. Have you ever experienced depression?

Tom Sawyer

lwf,

Logic is just as much of a human construct as morality is. Both have been developed by us as a way to describe the external world.

Laws of nature are external to us and logic was developed so that we could describe them. For instance, IF a stone is dropped THEN it will fall downwards. This is not a law of nature, it is a description of a law of nature that we have developed in order to help us understand it. It tells us nothing about what gravity is, it only serves as an aid for us to understand gravity.

Morality is similar, except that it serves as an aid for us to interact with other people instead of with the laws of nature. Interpersonal interactions are not as absolute as the laws of nature, so morality is not as absolute as logic. It is solely defined by the system within which it is based.

There are some societies (I think they're in Polynesia, I forget where exactly) where it's considered a normal part of growing up to have young boys sleep with older men, it's just a natural part of the boys' development into adulthood. They feel that there is nothing wrong with it. In our society, however, the man would be thrown in jail and be placed on a sexual offenders watch list for the rest of his life, since that is seen as such a despicably immoral and repugnant act by our society. If it is the norm for the entire other society to have men have sexual relations with young boys, is the entire society immoral? Is our society immoral because we punish what is considered to be perfectly normal elsewhere? Is neither immoral, but simply using different codes of conduct to base their behaviour on?

Although morality is subjective, it is not only determined by our individual choices, but by the choices of our society as a whole. If enough members of the society feel that the prevailing standard of morality is wrong, then that standard will be changed. It could be argued that racism used to be a good thing - by placing the needs of one's own tribe over the needs of other tribes and actively pursuing actions that led to the detriment of other tribes gave a biological advantage to one's own tribe that helped them to survive. It was a good thing to do. Now that society has advanced further, those actions are no longer necessary and pursuing those actions is fundamentally immoral. It's not that the entire primitive world was immoral, there were just different standards of action that people had to follow.

You could say that it is moral to steal a candy bar when you're hungry. The majority of society feels that it's immoral, however, and if you get caught doing it, you would have to justify to the judicial representatives of that society why it wasn't wrong. If you had a good argument, such as that you were dying of hunger and had no money, the judge might say you were justified in doing so but otherwise you're going against the will of the majority of society that has determined that people must pay for food so that it's worth the while of other people to make that food and your being slightly hungry and not wanting to pay isn't enough of a justification for breaking the rules of conduct for the society to satisfy your own individual wants and you will be punished as a result. Note that the decision is based on what the society has decided is good, not on some absolute standard that exists independently of us.

Saying that morality is subjective is not saying that anything goes. We are not just individuals, but individuals within a society and the standards of that society are what determines morality, not the standards of a particular individual within it.

excreationist

Yeah, it's part of my bipolar disorder. Maybe I sometimes get inappropriate emotional responses from my brain sometimes.... e.g. not enough pleasure signal transmitters - or too much...
It seems to involve my life experiences as well - so if I am optimistic (having an elevated mood) and start being more proactive then I achieve more and feel even happier. But if I'm being pessimistic and paranoid, I achieve less and feel worse.

Monkeybot

My (extremely short) answer would be that morals are guided by suffering; i.e. if I freely take action A, will I knowingly cause pain and suffering to another individual?

Of course, that's a really black and white statement, there are obviously all sorts of situations where other factors come into play (like, do you sacrifice 10 people for 10000 people, or whatever). But on a practical, day-to-day level, I find the principle of reducing suffering to be a useful one.

njhartsh

Uh-oh--now it's subjectivism vs. relativism. Not so fun.

It seems sufficiently clear to me that a subjectivist is entirely capable of answering "yes" to this question, at least to the extent that "the entire other society" does in fact take part in or affirmatively support pederasty. I believe that what you're describing here is relativism, which I find almost as befuddling as objectivism.

This is also an entirely possible subjectivist conclusion. I daresay a large number of people on this discussion forum would argue that certain policies and norms in "our" (I'm presuming you mean American) society are terribly immoral: e.g., drug laws, infant circumcision, bans on certain sexual practices, or the USA PATRIOT Act--or, from a different perspective, the separation of church and state, abortion rights and the right to engage in "indecent" speech. (Then, of course, there is the infamous North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which does indeed support pederasty in defiance of a widespread moral belief.) We are all capable of dissenting from the dominant norms in our societies--which, it seems to me, demonstrates that morality is fundamentally an individual phenomenon.

This is yet a third legitimately subjective conclusion, but I fear you think it is the only one.

My subjective (meta-)ethical position is that drawing ironclad cultural lines around morality--"No one can ever judge the actions of a member of another culture"--is untenable.

First, it makes the definition of "culture" absolutely crucial: how are we to tell whether a given actor is within our culture or not? Where does that line get drawn?

Second, I don't understand why even a very real cultural barrier necessarily matters morally. Am I allowed to say that Tim McVeigh's mass murder was wrong because he was part of my culture (was he?), but not Pol Pot's, because he wasn't? Was the Third Reich part of our culture? Stalin's Soviet Union? Al-Quaeda? To my mind, we are perfectly within our moral rights to denounce all of these murderers, and cultural barriers are (here at least) entirely irrelevant. (On the other hand, cultural barriers do raise the likelihood that there are some important facts that we don't understand, which often means that we ought to tread lightly; but it seems to me that a violation of basic human rights makes this very unimportant.)

I disagree. I'm skeptical that "the standards of [a] society" has much concrete meaning at all, and I'm fairly convinced that it has no meaning independent of the moral perspectives of the individuals who make up that society.

- Nathan