Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality and Subjectivity
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 23 (303620)
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 23 (303657)
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Discreet Label, posted 04-12-2006 9:57 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 7 by purpledawn, posted 04-12-2006 10:05 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 8 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-13-2006 5:27 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 9 by Larni, posted 04-13-2006 6:29 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 23 (303799)
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


Message 11 of 23 (303810)
04-13-2006 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by DominionSeraph
04-13-2006 5:27 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-13-2006 5:27 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 23 (303812)
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 23 (303830)
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 23 (303832)
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 23 (303853)
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 not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024