Morality and Subjectivity

quote:

---

In another thread, now closed, I said this: "the fact that we have no logical ground for any moral rule is what tells us our rules are subjective."

---

Now pick one moral rule from our society and show me why it has no logical grounding.Rules evolve whether considered moral or otherwise. Morals are nothing more than proper behavior of a person within a society.Now maybe you consider morals to be concern for human welfare.I feel our society today uses the term both ways.

quote:

---

Somebody might say, we should treat others as we want to be treated.

​

Why should we do that?

---

I never thought of that as a moral law in our society. What makes that a moral law?

quote:

---

So we have yet another rule: We should do that which in the long run is good for everyone.

​

Why?

---

Again, not something I ever thought of as a moral law. Odds are the thought would be more along the lines of doing what is good for the majority.I guess I think of moral laws as don't murder, don't steal, don't tell falsehoods, etc.Where are you pulling your moral laws from?

quote:

---

The Golden Rule--that's not a moral rule?

---

IMO, it's more of a summation to help a person remember what they shouldn't do.

quote:

---

Thou shalt not murder.

​

Why not? Why shouldn't I murder somebody if I profit by it and get away with it?

---

General Definition of Murder: Killing another human for reasons other than self defense or accident.Logical grounding would be in why a civilization would enact such a rule. Self preservation and continuation of the species are two good reasons a society would enact such a ruling.Like I said before, if you live by yourself you do as you please in your place; but if you have a roommate then eventually rules get established.As for why you personally shouldn't murder. Because it is against the laws of our society and you will suffer the consequences.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

People are showing you that there are logical grounds for morals. However, yes, these morals are still subjective.

​

Being logical does not equate to being objective.

---

Thank you and good luck with RR.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

At this point I can't think of something that is both. As far as I can see at this point meaning is subjective. Useful as objective knowledge is it doesn't give meaning. But I'm tired and could easily be missing the obvious.

---

I don't think you are missing anything obvious.Objective: Death is the permanent ending to life.
Objective: Means of death (natural, accident, etc.)
Objective: The effect murder has on a family or community. (grief, fear, retaliation, etc.)
Subjective: Human feelings and thoughts concerning the act of murder.
Subjective: Decisions made concerning murder.
Objective: Actions taken concerning murder.IMO, a tribe or society decides whether murder is moral or immoral based on the objective knowledge and their subjective feelings.If the tribe or society decides that they will not tolerate murder, then it becomes unlawful and therefore wrong (unlawful or not in accordance with an established standard.) or immoral (not in conformity with accepted principles of behavior)I can't think of anything that is inherently both. Since the objective is reality and the subjective is mental, mankind employs both to decide on acceptable behavior. Decisions are mental.IMO, even in mathematics the equations are not objective. I can't step outside and see a mathematical equation. Those were devised in the minds of mankind.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

"Objective" means we didn't just make it up. We discovered it.

---

Good, how was the equation 2+2=4 discovered? Please provide a complete answer with some sort of substantiation besides your own mind or your own meanings.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Hey EZ,Maybe you can help me clear out the muck and see if what I'm saying makes sense by using normal definitions.Using my scenerio in Message 57, I feel the moral law of not murdering does have a "logical grounding" and is not an arbitrary whim.Murder itself is not an actual object but an action. The items I listed as objective can be seen by all viewers. Although I listed the human interaction as subjective, I do think it is possible for a group to deal with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (objective).Moral laws are not objective in the sense that one cannot visually see a moral law (it's not an object), just as one cannot see a mathematical equation (again not an object).So is it reasonable to conclude that a moral law such as "do not murder" was based on facts or conditions and not an arbitrary preference of a group?Aren't mathematical equations created by humans based on facts and conditions? I think you also mentioned assumptions.I just feel there are usually reasons why laws are put in place.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

In regards to basic mathematical truths, like 2 plus 2 make 4, we perceive logically that it must be so.

---

You're going to have to run me through the process of perceiving things logically.

quote:

---

Now,are you suggesting that we perceive some moral law in the same way?

​

That we have some sort of moral faculty like we have a mathematical faculty?

---

Nope didn't suggest that at all.I'm requesting that you provide an example of the process by which a person perceives things logically.Now please describe what a mathematical faculty is in detail please besides how one perceives things logically.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Stop bringing in morality for the moment.Give me an example of perceiving something logically or provide a link since it is well known. I don't understand the process.

quote:

---

In order for it to be objective, we would have to have a moral perception that is equivalent to a rational perception.

---

You need to explain what rational perception is. Just saying it doesn't tell me anything.Again what is a mathematical faculty?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

If that's the case then they aren't objective and your entire argument just went out the window.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I'm just wondering if you can recognize a rational pereption when you see it.

---

Good grief. I know all males are not fathers, but I also know that GW is a father.Could you please provide answers with some substance to Message 82 and Message 97.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Are Laws really moral? Is there really any connection between for example, speed limits and morality? Is it moral or immoral to exceed a speed limit in order to save a life?

---

What is the definition of moral?Per the dictionary morals are nothing more than proper behavior of a person within a society, but the way people tend to use it seems to mean to be concerned for human welfare.As for your question, as far as human welfare it would be moral, but by speeding the driver is a potential danger to other drivers which then conflicts with the human welfare issue.I don't think anyone would deem general speeding as immoral (probably because most people exceed the speed limit). So speeding seems to be an accepted behavior of society even though illegal. But how do we look at people who reach excessive speeds?Does legal equate to moral?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

So morals are what a person, group, or society considers to be right behavior whether legal or not.While an action such as abortion may be legal, it may also be considered immoral by a person, group or society.Since speeding is illegal and you'd probably still get a ticket (depending on the officer) but morally you are justified in speeding to save a life.Is morality only in relation to other humans or would it extend to the rest of creation so to speak?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz