Normal

In retrospect, "impose" was a bad choice of words, but I hope you understand what I mean.

The problem is that you are presenting your case for this under the assumption that each moral system is dependant on an individual's consciousness. If someone has different values and considers "murder" under your system to be considered "right", what rational basis do you have to consider this "wrong"?

But you would need to demonstrate this to a system that has potentially conflicting values. Say, if a certain family values only their own land and expansion, and will kill and "murder" to expand their own land and fortune, how could you show that is inconsistant with their own moral system?


The intersubjective case is a powerful idea, but I still don't quite see the leap in logic from "It is wrong for me to kill" to "It is wrong for someone who is not me to kill". Intersubjectively, a group can value that "Killing is wrong", but the extent of that value would apply to only people within this intersubjective consciousness.

Normal

I'd just like to apologize to the starter of this topic. Clearly this is not going in the direction he intended.

Normal

If you do not think you have authority in your moral claims, then you should not consider someone who kills under circumstances that seem unjustified to you as "wrong".

Llyricist

I can consider anything I want
The only authority there IS, is the legal authority, you can make as many claims as you want to the contrary, but when it comes down to it, that's all there is. Your OWN personal sense of right and wrong were taught to you, or perhaps the evolutionary tendencies I mentioned before, but they don't come from God. They come from society.

Bill Snedden

I think I do. You are speaking of moral statements like, "You were wrong to steal that pack of gum." You are asking how one can make that statement without having an objective standard to which one can appeal; one that can be perceived by the person to whom one is making that statement. Is that right?

I consider wearing stripes and plaid together to be "wrong" and can create a rational argument, from an aesthetic standpoint, to support my position (although I would hope never to have to demonstrate such a self-evident truth! ), but that obviously doesn't make it "wrong" to wear stripes and plaid.

"Right" and "wrong" don't exist without a context. The only hope one has of demonstrating that what one considers murder is murder, is to show one's opponent that her justification for killing is not consistent with the value she claims it upholds or that it is insufficient or inadequate to support it.

Let me use your next question to demonstrate, albeit simplistically.

Why does this family value their own land and expansion? Could it be possible that they value it for no reason other than its existence? I would say that's unlikely. It's more likely that they want land and expansion to satisfy some other value or values they hold. Perhaps they crave power, but why? I would keep asking why until I came to bottom. IMO, "at bottom" is the same for all humans: life, happiness, human flourishing, call it what you will, but I believe that at base we all want pretty much the same thing.

We certainly don't agree on how to get there, but it is my belief that this base agreement of value can serve to found an ethical system.

In this particular instance, one would try to demonstrate to this family that their justification for killing they claim is actually inconsistent with and inadequate to support the values they actually hold. IOW, that killing to expand their land and fortune doesn't provide the best way for them to achieve the value of life that they actually hold. Doing so would be a bit more complicated that I think I want to take time to do here, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying.

The only hope such a project has of suceeding is if there were to be, in fact, a value shared by all humans. Luckily, there does indeed seem to be. At least, I've never met anyone yet that didn't appear to desire her own happiness...

Not everyone will agree how to achieve that goal, but that's not important. What is important is that at base, it makes it at least possible that rational discussion, investigation, and agreement can occur. I don't claim that it's easy, or that one could win every argument. But an attempt to ground ethics in human flourishing makes far more sense to me than any other system I've ever seen or experienced.

In fact, I consider religious ethics an attempt to do just this, and to further lend "force" to ethical judgements by endowing them with divine imperative or approval. IOW, many (perhaps most) things that are "wrong" in most religious ethical systems are things that most of us would consider intersubjectively wrong as well. Religious systems take the additional step of foregoing the nasty business of trying to get others to agree with us by creating an imperative to obey that can then be imposed on transgressors. Imposing an ethical system by the force of law, as it were, rather than the other way around!

One more thing. In these sorts of discussions, we tend to throw out words like "objective" and "subjective" without often stopping to ensure that we all understand what we mean when we use the term.

I understand "objective" to mean "existing independently of mind" and "subjective" to mean "having existence dependent on mind." That's one reason why I say that "objective morality" seems like a square circle to me. IMO, "intersubjectivity" is what most people really mean when they say "objective".

Regards,

Bill Snedden

P.S. I'd also like to apologize to Joe V. for hijacking his thread. And me, a moderator! For shame!

Joe V.

That's okay everyone. Only one theist attempted to reply anyways. At least the thread has been an interesting read.

- Joe

Normal

Exactly, it really parallels C.W. Lewis' argument that all fighting is over a moral issue at it's heart. Unless there was an underlying "objective" moral system, there would be no rational basis for either side to present their case.

Darn these material examples

The explaination for the stripes/plaid can be explained through the physical relationship that shapes have on each other. While you might think it's "wrong" to do so, the underlying physical nature of your case (contrasting shapes are distracting) allows you to have a rational basis for your argument. Without an objective moral system, there would be no basis for arguing that killing is wrong.

Exactly, and the context only exists within a subjective value system.

The base agreement is the pursuit of happiness, no argument there. I firmly believe all human behavior can be pinned down to "It is rational to act in accordance with your own happiness, and irrational to act in a way that would lead you to unhappiness". Of course the actual relationship is much more complex (once you bring in guilt, fear, doubt, love, etc.), and the path to happiness becomes very, very blurred. IMO, the family that acts in this manner (and I believe there would be a lot of such familys without the current justice system in place)

would not be convinced that an end to their "killing and plunging" would indeed result in further happiness.

I do get the gist of what you're saying, I'm just questioning the existence of such a value that is shared amoung all humans that tell them "killing goes against the pursuit of happiness". It seems to be contradicting the "intrinsic value" you consider incoherent.

This is the point I'm not so sure about. A value would have to shared beyond the basic "pursuit of happiness" for this to work, I believe.

This is another point I'm not sure about. Do we think the things we think are wrong because of religion (and a system of objective morality), or because of this "base value" you claim we have? The answer is probably forever lost to history.

I take "objective" to mean more along the lines of "independant of a system", and subjective to mean "dependant on a system". So when I say subjective morality, I mean a personal system, and when I say objective morality, I'm refering to morality independant of a particular person's system. I don't discount the possibility of true objective morality.

The way I interpret your intersubjective system, is that it is a group of people who agree on a basic subjective system, ie. the values shared through numerous subjective systems are the basis of a new intersubjective system. The way I preceive objective morality to function, is that it is independant of every intersubjective system, which gives one intersubjective system the "authority", if you will, to condemn people in a different intersubjective system. This obviously has many problems with it from a purely materialistic worldview.

Normal

Do you not see the trap you've fallen into? You consider other people committing murder as wrong, but all you have is your subjective value system. You are "imposing" your own moral system on another person, you could not do that unless you had a basis for doing so.

Llyricist

I Saw the trap you thought you were setting from your very first question. And the point that you are missing is, that my expressing my opinion of right and wrong in NO WAY "imposes" ANYTHING on anyone else, nor does it condemn them, or any other way you try to put it.

However, were I on a jury, and we came to some agreement about what the defendent did was wrong...THEN that agreement becomes what is imposed or what condemns the person.

If I were a Dictator, and I decided the laws, THEN I could be said to impose my own moral sense on others, BUT it would NOT make those morals any less subjective, regardless of how many people agreed they made sense.

Normal

As soon as you cast that vote (either for or against the defendant) you betray your belief that morality is developed subjectively.