|
Author
|
Topic: Morality and Subjectivity
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 1 of 238 (303621)
04-12-2006 5:26 PM
|
|
|
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." Purple Dawn said this:
Maybe someday you'll expound on that thought and actually show that there is no logical ground for any moral rule. Here's my idea: When speaking of moral rules, we might say they are subjective in the sense that they have no logical grounds. In other words, no action can be proved to be either morally right or morally wrong. Somebody might say, we should treat others as we want to be treated. Why should we do that? There is no answer to "why" that does not beg the question. Any answer given is yet another ungrounded moral idea. We might say, "we should do so because in the long run it is good for everyone." So we have yet another rule: We should do that which in the long run is good for everyone. Why? No reason. All we can say in reply is,"We should do that which in the long run is good for everyone because it is the right thing to do." In other words, we beg the question. There might be some confusion over the meaning of the word "subjective"--which would be helpful to discuss. For all I know, I might be using it eccentrically. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-12-2006 04:28 PM
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 3 by purpledawn, posted 04-12-2006 7:23 PM | | robinrohan has replied | | | Message 6 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2006 10:03 PM | | robinrohan has not replied | | | Message 13 by Tusko, posted 04-13-2006 8:36 AM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 4 of 238 (303656)
04-12-2006 7:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by purpledawn
04-12-2006 7:23 PM
|
|
Re: Pick a Moral Rule
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? The Golden Rule--that's not a moral rule? Ok, let's go with murder. Thou shalt not murder. Why not? Why shouldn't I murder somebody if I profit by it and get away with it?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by purpledawn, posted 04-12-2006 7:23 PM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 10 of 238 (303798)
04-13-2006 8:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by purpledawn
04-12-2006 10:05 PM
|
|
Re: Pick a Moral Rule
Self preservation and continuation of the species are two good reasons a society would enact such a ruling. So the injunction "Thou shalt not murder" is based upon 2 other moral injunctions: Thou shalt not do that which endangers oneself (self-preservation). Why can't I do that which endangers myself if I choose? Thou shalt not do that which discontinues the species? My murdering someone would not discontinue the species. As far as it being against the laws of society, that's a legal not a moral matter. In real life, there may be practical reasons why I should not murder, but we are speaking of morality. In any case, suppose I could get away with it and thus suffer no consequences? That's the assumption here.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by purpledawn, posted 04-12-2006 10:05 PM | | purpledawn has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 14 by ramoss, posted 04-13-2006 8:56 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Killing for profit simply isn't profitable. So the injunction against murder is based upon this moral rule: Thou shalt not do that which isn't profitable. I don't see any reason why I shouldn't do that which isn't profitable if I want to. Wasting time by watching TV is not profitable, but many waste time in various ways such as this. Is this immoral?
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 12 of 238 (303813)
04-13-2006 8:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by Larni
04-13-2006 6:29 AM
|
|
Re: Pick a Moral Rule
Because you run the risk of getting some form of sanction being placed on you, either by an outside force or your perception of self conflicting with your actions. Thou shalt not do that which runs a risk of getting a sanction placed upon one. If no one knows I did it and I don't feel guilty about it, why not do it? There would be no sanction. And anyway, if the profit is great, and I get away with it, it might be worth the self-imposed sanction. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-13-2006 07:35 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by Larni, posted 04-13-2006 6:29 AM | | Larni has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 15 by Larni, posted 04-13-2006 9:00 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 16 of 238 (303829)
04-13-2006 9:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by ramoss
04-13-2006 8:56 AM
|
|
Re: Pick a Moral Rule
However, it is a matter of self interest. If you feel free to murder someone, then others feel free to murder you. So the rule is, thou shalt not do that which endangers oneself? Why should I not do that which endangers myself? People often do things which put them in danger but are not generally considered immoral.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by ramoss, posted 04-13-2006 8:56 AM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 17 of 238 (303833)
04-13-2006 9:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by Larni
04-13-2006 9:00 AM
|
|
Re: Pick a Moral Rule
If we live in a culture where doing bloody murder is a fact of life or in fact encouraged and admired you would be far more enclined to use murder as a problem solving behaviour. So murder is not really morally wrong. We just happen to live in a culture that for some reason has chosen to think that it's wrong. Obviously, morals are subjective.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by Larni, posted 04-13-2006 9:00 AM | | Larni has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 18 by Larni, posted 04-13-2006 9:59 AM | | robinrohan has not replied | | | Message 19 by Stile, posted 04-13-2006 10:01 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 20 of 238 (303852)
04-13-2006 10:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Stile
04-13-2006 10:01 AM
|
|
Re: Two Different Points
People are showing you that there are logical grounds for morals. However, yes, these morals are still subjective If the grounds are logical, in what sense are they subjective? Mathematics is logical and objective. My preference for one color over another is subjective--and not logical. Are you saying that morals falls into another category? Also, if it's "trivially obvious" that all morals are subjective, then what grounds do we have for disagreeing with others about what is right and what is wrong? I myself don't think we have any grounds at all, other than our feelings. Take a popular topic: Some say it was immoral for us to invade Iraq. Others say it was highly moral. How can either side be right? Or you could take any other topic that involves morals (abortion, for example).
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by Stile, posted 04-13-2006 10:01 AM | | Stile has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 21 by Stile, posted 04-13-2006 11:00 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 24 of 238 (303895)
04-13-2006 11:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by Stile
04-13-2006 11:00 AM
|
|
Re: Two Different Points
Why do you think something cannot be subjective, yet still have a logical reason to be that way?
I'll answer your excellent comment in detail later (I'm busy right now), but first I would like to know what your definition of "subjective" is. Mine is that it is a statement that has no logical ground.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by Stile, posted 04-13-2006 11:00 AM | | Stile has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 25 by Stile, posted 04-13-2006 11:58 AM | | robinrohan has replied | | | Message 26 by Faith, posted 04-13-2006 12:18 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 27 of 238 (303947)
04-13-2006 2:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by Stile
04-13-2006 11:00 AM
|
|
Re: Two Different Points
I'm going to answer your posts in stages, for clarity I hope.
Premise A: I value self-preservation. Premise B: There are people who murder. Premise C: There are people who do not murder. Premise D: Some of the people who do not murder will also value self-presevation. Premise E: It is harder to murder someone in a group of people than it is to murder a solitary person. Premise A + Premise E: My chances of surviving being murdered increase if I am in a group of people who want to stay together. Premise D + Premise E: 'Not being murdered' will be an attractive idea to others who value self-preservation. Conclusion (Premise A + Premise D + Premise E): If I morally accept that I will not murder others, this will attract other non-murderous people and therefore increase my chances of surviving being murdered. Hence: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we value self-preservation, then "Thou shall not murder" is a moral value we should uphold. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I find this logical. I also find this subjective. Subjective because if someone does not accept my premises, then they will not come to the same conclusion. I assume you also see this as subjective. Why do you not find it logical? The crucial premise that we are asked to accept are not certain facts such as "there are people who murder" or "there are people who do not murder." The crucial premise is yet another groundless moral rule, a more general rule: "The attempt at self-preservation is morally mandatory." If murder is immoral, and its reason is that murder puts self-presevation at risk, it follows that the attempt at self-preservation is also morally mandatory. Why? It is without grounds. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-13-2006 01:46 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by Stile, posted 04-13-2006 11:00 AM | | Stile has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by lfen, posted 04-13-2006 3:28 PM | | robinrohan has replied | | | Message 30 by Stile, posted 04-13-2006 3:37 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 28 of 238 (303961)
04-13-2006 3:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by Stile
04-13-2006 11:58 AM
|
|
definitions of subjective
Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision This doesn't help us any. All ideas, subjective or objective, "proceed from or take place" in a person's mind.
Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience. Well, yes. If I say, "I prefer the color red to the color blue," that's subjective in the sense that it has to do with me only. If I say, "I prefer not to murder," that's also subjective. But if I say, "One should not murder," then I've put the idea into an objective form and I better have an objective ground for it if it is going to be valid. Now what objective reasons could one come up with that would not involve yet another groundless moral claim? There are none. Suppose I proclaim, "The color blue is superior to the color red." Premise A: I have blue eyes. Premise B: many others have blue eyes Premise C: blue clothes accent blue eyes, making the wearer more attractive. Therefore, the color blue is superior to the color red. Is this a good argument? No, all I've done is smuggle in more groundless claims, such as that superiority in color consists of the ability to make wearers of clothes more attractive. This is comparable to all moral arguments. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-13-2006 02:19 PM This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-13-2006 02:20 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by Stile, posted 04-13-2006 11:58 AM | | Stile has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by Stile, posted 04-13-2006 4:01 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 31 of 238 (303980)
04-13-2006 3:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by Stile
04-13-2006 3:37 PM
|
|
Re: That's What Subjective Means
That's why it's subjective. Some of us will feel that self-preservation is important. Others will not. People are different. That's exactly what I was saying; it's an idea without ground and so need not be accepted. That's the definition of subjective.
You can either feel self-preservation is important to you, or you can feel that it is not important. Yes, but if you are going to accept the rule against murder, you have to accept the mandatory nature of the ground. Otherwise, the rule against murder is not binding. If you don't accept the ground, which is moral in nature, then there's no reason to accept the rule it's supposed to prove.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by Stile, posted 04-13-2006 3:37 PM | | Stile has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 35 by Stile, posted 04-13-2006 4:11 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 32 of 238 (303985)
04-13-2006 3:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by lfen
04-13-2006 3:28 PM
|
|
Re: Two Different Points
I know this isn't what you have termed objective but I don't think it's subjective either It has to be one or the other. Just because not murdering is a "societal value," that doesn't mean it's logical. You can say it's just something that has happened and it may well have developed differently, a natural phenomenon. In that sense, it's neither good nor bad any more than another aspect of nature. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-13-2006 02:58 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by lfen, posted 04-13-2006 3:28 PM | | lfen has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 42 by lfen, posted 04-13-2006 11:22 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 34 of 238 (303989)
04-13-2006 4:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by Stile
04-13-2006 4:01 PM
|
|
Re: definitions of subjective
You can see that the colours are obviously subjective. The problem is that you do not see murder in the same.. obvious subjectivity, I do. I see murder as "equally" subjective as colour preference.
I most certainly DO see murder as the same level as color. That's what I've been arguing this whole time. All moral rules are subjective, because they lack logical grounds. You were arguing that these moral rules were logical. I would go even further than that: that which is subjective is ultimately arbitrary.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by Stile, posted 04-13-2006 4:01 PM | | Stile has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 36 by Stile, posted 04-13-2006 4:14 PM | | robinrohan has replied | | | Message 38 by Stile, posted 04-13-2006 4:26 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 37 of 238 (303998)
04-13-2006 4:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by Stile
04-13-2006 4:14 PM
|
|
Re: definitions of subjective
You are free to say which part you do not feel is logical. If they were logical, they would be logically binding. Mathematics is logically binding.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 36 by Stile, posted 04-13-2006 4:14 PM | | Stile has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 39 by Stile, posted 04-13-2006 4:42 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2