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 copied to the Morality and Subjectivity thread in the Social Issues and Creation/Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.