shamon

You always NEED food even though you may not want it at the time.

Ginseng

Daemon, if you work from the assumption that there is no objective right or wrong, then do you think that murder is merely subjectively wrong? Are you seriously going to assert that the act of murder is not viewed as inherently wrong by human beings?

It is not just on my personal authority! Come on! If we cannot have a general consensus and agree that stoning people to death is unethical, then humans are in big trouble. It makes absolutely no difference that stoning does occur—rape occurs too. Is rape inherently unethical, Daemon??? Cultural relativism has been stretched to the point of snapping in two if things like rape and murder cannot be found objectively wrong.

Hello? Who do you think the US government is comprised of?? Aliens? Dogs? WE the people, perhaps? Stoning just may be instituted again in the US if our government (the citizens of the country), do not have the good sense to deem it wrong.

Why do you think it is wrong? Did you come to this conclusion after reading a report that told you it was wrong? Did your community lead you to that conclusion, or did you just KNOW it? What if I argue that slavery is perfectly acceptable? Would you argue with me? If you would, what would be the basis for your argument? If ethics are subjective, then you would have no reason to argue against slavery, or anything else for that matter.

The term “human rights” has to make an appearance somewhere in this issue. Do you, as a human being, have the right to be protected (by your government) against human rights violations? What if you were mugged? Is the person who mugged you wrong, or are they just practicing their own brand of subjective morality? Maybe the mugger thought it was perfectly fine to mug you… Does that make the mugging okay?

99Percent

Pardon me for jumping in a little late.

Bill Snedden: As Tronvillian implies, being "objective" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "agreement".

"Objective" is defined as "existing independently of mind". Most of us would probably agree that trees, rocks, insects, animals, and other components of the physical world would exist regardless of whether or not there were any humans to contemplate their existence. That is because most of us agree that reality is objective.

So, in order to demonstrate the existence of an objective value (or morality), one must be able to demonstrate a value or moral principle that exists independent of the mind.

I think the term "intersubjective" is unnecessary when dealing with morality. To say that objective morality is not possible because it cannot exist outside the human mind is an intellectual copout. Of course there can be no morality outside the human mind because morality necessarily involves the human mind. So to say that "objective morality" is an oxymoron is to not understand morality at all.

The existence of morality is framed inside the realm of human consciousness. So within this realm you can clearly state what is objective and what is subjective. The term intersubjective is unnecessary. The clearest example of this is truth and falseness. The distinction between truth and false can be objectively determined. Therefore lying and cheating are objectively wrong because they can be objectively determined. There is no need to use the term "intersubjective".

Valmorian

</strong>

The fact that there are humans that view murder as NOT inherently wrong kind of destroys your point. If something is OBJECTIVELY true, it would be true for all, there would be no denying it. Gravity is objectively true, because it affects you regardless of whether you believe it or not.

A person who does not believe murder is wrong will be completely ethically un-affected by committing murder. How could you then say that it is objectively wrong FOR EVERYONE?

</strong>

It's on a societal consensus authority. Ethics and Morals are a product of Empathy and Societal upbringing.

</strong>

Oh you could quite easily get a general consensus that stoning is unethical. That STILL wouldn't make it objective.

</strong>

Only if you twist the meaning of objective to include an agreed upon social contract, something it doesn't define.

Let's put it this way, if you have 100 people in a room, and 99 of them decide it's immoral to touch a red ball, does that make it immoral for the last person? Does he suddenly have the same ethics as the rest of them? Is he wrong &lt;b&gt;outside the context of the 100 person society&lt;/b&gt;?

</strong>

"Good Sense" implies a goal. If the goal is to increase the happiness and safety of people in the society while reducing pain for all those in it, then stoning people to death is unlikely to be re-instituted.

Societal ethics, however, are not always defined based upon this. Most people in North America would find it immoral to run around nude in front of other people. Does that make it so for everyone?

vixstile

Want exists,its an emotion, a desire,it exists in the same way that love or hate exists,it is innate. NEED on the other hand, doesn't exist in this way.


I would like you to show me how any of these definitions of need can possibly be innate.

need [need ] verb (past need·ed, past participle need·ed, present participle need·ing, 3rd person present singular needs)

1. transitive and intransitive verb require: used to indicate that something is required in order to have success or achieve something Do you need any money? He told me that I didn't need to know.

2. intransitive verb be unnecessary: used to indicate that a course of action is not desirable or not necessary (used in negative statements) You don't need to thank me; I'm happy to help whenever I can. Studying medicine need not mean you can't study architecture later.

3. transitive and intransitive verb deserve: to deserve a particular, usually punishing treatment (informal) That little boy needs to be given a good talking to. Those troops need to be shown who's boss.

4. intransitive verb to be essential: essential or necessary to something (archaic) "I think that we are all agreed in this matter, and therefore there needs no more words about it." John Bunyan Pilgrim's Progress (1678)

noun
requirement: something that is a requirement or is wanted an economic system that recognizes the need for financial security His needs are small.


[Old English n(o)d . Ultimately from an Indo-European word that is also the ancestor of German Not "need, misery."]

in need
1. not having enough of things essential for an adequate standard of living children in need

2. needing something

no need to or for no reason or justification for something
<a href="http://dictionary.msn.com/" target="_blank">http://dictionary.msn.com/</a>

99Percent

Valmorian: The fact that there are humans that view murder as NOT inherently wrong kind of destroys your point. If something is OBJECTIVELY true, it would be true for all, there would be no denying it. Gravity is objectively true, because it affects you regardless of whether you believe it or not.

You are missing the point of objective morality. Morarity is not an immediate cause and effect natural rule like gravity, but of the actions of which its consequences are not immediately naturally determined but objectively determined through human consciousness, because morality resides in the realm of human consciousness as it requires free will. Like my previous post, anyone can believe that lying is immoral or not, but everyone can see what lying is. Likewise anyone can subjectively believe that murder is not immoral but everyone knows what murder is when they see it. A murderer is not going to be able to keep up with his murdering rampage for long because it can be objectively seen by all that it is wrong as there is an objective reality of violence coming from the free will of a human being.

In short objective morality comes from the rational recognition of the objective existence of free will of others whose actions can and will affect you.

Ginseng

Gravity is objectively true, and murder is objectively wrong. AGAIN, it does not make a difference whether people murder or not. It does not even matter whether some people consider murder acceptable human behavior. It is still wrong, and there is no denying it.

It matters none whether the murderer would be “ethically un-affected.” Murder is still wrong.

Empathy? Interesting. So empathy is something you seem to think human beings posses. Why do you assume that empathy exists? Where are your studies? Where is your proof? Did you read about empathy somewhere, or did you EXPERIENCE empathy? Empathy is an internal experience, and it is universal. I can’t see empathy occurring within someone’s mind, but I know it is there (unless the person is mentally ill). Objective morality exists in the same way.

Firstly, that scenario would never happen. Secondly, I am not talking about red balls. Thirdly, it is not objectively wrong to touch a red ball, but it IS objectively wrong to murder. The red ball scenario is silly. I was discussing murder.

Good sense implies nothing beyond what I wrote. Since you seem to have a problem with the term, however, how about common sense? Is that better for you?

I am not discussing societal ethics—I am discussing objective morality.

Valmorian

</strong>

If murder is objectively wrong, you should have no problems demonstrating why this is so. Go for it.

</strong>

Sure it matters. Gravity is objectively true. People can't violate it. It applies to everyone regardless of what they believe.

Morality and Ethical codes only affect you if you believe them. If you don't belive that eating meat is immoral, it can't be immoral for you. Others can find it immoral, sure. That's why it's subjective.

</strong>

Why? If it's OBJECTIVELY wrong, you should be able to give some evidence demonstrating why it is. I've yet to see you supply any.

"Because society says so" does not make something objectively true, you realize... or do you?

</strong>

Of course empathy exists. Do you never feel sorry for someone else? Not EVERYONE has the same level of empathy, nor does everyone even FEEL empathy for the same things. It's a subjective quality that people have at differing levels. Dissassociative personality disorder is marked by a pronounced lack of empathy.

</strong>

Empathy is subjective. I've never stated it was objective. And no, it's not universal, it's naive to think it is.

</strong>

If morality is objective, it can't be a subjective quality in someone's mind, like empathy.


</strong>

That's why it's hypothetical.

</strong>

Then EXPLAIN WHY it is OBJECTIVELY wrong to murder!

</strong>

It's called an analogy, look it up.

Your claim previously was that if the majority of people believe something is wrong, this makes it objectively wrong. This hypothetical exercise is to demonstrate that just because a group of people believe something, it doesn't make it true.

Is that clear?

</strong>

Why does common sense dictate this? Explain. Details, not assertions!


</strong>

There is no such thing as objective morality. There is only subjective morality.

If you wish to claim there is objective morality, provide OBJECTIVE evidence of such.

daemon

As to your first question, yes, I think it is subjectively wrong to kill, though I would question the dismissive use of "merely." As to the second question, it appears vague--do you mean all human beings, or only some? I would say that some view murder as inherently wrong, while others do not.
Your assumption that subjectivism negates the possibility of societally held morality is incorrect. See the above discussion of intersubjective morals.
I find rape to be unethical. To talk about rape as having ethical value without referring to a holder of ethics, however, does not make sense.
Subjectivism does not generally recognize the viability of the term "objectively wrong" in the first place.
The US government is comprised of alleged representatives of the people. They usually act in the interest of the majority of the people in the US. Given that a majority of people could conceivably morally approve of stoning, I would say it is possible.
Initially, it was a value passed to me by my parents, but as time passed I saw many other good reasons to believe slavery to be wrong.
Certainly.
Certainly not "It's wrong coz I said so!"
Incorrect. Subjectivism does not entail a lack of ethics, it means subjective ethics. I'm not sure how you became confused here.
According to a major world organization, yes. I'm more than happy to agree with them.
Okay to me? No. Okay to the mugger? Yes. Thankfully, more people are in agreement with me that mugging is not okay than with him, so he will likely be punished, assuming he was caught.

Valmorian

</strong>

"Objectively determined through human consciousness"? What does this mean?

Objective morality would mean that a given act is OBJECTIVELY Right or Wrong. That is, no matter what a person or person's opinions about that act are, it is always right (or wrong).

If you need to have a group of people reach a consensus based upon their wants, then it is no longer objective, since wants and needs are subjective things, not objective.

In short, you need a goal to have ethics. That goal is not fixed, so how can ethics be fixed?

</strong>

Exactly. Lying is an objective act. "Lying is wrong" is a subjective morality call.

</strong>

We are not calling into question whether the act of murder is objective. It is the statement "Murder is wrong" that is being claimed as objective. I disagree. This is a subjective statement.

</strong>

I disagree. Is is SUBJECTIVELY determined through a group consensus that murder is wrong, and this is why laws are enforced.

What do you mean by "Murder is Wrong"? What is wrong about it? Be specific.

No, that is still subjective morality. It's simply a shared subjective morality by a group of people.

Oh, by the way, free will cannot be objectively determined either. How would you propose to test it?