echidna

In the year that I’ve been here, I’ve never really seen the objective / subjective debate as terribly important to morality, heresy I know, but …

I would argue that morality simply is not a fundamental concept to which terms like “subjective” and “objective” even need to be applied. Moral issues like murder, abortion, vegetarianism, etc etc, are actually complex issues appealing to far more fundamental values in our psyches. As such, the rightness and wrongness of each issue depends entirely on our prioritising these concepts, based on our knowledge and intelligence.

The fundamental concepts which we prioritise against are our human virtues, and also our human drives.

(Universal / Intersubjective ?) Virtues : integrity, compassion, altruism
Objective drives : need to survive, need for gratification of desires

I would suggest that whatever the issue on these boards, all correspondents would share these as common concepts. However clearly life presents us daily with situations where not all of these concepts can be satisfied, so as such our morality is simply a continuous and subjective prioritisation of these fundamental concepts.

To draw an extreme case, I would suspect that even Hitler would have espoused a belief in these as fundamental human concepts. Where he differed is how he had rationalised his persecuted races as being less than human, akin to animals.

To me, ALL moral questions come down to a prioritisation and presupposition of these key concepts.

Abortion put simplistically :
All players agree on compassion for human life.
Disagreement is only on whether the foetus constitutes human life, and its relative value against the value of the mother.

Vegetarianism put simplistically:
All players agree on compassion for conscious life.
Disagreement is on the prioritisation of that compassion against enjoyment of meat based on the relative consciousness of animals.

Middle East put simplistically :
All players agree that human life is precious.
Disagreement is the prioritisation of needing to protect those who they each value.

To me the central issue is the subjectivity, objectivity or intersubjectivity (I still prefer universality) of the fundamental human virtues and drives. So as such I’d suggest that subjectivity only exists from the subjective prioritisations of our universal virtues and drives.

tronvillain

echidna

1)What you are saying appears to be pretty much what subjective morality says.

2)Virtues (such as altruism) depend at least somewhat on drives (such as empathy).

Disagreement is only on whether the foetus constitutes human life, and its relative value against the value of the mother.

I prefer to agree that the foetus constitues human life but not agree on compassion for all human life to the same degree.

phaedrus

(Universal / Intersubjective ?) Virtues : integrity, compassion, altruism
Objective drives : need to survive, need for gratification of desires

Why do you classify the later as "objective" ?

Regarding universal virtues, which school of thought do you belong to - 1. Virtues have become universal due to the intersubjective process or 2. we just have common themes coz of some transcendental source or a natural law?

echidna

Subjective morality is based on objective and universal virtues and drives ? Sounds contradictory.

I agree, some of my so-called fundamentals are not watertight. I’d agree with empathy being a drive.

echidna

These drives seem to be strong evolutionary constructs (and gratification of desires seems to be largely definitional), so as such I’d brave to suggest they were objective.

Agnostic as ever. The jury’s still out to lunch, they’re trying to decide whether or not to convict when the Transcendental Source is using circumstantial evidence to justify their existence. Compassion as a derivative from the TOE ? Certainly a world worthy of wonder either way. I have trouble blindly accepting either option. I would prefer the latter.

phaedrus

echidna

These drives seem to be strong evolutionary constructs (and gratification of desires seems to be largely definitional), so as such I’d brave to suggest they were objective.

But one could easily classify them as subjective as well. For example, "need to survive" can be different things to different people, just like gratification of desires could be. Everyone has different desires and everyone has different levels of "need" ie, how much they are willing to do to achieve gratification. You could claim the objective nature by getting in evolution into the picture, but we are not exactly machines which run according to programs...there is that darned thing called "consciousness" which keeps popping up

Agnostic as ever. The jury’s still out to lunch, they’re trying to decide whether or not to convict when the Transcendental Source is using circumstantial evidence to justify their existence. Compassion as a derivative from the TOE ? Certainly a world worthy of wonder either way. I have trouble blindly accepting either option. I would prefer the latter

Interesting. If you "tend" to accept the later, ie a transcendental source or some sort of a natural law being the origins of our virtues, why are you even bringing "subjectivity" into the picture? Even if we can attribute the common themes to our genetic make-up and the differences to our cultural groudings, if the origins lie on a transcendental plane or are based on a ever-pervaise natural law, why punish?

JP

echidna

But again, I think the need itself is universal, maybe it’s diminished in some, paramount to others, but still a universal attribute. Subjective in its degree, but not in its existence.

I’m not sure that the existence of a transcendental source is actually very important at all. With all their strenuous efforts to maintain their anonymity, there seems little need to pay them much attention.

The reality of subjectivity is fairly straightforward. However I maintain that the existence of a thread of objectivity / universality (albeit transcendental or secular) is useful as a signpost towards moral behaviour, that the concept of a moral ideal actually exists, not necessarily that we must follow it “religiously” (because real situations are more complex), but simply that it exists.

I don’t think either a transcendental morality or subjective morality is utterly lassez-faire with respect to moral behaviour.

BTW, I only said I preferred the latter, not that I tended to accept it more than the former.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

phaedrus

But again, I think the need itself is universal, maybe it’s diminished in some, paramount to others, but still a universal attribute. Subjective in its degree, but not in its existence.

Umm..so these needs will exist independent of individual thought and perception? Isnt that what objective would suggest? Just like all human beings "need" oxygen or water to live?

The reality of subjectivity is fairly straightforward. However I maintain that the existence of a thread of objectivity / universality (albeit transcendental or secular) is useful as a signpost towards moral behaviour, that the concept of a moral ideal actually exists, not necessarily that we must follow it “religiously” (because real situations are more complex), but simply that it exists

How did these concepts of moral ideals originate? What is the source? Hasnt morality evolved just like we as human beings have evolved and learned to live in groups?

BTW, I only said I preferred the latter, not that I tended to accept it more than the former.

Umm so given a choice you wont tend to accept it but at the same time "prefer" it?

echidna

I guess so, it becomes a little tricky when one is talking about our subconscious instincts. In a sense they’re in the grey area between reflex and thought. For instance I think it’s fair to say that the survival instinct exists independent of our thought or perception. How would you describe it ?

So all the evidence would indicate, yes. That doesn’t stop me from feeling a sense of awe at it’s existence. Compassion, altruism, cappuccino machines and non-CFC hairsprays all as logical solutions to the TOE ? That’s quite some equation.

Is this contradictory ? What I mean is that I would prefer a world which ran under a benignly compassionate intelligence or direction (now there’s a contradiction I know !!!), however at the same time I see no evidence for such an entity, and therefore I do not accept it. That’s about as honest as I can make my beliefs, trying not to yield too much to wishful thinking.

phaedrus

I guess so, it becomes a little tricky when one is talking about our subconscious instincts. In a sense they’re in the grey area between reflex and thought. For instance I think it’s fair to say that the survival instinct exists independent of our thought or perception. How would you describe it ?

I am not really talking about the reflex part or instinct, that is something wired into us. If we feel threatened, we will do something to defuse the situation by whichever strategy we are comfortable with. I am talking about the "survival" part, for a richie rich and a lonely planet traveller surviving could mean entirely different things and this particular differentiation renders the subjectivity i was talking about to survival. Here the instinct part doesnt really apply since the richie rich can learn that survival could be very simple. So I would think survival instinct is very much dependent on our thoughts and perceptions since living could mean different things to different people.

So all the evidence would indicate, yes. That doesn’t stop me from feeling a sense of awe at it’s existence. Compassion, altruism, cappuccino machines and non-CFC hairsprays all as logical solutions to the TOE ? That’s quite some equation

Awe at existence or moral ideals? Its a world out there alright....

Is this contradictory ? What I mean is that I would prefer a world which ran under a benignly compassionate intelligence or direction (now there’s a contradiction I know !!!), however at the same time I see no evidence for such an entity, and therefore I do not accept it. That’s about as honest as I can make my beliefs, trying not to yield too much to wishful thinking.

Guess i know your line of thinking now . But the problem with moral ideals or distilling our knowledge into a "process or laws" which guides the society is that we might paint ourselves into a corner. These ideals which were compassionate in one place or time might be considered otherwise at another place or in future.