Morality and Subjectivity

No. As I've explained to rr before, if morality were like mathematics then no-one could ever act immorally. But clearly people do act immorally, clearly people do reject God's moral law. Therefore, even if there is a God, his moral standards are not logically binding in the way rr expects them to be.(Maybe I should have written this reply to rr ).

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

In all these arguments you confuse the doing of mathematics and logic (which are subjective experiences of individuals), with the corresponding intellectual systems (objective knowledge). As members of a modern society we're taught as children how to apply this objective knowledge in particular situations, but I think you're mistaken in thinking that we have anything you could call a 'rational perception'. It doesn't come naturally, we have to be taught how to apply the rules.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

No. Pythagoras' Theorem is objectively true, but your thinking of, or applying the theorem is a subjective experience. Again: The theorem is objective, not your application of it.'Objective thought' is an oxymoron.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

I wish you'd stop replying to just part of a post, rr. Here's what the rest of that post said: If you want an adult discussion, you need to address this argument, not just repeat your own beliefs again.Now for your argument: Granted. Really. I found a statement here: Pythagoras' Theoremand here: Pythagorean Theorem and its many proofsand I could find a million other statements of the theorem in a million physical books. No. The fact that it corresponds to the reality of triangles makes it 'true'. What makes it 'objective' is the fact that it exists independently of the individual minds that apply it.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

One of the problems in your discussion threads about morality is that subjective and objective are being used in different ways by different posters.In philosophic terms, the terms subjective and objective are mutually exclusive. In a relation between you and the external world, you are the subject and the external world is the object.You are using the terms differently. You are talking entirely about subjective experience, i.e. when you use the term 'subjective' you mean opinions or beliefs based only on your own feelings, whereas by 'objective' you mean opinions or beliefs based on knowledge about the external world. In this sense 'subjective' and 'objective' aren't necesarily mutually exclusive because what you're doing is making a value judgement about the validity of an individual's opinions or beliefs.So the reason why so many people, including myself, are saying that your 'objective' opinions are 'subjective' is because we're using the terms in the philosophic sense where any opinion is subjective by definition (i.e. only a 'subject' can have an opinion). And the reason why we're using this definition is because you regularly conflate the two meanings of subjective, suggesting that all subjective experience in the first sense is also subjective in the second sense, i.e. if something is subjective then it is necessarily false.With all this in mind, let's look at some of these questions again:1. Do moral rules exist independently of my own moral sense?Yes. They are objective rules intended to apply to everyone in a society.2. Where did my knowledge about morality come from?You were taught it in just the same way that you were taught mathematics or logic.3. Are there any logical grounds for moral rules?There are no deductive grounds, but there are pragmatic and empirical grounds. Most of the judgements you make in your daily life are based on pragmatic or empirical grounds rather than logical grounds. Does that make them any less valid?4. You say that morality has pragmatic grounds. I presume that by this you mean that morality exists to keep society functioning effectively, by ensuring that people aren't constantly in fear of being killed or having their property stolen?Yes.5. But what if I prefer a dysfunctional society?A moral system only needs most people to follow the rules, not everyone. If you keep your opinions to yourself, it doesn't make any difference. If you do something to break the moral rules you'll be shunned or punished, depending on the importance of the rule.6. But what if society is wrong?Now we get to an interesting question. Some people would argue that society is never wrong, that it is your duty to follow the moral rules without question because there is no other ground for those rules than social authority. Others, including myself, would argue that there are general principles underlying moral rules that can be used to determine whether society is right or wrong about a particular rule.Any other questions, rr?This message has been edited by JavaMan, 04-18-2006 07:02 AM

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

I'm not sure whether to reply to pink-sasquatch or to you Faith, but as you asked the final, broadcast question...From an anthropological point of view, killing a human, adultery and stealing are usually forbidden, but there are often exceptions (which are culturally dependent), and there is the complication that each of these terms is dependent on the meaning of 'human', 'marriage' and 'property', which are also culturally dependent.The function of these moral rules, though, seems to be the same, regardless of the different forms the rules take. And that function is to ensure that individual members of the tribe or group don't have to spend all their time defending themselves and their property against other members of the group.Now this is all very well as a functional description of the role of morality in society, but it doesn't really help in providing a univeral rule for deciding whether a particular act is moral or immoral. To get that you need to turn to moral philosophy.The most successful non-religious principle developed so far seems to be utilitarianism. This philosophy is based on the simple observation that, universally, what people desire is their own happiness, and what they avoid is pain. To do evil to someone, therefore, is to reduce their happiness or to increase their pain; and to do good is to increase their happiness or reduce their pain.This principle is often combined with the Golden Rule ('Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'), which by itself doesn't actually indicate what kind of actions are good and what evil.The reason why I say that this principle is successful is that it has become the unwritten rule that legislators apply in this country and in the States when assessing new legislation. If you listen to debates in the Congress or Senate, or in our Parliament, you will find that legislators only rarely refer to religious morals when arguing a case; much more often you will find them arguing from some form of utilitarianism.So there you are. That's my contribution to this search for a univeral morality .

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

I'm sorry if that sounded insulting (although I meant it to ).Your threads are interesting, and you make some valid points, but trying to argue with you is immensely frustrating. If I've taken the trouble to put together what I feel is a compelling argument, the least you can do is think about my argument and put together a convincing refutation of it. If all you do is pick out a phrase here and there, then repeat your own argument, how are we advancing the discussion? We just go around in circles arguing the same points over and over again. This message has been edited by JavaMan, 04-18-2006 08:40 AM

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

That's a nice collection of insults you've got there, rr. But didn't PurpleDawn provide a contribution too, earlier in this thread?Personally, I think you're being too subjective .

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

I'm just being cautious. Having a rule against stealing, for example, assumes that individuals can own property. In a society where everything is held in common, what would 'stealing' mean? Similarly, the meaning of marriage can vary considerably between different cultures and there are some where rules against adultery are missing, or where the rules only apply to one sex.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

I'm not suggesting that this is how an individual perceives morality. Clearly it isn't. What I'm describing here is a proposed explanation for why we have moral rules at all. It's trying to answer the question, What purpose do moral rules play in society? This question is something you'll never answer if you only look at moral rules from the persepective of the individual.Asking this question makes us realise that all human societies have moral rules. The actual content of those moral rules may change between cultures, but all societies have them. Don't you think that's interesting? There's obviously something common in human nature, or in the way human's live together, that requires them. The problem with basing universal principles on 'discovering what humanity already considers to be moral and immoral' is that it assumes that humanity is always correct in determining what is moral and what is immoral. If that were the case you wouldn't see any conflict between the different moral worldviews of cultures - but clearly you do. Let me tell you a story to make this clear.In the 19th century, the British banned headhunters in the Torres Strait Islands from doing any more headhunting. From the British point-of-view (and ours too), there was no dilemma here; the practice of islanders raiding other islands for human heads was a barbaric activity that had to be stopped. For the headhunters, however, the actions of the raiding parties were a moral duty that had to be performed as part of certain rituals. For example, when a chief died his wife was obliged to stay with the body and mourn over it until a raiding party successfully brought back a head from a raid. When the ban on headhunting was imposed, the islanders could no longer fulfil this part of the ritual and therefore felt that they were failing in their moral duty. They believed that the ban on headhunting was causing a moral decline in their society.Moral philosophy tries to find universal principles by discovering what it is that makes a good action good, and an evil action evil. If you can determine this, then, so the reasoning goes, you can work out whether any particular action of an individual is good or bad, and, by extension, whether any particular rule that society plans to impose will be good or bad.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible