shamon

Objective FOR humans doesn’t imply “"existing independently of mind". “Objective FOR humans” means that it’s the same for ALL humans. Let’s just say 99%. If 99% of humans agree on some moral point then it must be objective FOR humans. Not for every creature that could possibly exist, just for all sane humans.

Bill Snedden

I'm sorry, but if you're going to insist on making up and using your own definitions for commonly used words, discussion won't get very far at all.

The use of "objective" to refer to moral systems has a long history in ethical theory. From what I have read, it has never had anything to do with agreement and always meant "existing independently of the mind".

The meaning of which you are apparently thinking is "intersubjective". It's not "jargon", but the proper term to describe an idea that is shared by humans.

I would agree with you that there are proper intersubjective values, and that their understanding can be propogated through reason to most, if not the great majority of people.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

tronvillain

What is being said is not that an objective morality will not be considered, but that agreement alone does not produce objective morality. Unless the morality has an objective justification, it will be a subjective morality that everyone agrees upon.

An example: If I could make everyone think that torturing animals for pleasure was moral, would that mean it was objectively moral? Well, if you want to define "objectively morality" as "that which everyone agrees upon" then it would.

Besides, if we accepted that definition it would appear that there are essentially no objective morals. Or that "objective morality" varies from time to time and place to place.

shamon

I see. So we could discuss the possibility of “intersubjective” morality?

My argument is that intersubjective morality doesn’t have to be propagated, it’s innate.

Besides the idea (as most of you probably know) of anything objective with regard to humans is impossible b/c of human experience, which changes the thing observed (Heisenberg). I was prefacing objective as being FOR humans b/c there isn’t anything objective in the true sense of the word. Subjectivity is all there is, just as feeling is all there is. My point was that if 99% agree on a subjective idea then it’s objective for their species.

I guess then I’ll start: Intersubjective morality is innate? Anyone disagree?

Bill Snedden

If, by that statement, you mean that the value or values upon which a moral system might be founded is something that arises from who or what we are, then you'll get no disagreement from me.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Rational Ag

I hate being wrong.

I'm relatively new to the forums, so I hadn't heard the difference between intersubjective and objective. It makes perfect sense, so thanks for the clarification. It's not like gravity doesn't exist of someone doesn't think it does.

I was mistakenly interchanging the concept of intersubjective (agreement of people) and objective (applies to all people - agreement or not).

So, I guess my question to Shamon would be: Which one of the two of those concepts are you saying applies to humans with regard to the killing of animals being immoral?

-Rational Ag

[Edited because of double signature]

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Rational Ag ]</p>

shamon

What percentage of the human population must agree for a moral idea to be intersubjectively true? I have to get the parameters/requirements, you know.

tronvillain

shamon:
That would seem to indicate there there are very few intersubjective morals. I'd say that humans are inclined towards certain moral systems, but it is a relatively wide range.

shamon

What are they inclined towards? The range of choices doesn’t matter b/c it’s infinite. What I’m after is innate intersubjective morality, not the 1% exception.

Rational Ag

I would tentatively agree to this pending which portions of morality you are talking about. Morality is a broad term that, in current times, tends to include people's preferences of right and wrong that are quite subjective.

There are portions of what I might call "morality" innate, which might include: respect for human life, love of children, emotional attachment to a mate, survival, etc.

But, I wouldn't agree that because one person or society considers it immoral for women to show their ankles, that an aversion to women's ankles is an innate immoral attribute.

I think that respect for life for all animals and beings (including humans) extends to others of their species, but does not extend to all life. I don't think lions have a moral issue with eating wildebeests.

-Rational Ag