Morality and Subjectivity

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.

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.

If murder causes you to be sanctioned in the ways I have described then it is morally wrong because it goes against the 'rules' of behaviour. Those rules vary from group to group.I contend that what we call morals are a set of rules we have in our minds as to the correct way in which to behave. Breaking those rules will cause us to be seen as immoral.Morals are just ill defined rules when you get down to it.The murder in this case is wrong for victim but right (in whatever twisted way) for the murderer.Just as the soldier shooting the enemy is right (he killed another human being but he did not break the rules).Being moral is like being rule oriented.It sounds like you are trying to talk about good and evil acts. (If I've mis-read you I apologies)

What are you asking in this thread again? I think there are two streams of thought going on, and they are getting confused together. 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.If we value self-preservation, then "Thou shall not murder" is a moral value we should uphold...this is perfectly logical (if x, then y). It just also happens to be subjective. Sort of. Murder is really morally wrong, because we live in a subjective culture that values self-preservation. But you are correct that it is not objectively wrong. I think most everyone in this thread thinks this is true. I certainly agree with this statement. Just looking at different cultures around the world makes this almost trivially obvious.

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).

Yes, it is. No, I do not think you can generalize this. It may be subjective, and not logical. Or it may be subjective and logical. It certainly is subjective, but it's also certainly possible to have a logical reason for it being so.Why do you think something cannot be subjective, yet still have a logical reason to be that way?I'll expand on the previous example I already stole from earlier in this thread.

quote:

---

If we value self-preservation, then "Thou shall not murder" is a moral value we should uphold.

---

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 grounds we have are those subjective feelings. The good thing is that the grounds agaist us are only equally subjective feelings.Our weapon is that logical analysis of the pros and cons of the results of certain actions can increase our knowledge. An increase of knowledge has the ability to change our feelings. Therefore it is possible to persuade others into thinking certain subjective morals are better than others. I think you mean "right" in an objective sense here. And, as I've stated, I think morals are subjective. Therefore, niether of the sides will be "right" in the objective sense. But one thing will (sorry, 'has') been done. Someone has used their subjective feelings and logical analysis to persuade others into putting them into a place of power which could enable these actions. The same person has used their logial analysis to persuade enough people that the action is morally right enough to perform the action.But I do not need a popular topic. The same thing goes for blatant murder. I do not think that it is objectively "wrong" to murder. I think it is good for me, my family, my country.. everyone.. to not murder. And I have logical reasons for thinking that way. I can use these logical reasons to show others, and to persuade them.

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

Thread moved here from the Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution forum.

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.

Ah, then yes. Given this definition, anything that is subjective.. has no logical ground since that is your definition.My definition of subjective (from dictionary.com):-Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
-Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
-Moodily introspective.
-Existing only in the mind; illusory.
-Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer's mind...any of the first 3 definitions are what I am referring to.

I haven't been sure that "subjective" is the right word for what you are getting at either. But I know what you mean. You mean morality has no ultimate basis for it, but is subject to change from culture to culture, and sometimes from person to person. There is no way to say any given moral principle is absolutely right, even though there may be plenty of logical supports for it. It can always be answered the way you have been doing, that there is nothing keeping you -- nothing logical or authoritative that is -- keeping you from ignoring the moral principle or violating it at will -- basically because you don't find the premises for it compelling. abe: It's all "made up."You contrasted this at one point with what you consider to be objective or logically grounded morality which would be morality given by the Creator God. Maybe you had another example but I don't remember it.Perhaps clearer terminology is needed.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-13-2006 12:31 PM

I'm going to answer your posts in stages, for clarity I hope. 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 doesn't help us any. All ideas, subjective or objective, "proceed from or take place" in a person's mind. 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 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-13-2006 02:20 PM

I'm having trouble getting a handle on what you mean by subjective also.I see the prohibition against murder as an emergent social value. Because humans are social animals and value their family and group members murder leads to vendettas. These vendettas are socially unproductive to the point of serious disruption and distruction.Societies that are able to reduce murder and vendettas by law, policing, enforcement etc. have an advantage over societies where killing and blood feuds go uncontrolled.I know this isn't what you have termed objective but I don't think it's subjective either. It's a system property that can emerge from evolutionary competition.Question that might help us understand. Did the German generals that attempted to assassinate Hitler violate an objective moral injunction?*lfen*ABE: This is not a Godwinism, I swear. It just popped into my head as an example.This message has been edited by lfen, 04-13-2006 12:30 PM

Yes that is the crucial premise.No it is not "another groundless moral rule".It is not a rule at all. It is a premise. You can accept it, or not. That's why it's subjective. Some of us will feel that self-preservation is important. Others will not. People are different.All the other premises are objective (or at the least, circumstantial). This single one, Premise A: I value self-preservation, is a subjective value. It depends on how you feel, how you think your life should be led. No. It is not mandatory, and it isn't even a moral. It is a value, an aspect, a.. variable. You can either feel self-preservation is important to you, or you can feel that it is not important. No, that does not logically follow.If murder is immoral, and its reason is that murder puts self-presevation at risk, it does not follow that the attempt at self-preservation is also morally mandatory. It follows that the attempt at self-preservation is something one has to decide is important to oneself. Since it is at risk, it must be judged whether one cares or not.. a risk analysis. Just because something is at risk does not make it morally mandatory. Otherwise my grass would be morally madatory whenever the snowplow comes by and scrapes up half my yard.