Absolute Morality Vs. Subjective Morality

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Personally, I believe that everything in this world is debatable - there are no absolutes, no inherently good, and no inherently evil."

Just because we can debate something doesn't mean there isn't a correct stance on it. I mean, we could theoretically debate the color of my X-Box for hours. That doesn't mean it isn't black.

 

But morality is not a physical object that can be examined, it is a ever-changing mental label.

 

Abortion becomes immoral (unless done to protect the life/health of the mother) when the fetus' neocortex becomes functional, since then the fetus has the mental functions of a human.

 

I would tend to disagree, and that is the exact point I was making in my previous statement - morality, along with the concepts of "good" and "evil," is something that is assigned by individuals and groups. Those ideas are only titles that we use to help identify things we like and things we do not like - and thus they are always open to interpretation.

[Cycloneman]

Personally, I believe that everything in this world is debatable - there are no absolutes, no inherently good, and no inherently evil."

Just because we can debate something doesn't mean there isn't a correct stance on it. I mean, we could theoretically debate the color of my X-Box for hours. That doesn't mean it isn't black.

 

But morality is not a physical object that can be examined, it is a ever-changing mental label.

Which explains why we got rid of the ethic of reciprocity, of which one of the oldest uses was by Confucius, two thousand five hundred-ish years ago. Wait, no we didn't. That doesn't sound terribly "ever-changing" to me.

Abortion becomes immoral (unless done to protect the life/health of the mother) when the fetus' neocortex becomes functional, since then the fetus has the mental functions of a human.

 

I would tend to disagree, and that is the exact point I was making in my previous statement - morality, along with the concepts of "good" and "evil," is something that is assigned by individuals and groups. Those ideas are only titles that we use to help identify things we like and things we do not like - and thus they are always open to interpretation.

Why do you disagree?

[Walsingham]

I think that in general I would be happier accepting moral relativism were it not for the fact that doing so would essentially equate torture with making soup, and thereby greatly confuse my leisure time.

[Guest The Architect]

The perpetration of genital mutilation through generations is a perfect example of religion as an entrenched negative group dynamic. It does not respect the individual.

 

You can't write or perceive anything without perspective, of course perception matters, that doesn't mean you have to completely reduce the concept of good and evil to relatives, they are abstract constructs, but ones fundamentally based on the ideas of selfishness or selflessness, of how you yourself would wish to be treated by those around you.

 

Religious or ideological wars between two kinds of 'right' usually end up perpetrating countless more kinds of 'wrong'. You can't change generations of social strictures by force of arms, and you should know better than to try.

 

The answer to your hypothetical posit I guess is that you are both evil.

 

QFT.

[Pidesco]

How the hell do you quantify suffering?

Well, first you need to make a few judgments on the comparative values of freedom, pleasure, lack of pain, life and social inclusion. Then you estimate/observe the total amount of freedom, pleasure, lack of pain and social inclusion which were taken away by one system and compare it to how much was taken away by another. Bam. Quantified suffering.

 

The way you know that (early) labor unions were doing good when they helped workers gain better wages, working condition and shorter hours.

Unless you tell me objectively what are the comparative values of all those things, you've got nothing.

Alright then, here you go.

 

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Which explains why we got rid of the ethic of reciprocity, of which one of the oldest uses was by Confucius, two thousand five hundred-ish years ago. Wait, no we didn't. That doesn't sound terribly "ever-changing" to me.

 

For those people who continue to follow Confucius his word may still be the most important thing to them, but I do not live by his words. For example, I believe that the Bible is a hypocritical document centered in myth that promotes atrocities, but yet other humans might try to live their lives according to its words.

 

Why do you disagree?

 

Because I do not believe most abortions to be amoral - while the act of forcing the woman to bare a child she does not want is.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

However there are many cultures that share what is known as "universal taboos." These are behaviors that nearly all the various cultures share the same view as being bad or "evil."

 

But those acts are still not inherently evil, nor would they be if everyone on earth thought they were.

[Humodour]

I don't think selfishness is a good basis for evil at all.

 

I think a human rights definition is a far better one. Human rights are much more absolute; they are a dichotomy or having them or not having them.

 

I say any act which infringes on another's human rights moves down the gradient towards evil, whilst actively upholding another's human rights moves up the gradient towards good.

 

As an absolute in this sense, it is possible to judge entire cultures. Some may bawk at that idea, but I think it is somewhat necessary in such a globalised world; a gold standard for morality.

[thepixiesrock]

However there are many cultures that share what is known as "universal taboos." These are behaviors that nearly all the various cultures share the same view as being bad or "evil."

 

But those acts are still not inherently evil, nor would they be if everyone on earth thought they were.

 

If everyone on earth thought something was evil, that wold make it evil, relatively. Unless you are saying it's absolutely not evil.

 

I think labels of good and evil are a nessesity for society.

[Walsingham]

However there are many cultures that share what is known as "universal taboos." These are behaviors that nearly all the various cultures share the same view as being bad or "evil."

 

But those acts are still not inherently evil, nor would they be if everyone on earth thought they were.

 

I think you're becoming excessively philosophical. By which I mean debating beyond any useful purpose, even for the mental exercise.

 

I say this because you are basically arguing that all thought and perception is arbitrary. While that argument is tenable it's as much consequence as a crepe paper space helmet. What does it mean? Nothing? Because in itself and by its own rationale the statement is also worthless.

[Humodour]

However there are many cultures that share what is known as "universal taboos." These are behaviors that nearly all the various cultures share the same view as being bad or "evil."

 

But those acts are still not inherently evil, nor would they be if everyone on earth thought they were.

 

I think you're becoming excessively philosophical. By which I mean debating beyond any useful purpose, even for the mental exercise.

 

I say this because you are basically arguing that all thought and perception is arbitrary. While that argument is tenable it's as much consequence as a crepe paper space helmet. What does it mean? Nothing? Because in itself and by its own rationale the statement is also worthless.

 

I was thinking much the same thing. Glad someone else noticed it.

[thepixiesrock]

Spot on Wals. Spot on.

[Walsingham]

:0 After that unexpected coup, and assuming that human faculties deserve to be permitted an analysis, what else can we say about the subjectivity of good and evil? I certainly think that there's a massive divergence in cultures about what constitutes good.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Personally, I believe that everything in this world is debatable - there are no absolutes, no inherently good, and no inherently evil."

Just because we can debate something doesn't mean there isn't a correct stance on it. I mean, we could theoretically debate the color of my X-Box for hours. That doesn't mean it isn't black.

 

I've been trying since this thread started to say just that. Well put.

 

Except the XBOX isn't actually black in a literal sense, it's more an extremely dark grey.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

However there are many cultures that share what is known as "universal taboos." These are behaviors that nearly all the various cultures share the same view as being bad or "evil."

 

But those acts are still not inherently evil, nor would they be if everyone on earth thought they were.

 

I think you're becoming excessively philosophical. By which I mean debating beyond any useful purpose, even for the mental exercise.

 

I say this because you are basically arguing that all thought and perception is arbitrary. While that argument is tenable it's as much consequence as a crepe paper space helmet. What does it mean? Nothing? Because in itself and by its own rationale the statement is also worthless.

 

In which case all statements are infact worthless... Because it requires an authoritive persona to say what is right and what is wrong, hence something like religion.

 

We could all probably agree on many things which are good and evil, the problem really is that our agreement doesn't make it universal.

 

What I am trying to say here is that there is no blatent truth, only a perception of a personal or collective truth, so in brief there is no truth but what truth is given to a statement is on the part of the reciever.

 

So your arguement is flawed because you dismiss it as worthless and void of rationale, which is false, it is merely a statement of rational FACT. Without any moral faith, there is infact nothing. So one must play the subjectivity card, and all morality has to be down to the individual.

 

There cannot be definitive proof, because the only authority is that of ourselves.

 

Thus the choices we make about our subjective morality are universal and 100% true for the individual, and perhaps the collective, but never more... Even if every human that ever lived and will live had the exact same morality it wouldn't make it an omnipotent moral truth.

 

Nothing is inheriantly anything, it's merely the meaning we give it.

 

Wooo I'm a level 9 babykiller.

Edited March 22, 2008 by @\NightandtheShape/@

[Walsingham]

All statements are worthless in YOUR worldview. Because that is self-destructive it renders itself impossible. Hence in fact we can argue that human perception and reason is capable of establishing truth. Because if the inverse was true, coming from a human, it could not be true.

 

"All humans are incapable of being correct. I am a human. Therefore that stament is incorrect."

 

I'm not savagely against a frank discussion of what should and should not eb regarded as good or evil. In fact it is precisely because I AM in favour of that debate that I believe teh results of such a debate would be worthwhile.

 

As an aside, and referencing the xbox question, we can debate what to call the colour of the xbox, but its qualities in reflecting the electromagnetic spectrum are more or less a constant and fixed truth.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

However there are many cultures that share what is known as "universal taboos." These are behaviors that nearly all the various cultures share the same view as being bad or "evil."

 

But those acts are still not inherently evil, nor would they be if everyone on earth thought they were.

 

If everyone on earth thought something was evil, that wold make it evil, relatively. Unless you are saying it's absolutely not evil.

 

"Good" and "evil" are simply labels that are put on things we, either as an individual or a society, like and, respectively, disagree with - and thus something can never be proven to be absolutely moral or amoral. I might consider something immoral that the next generation accepts as a standard practise, while they, in turn, could abhor things that I support. You cannot make the claim that there are moral absolutes, even if they are universally applied, as the next generation might have a need to disregard the ancient taboos and adopt a forbidden practice - something that would disprove the absolute "evil" nature of the act. Maybe Walsingham is correct, and this entire discussion is pointless, but I do not agree.

[Cycloneman]

"Good" and "evil" are simply labels that are put on things we, either as an individual or a society, like and, respectively, disagree with - and thus something can never be proven to be absolutely moral or amoral.

Define moral, then.

For those people who continue to follow Confucius his word may still be the most important thing to them, but I do not live by his words. For example, I believe that the Bible is a hypocritical document centered in myth that promotes atrocities, but yet other humans might try to live their lives according to its words.

You missed the point. The point was that the ethic of reciprocity has been held within human conceptions of "good" for over two thousand years.

 

Because I do not believe most abortions to be amoral - while the act of forcing the woman to bare a child she does not want is.

What criteria do you use to define which abortions are amoral and are moral?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I say any act which infringes on another's human rights moves down the gradient towards evil, whilst actively upholding another's human rights moves up the gradient towards good.

 

But what about acts that infringe on some individual rights for the greater good -what exactly that might be is debatable-? Your system seems to lack a mechanism for dealing with situations like the aforementioned one, and thus has an inbuilt weakness.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Define moral, then.

 

I just did - moral and amoral are labels, nothing more and nothing less.

 

You missed the point. The point was that the ethic of reciprocity has been held within human conceptions of "good" for over two thousand years.

 

And I said that it matters not, for, even if the entire human race lauded something as "good," it would still not be an absolute "good" concept or act.

 

What criteria do you use to define which abortions are amoral and are moral?

 

My own, but in general I do not disagree with any elective abortions other than the extremely-late-term - but yet, even then, I would still not call late-term abortions amoral.

[Cycloneman]

Define moral, then.

 

I just did - moral and amoral are labels, nothing more and nothing less.

Plural and singular are labels, nothing more and nothing less.

 

They still have definitions.

You missed the point. The point was that the ethic of reciprocity has been held within human conceptions of "good" for over two thousand years.

 

And I said that it matters not, for, even if the entire human race lauded something as "good," it would still not be an absolute "good" concept or act.

Since you can't seem to define "good" it's unsurprising you'd have a hard time understanding consistent moral ideas.

What criteria do you use to define which abortions are amoral and are moral?

 

My own, but in general I do not disagree with any elective abortions other than the extremely-late-term - but yet, even then, I would still not call late-term abortions amoral.

What are your own criteria for defining which abortions are immoral and which are moral?

[Walsingham]

I would respectively suggest that discussing abortion would needlessly bog down the discussion. We shouldn't have to do more than briefly refer to specifics.

 

Again, I'm NOT saying the discussion is pointless. I'm saying it is very worthwhile. But it is only worthwhile provided you accept that the result of our discussion has some extrinsic worth. If we are capable of establishing something of extrinsic worth then I argue we can establish what constitutes good and evil. It's a tall order, but it's possible.

 

Speaking in these terms set me thinking back to an earlier discussino we had about chaos and order. I remembered that I argued that since all life is negatively entropic, we might regard entropy as the opposite of life. Therefore a universal definition of evil for any thinking (alive) being would be that which is entropic.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Plural and singular are labels, nothing more and nothing less.

 

But they are labels with set, absolute definitions, something that "good" nor "evil" has.

 

Since you can't seem to define "good" it's unsurprising you'd have a hard time understanding consistent moral ideas.

 

I cannot define "good," as "good" is an ever shifting idea. What is "good" for myself may not be "good" for you, and thus I could only give a personal definition -something that is useless when determining the inherent morality of an action.

 

What are your own criteria for defining which abortions are immoral and which are moral?

 

Why is this relevant? But, anyways, among other things, I use my own understanding of the rights of human females and the scientific evidence, or lack there of, of when conciseness begins, and weigh that against my own understanding of the rights of fetuses. Of course, every case is also unique - so what is right in one instance might not be held to be true in the next.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I would respectively suggest that discussing abortion would needlessly bog down the discussion. We shouldn't have to do more than briefly refer to specifics.

 

I agree with Walsingham, the topic should not discussed at length in this topic - although I would willingly do so in a different one.

[Cycloneman]

But they are labels with set, absolute definitions, something that "good" nor "evil" has.

Want to watch me debate you on whether or not plural and singular have absolute, set definitions? I can do that, it's easy.

 

What's the difference between a singular person and a plural person? I mean, after all, aren't all people made up of many atoms? Aren't those atoms plural? But for some reason the person that those atoms make up isn't. How can that be? Or, heck, a human is made up of multiple organs. How can he be singular? Doesn't a human become literally less of a person if he loses parts of his brain? Note there that "parts" is smaller than "brain" yet it's plural and brain is singular! This system doesn't make any sense!

I cannot define "good," as "good" is an ever shifting idea. What is "good" for myself may not be "good" for you, and thus I could only give a personal definition -something that is useless when determining the inherent morality of an action.

Here, I'll define good for you, then: the greatest positive influence for the greatest number. And evil: the greatest negative influence for the greatest number. Can you come up with a society where people thought that good was the greatest negative influence for the greatest number?

Why is this relevant? But, anyways, among other things, I use my own understanding of the rights of human females and the scientific evidence, or lack there of, of when conciseness begins, and weigh that against my own understanding of the rights of fetuses. Of course, every case is also unique - so what is right in one instance might not be held to be true in the next.

It's relevant because you've been avoiding answering it so that there can be some sort of debate on what determines if it's moral or not, but whatever. I can see you enjoy avoiding the question, so I won't push it further.

Speaking in these terms set me thinking back to an earlier discussino we had about chaos and order. I remembered that I argued that since all life is negatively entropic, we might regard entropy as the opposite of life. Therefore a universal definition of evil for any thinking (alive) being would be that which is entropic.

Actually, life, by it's very nature, accelerates entropy by breaking down complex chemicals.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Cycloneman