Jennie

I have a vague memory that Plato advocated something like this as the basis of his government of philosopher kings. So there's probably a lot of literature pro and con out there for those who wish to search.

Nowhere357

I have a slightly different view of this question.

When I see an innocent child in serious danger, I feel a compulsion to help. I figure that is the basic feeling of moral awareness.

If I'm right, then what possible difference does it make, whether we call the feeling "subjective" or "objective"?

jayh

Not at all. You have missed the historical development of government and a great deal of development from th time of Russeau and Locke.

The concept of government as social contract works on the theory that not all laws drectly benefit everyone, but by cooperating with the laws we all benefit in the overall. While the choice of red/amber/green for traffic signals is indeed completely subjective, we all understand the value of cooperating with that subjective standard even if we would have preferred another one.

Understanding the subjective nature of laws allows us to use democratic principles to change them over time to better suit new circumstances.

The evolution of the US and other democracies over the years has in many ways become less anarchic. Looking at historical accounts of the 18th and 19th, in large parts of the country many laws were simply ignored on a level that would be inconceivable now, but it was simply accepted as normal (in addition to the fact that there were far fewer laws affecting far fewer aspects of life).

j

jayh

Some additional thoughts.

As intensely social animals, humans tend to avoid anarchy. Even for entertainment we take on completely arbitrary sets of rules when we play games (a cultural universal, I believe.

This natural tendency to create rules for all kinds of activities indicates we are not anarchistic by nature.

When competing in games and sports we are actually measuring our performance *within the confines* of arbitrary rules and we take great pleasure in this. People who cheat are viewed as social outcasts.

Corporations, too, illustrate how willing we are to cooperate with rules for the mutual benefit of those in the group. Sometimes we may complain about our individual likes and dislikes, but the combined effectiveness of people cooperating with subjectively determined rules is sufficiently convincing to most that it is in their best interest to work with the group.

j

phil

Ethics deal with distinguishing good from evil. I do not see how moral relativism would work.

Think about it. A computer system works in the language of 0's and 1's. It distinguishes a zero as the voltage that represents 0 (set by the manufacturer, usually 0 volts), and 1's are distinguished as the voltage that represents 1 (also set by the manufacuterer).

Say we have a computer system that runs where 0 is 0 volts and 1 is 1 volt. If all the computer's components run by this standard then everything will be fine. However, if some components are more "tolerant" of the voltage levels, then they may read 0 instead of one, which would mess up the entire system.

No, the computer must be able to distinguish 0's from 1's to operate, just as we must distinguish good from evil in order for there to not be chaos.

How do you explain how a moral relativistic system would work? I do not see how it could.

-phil

Wiploc

How do you explain how a moral objective system would work? I do not see how it could.

Christians frequently make this claim that objective morality would work better than subjective morality. But then they never explain.

Tell us something good about objective morality so we can tell you something equally good about subjective morality. You are the one taking an affirmative position, so you get to go first.

crc

GPLindsey

Atheists have "situational ethics," or moral relativism if you will from the OP. However, Christians have the same thing in the form of "Contextual Morality." For example, I think that killing women and children prisoners of war would be unethical and evil. What does the Bible say? Check out Numbers, Chapter 31, and see what happened to the Medianites. "Oh, we must remember the context of the time and the threat that the Medianites posed etc. etc.", says the Christian. Same with the Bible's advocacy of slavery in many places--whether slavery is bad depends on the situation, ah, I mean context!

Christians apply the Bible's supposed objective moral standards subjectively and situationally all the time, and revise/reinterpret them as needed. If not, then why don't Christians advocate stoning people to death like they did in the Old Testament, for the various violations of the moral code? If God is eternal and unchanging, and it was righteous in his eyes to stone to death a child who was disobedient to his father and mother (that happened in the Old Testament too) then why not do it today, if you believe in objective morality? Did God change his mind?