Is self interest the best or only basis for morality?

[Eventhorizon]

is self-interest not the fundamental key to evolution?
when it comes to our own survival, does morality even matter?

Absolutely agree. But then I think, what matters survival if the heart does not survive as well?

 

[say what]

Yes, it does mean that. But it doesn't mean the morality is the true morality.
If the outcome of Nazi philosphy and morals was killing everything what stand in their way, it doesn't mean what they did was ok. It was all wrong.

Yes, of course, but it doesn't change anything about what ought to be.
Morality is by its very nature, a ought.
But you're making it as is. The outcome determines the morality, which is that which simplly is in that particular moment.
But you see, you ''steal'' the very nature of morality. Morality is not just what is, but what ought to be.
Morality is prescriptive, not descriptive.

If morality is only ever what ought to be, then how can we ever be moral or immoral? How do we live by moral codes? How could one ever deem an action/behaviour immoral?

Well, we do know it is a absolute truth.

How do we know this? Where's the proof? The data?

The point is, there is something what we call good, which is good and worthy to have as a value, like justice, love, mercy, truthfulness, honesty, integrity, honour.

But how do we define good? What is "good" changes throughout history. What one era deemed "good" can be vastly different than another!

If we truly believe something is 'good', such as an action, is the action still not 'good' regardless of it's consequences? Medicine is the perfect example. Throughout history physicians have done really poor and harmful medicine to people, but they were under the impression/knowledge that they were doing good- they had the best intentions, and honestly felt (with their lack of modern knowledge of medicine) they were doing good. Were their actions bad because by today's standards it's ill-practised medicine? Or are their actions still 'good' because their intentions were good?

Yes, I do think there is such a standard of morality. Its moral perfection, unatainable in this life, but possible in another realm of existence, which christians call it Heaven.

This is where we just fundamentally disagree, and are likely to not agree on the topic. We approach this with completely different ontological perspectives. Neither is wrong, they're just contradictory! I completely respect your point of view, but it's just different than mine.

No. Morality is painted on our conscience. If someone doesn't know that killing is wrong, conform to moral standards, that person is simply unaware of the moral obbligation and dutty to respect and protect life, so he can not be accused of doing something wrong, becasue his conscience is "clear". Hovewer, that doesn't mean the action of killing in itself was good, simply because that person didn't knew it.
The action was bad, but the person can not be judged, because he didn't knew it.

We agree on this (as my example of the physician is the same)...where we differ is that you're saying that if someone is not away of the moral standards (which you think are universal), then they can't be judged. What I'm saying is that there are no moral universal standard - but yet moral standards that change and evolve across time.

We need to understand morality, what is good and what is wrong, in order to consciously act moral or immoral.
But hovewer, we can unconsciously act immoral or moral.

I find this contradictory- if one doesn't understand morality, how can their actions be deemed moral or immoral?

 

[LucyJr]

I do not believe that homosexuality is wrong and is a sin. I don't see homosexuality to be a moral dilemma.

AND you stance on this is subjective or objective? Your answer is a opinion, subjective, or your answer has a objective weight to it?

And as for the moral dilemma, we can think and talk about moral dilemmas only and ONLY if there is such a thing as objective morality. So when I asked you the question, I didn't had any moral dilemma in my head.

I believe in most cases, torturing someone is wrong - regardless of if it's a child or not. I think it is wrong to harm another person; however, I know there are situations and contexts that make me feel the other way. For me, it's not a yes/no answer.

And you believe that "in most cases, torturing someone is wrong - regardless of if it's a child or not", objectively or subjectively?
Its you answer just a opinion, or has some serious weight on it, and it has objective interpretation?

I apologize if I came off rude and snarky- it's not how I like to be!

Nah, its cool .

 

[Lark]

Sorry! I wasn't saying you were suggesting I was being difficult- I was just apologizing for the fact, mostly to @LucyJr, that I'm not trying to be combative or arguementative, I just truly am not understanding the logic- probably in part because I don't agree



The Hitler example is just one. Were the Germans fighting for their country, wrong? Are all soldiers in battle immoral?

When you say "society is ontologically a prior to the individual" I agree, but because society constructs morality, that to me equates to subjectivity.

Were the Mayans all immoral for their human sacrifices to the greater good? If we polled society today, people would say that's immoral. If you polled society (or the Mayans), they would say no. How would you explain this difference in morality? For me, I see it as differences in the social constructs of morality.

I do agree that this is highly abstract- and I will admit that I'm not well read on the topic- I'm talking purely from my own feelings and experiences, which have been shaped by my own education and knowledge. In my experience talking and teaching health ethics, where morality comes into play, it's never black/white- always grey, and often difficult. People get heated because there are extremes on both ends. Perhaps it's my constructivist background, but I believe there is no right or wrong answer to these types of questions

I find it a bit strange that if society is ontological then morality is subjective, I considered subjectivity to be a highly individualised version of moralism.

Anyway, the answer to the conduct of soldiers thing is very possibly, there have been great books written about the just war theory, the conduct of soldiers and war fighting, legitimate targets, goals etc. there has been great research into the consequences of carrying out orders and cognitive dissonance, if you want to use the example of the Nazis the high command had to rotate their soldiers in the concentration camps very frequently because killing their fellow human beings on an industrial scale was driving them mad or killing them. Its possible to rationalise a lot but not that and not indefinitely. Even a sophisticated ideology which suggests the victims are subhuman drummed into individuals from birth does not suffice.

The incan example is another good one, and a good example of rationalisation, those individuals were killing people but they had to do it in a highly ritualistic fashion and be wholly convinced that a trade off was involved, one person dying to secure the lives of thousands of others. It is atrocious and abhorrent and based upon superstition to the modern mind, which is a good thing, although not something to be conceited about either, there are sacrifices made presently which are believed to be for the greater good, which I believe are questionable, I think the hardship experienced in most societies is questionable, highly questionable, especially when its life threatening but in every case anyway.

Although personally I would argue that the incan and nazi examples are also cases of societies that did not and could not endure because their departure from human nature and objective morality was too great to do so. Perhaps that's overly optimistic but I think its the case none the less.

 

[LucyJr]

So is empathy the wellspring of morality?

What if one empathise with Stalin?
Isn't empathy by its nature 'with'? Mercy is different, mercy is 'for'. I don't think empathy can afford mercy.

 

[muir]

What if one empathise with Stalin?
Isn't empathy by its nature 'with'? Mercy is different, mercy is 'for'. I don't think empathy can afford mercy.

If someone feels empathy for stalin they are likely to feel empathy for his victims as well

I think it is possible to empathise to a point with everyone, which is why i don't argue that anyone should be punished by anything worse than humane and comfortable incarceration

 

[say what]

AND you stance on this is subjective or objective? Your answer is a opinion, subjective, or your answer has a objective weight to it?

I don't understand this. To me, all answers on morality are subjective, because it's personal opinion. Thus, I can never have an objective perspective on my own opinion- I don't think anyone could ever have an objective opinion of their opinion.

And as for the moral dilemma, we can think and talk about moral dilemmas only and ONLY if there is such a thing as objective morality

I don't understand this at all. I think you need to define (a) what is a moral dilemma, (b) what is objective morality, and (c) subjectivity. Because I can give you a wealth of moral dilemmas, under the idea that morality is subjective.

And you believe that "in most cases, torturing someone is wrong - regardless of if it's a child or not", objectively or subjectively?
Its you answer just a opinion, or has some serious weight on it, and it has objective interpretation?

Again, I'm not quiet sure what you're asking me.

Believing in something is a subjective concept. This is not something that can have data or proof (or truth). Belief is subjective- not objective. Believing in God is subjective, just like belief in morality is.

How can a believe or an opinion have weight?

How do you define an objective interpretation?

 

[LucyJr]

I don't understand this. To me, all answers on morality are subjective, because it's personal opinion. Thus, I can never have an objective perspective on my own opinion- I don't think anyone could ever have an objective opinion of their opinion.



I don't understand this at all. I think you need to define (a) what is a moral dilemma, (b) what is objective morality, and (c) subjectivity. Because I can give you a wealth of moral dilemmas, under the idea that morality is subjective.



Again, I'm not quiet sure what you're asking me.

Believing in something is a subjective concept. This is not something that can have data or proof (or truth). Belief is subjective- not objective. Believing in God is subjective, just like belief in morality is.

How can a believe or an opinion have weight?

How do you define an objective interpretation?

What I'm asking you is this:
You say killing, by your morality is wrong. But your morality is subjective, so therefore, killing is not really wrong, we just pretend is wrong. There isn't anything objective in the proposition "Killing is wrong". Its subjective. Therefore, on your view, it is perfectly acceptable to kill someone, whithout any moral repercusion.
Am I right or not?

 

[say what]

I find it a bit strange that if society is ontological then morality is subjective, I considered subjectivity to be a highly individualised version of moralism.

Anyway, the answer to the conduct of soldiers thing is very possibly, there have been great books written about the just war theory, the conduct of soldiers and war fighting, legitimate targets, goals etc. there has been great research into the consequences of carrying out orders and cognitive dissonance, if you want to use the example of the Nazis the high command had to rotate their soldiers in the concentration camps very frequently because killing their fellow human beings on an industrial scale was driving them mad or killing them. Its possible to rationalise a lot but not that and not indefinitely. Even a sophisticated ideology which suggests the victims are subhuman drummed into individuals from birth does not suffice.

The incan example is another good one, and a good example of rationalisation, those individuals were killing people but they had to do it in a highly ritualistic fashion and be wholly convinced that a trade off was involved, one person dying to secure the lives of thousands of others. It is atrocious and abhorrent and based upon superstition to the modern mind, which is a good thing, although not something to be conceited about either, there are sacrifices made presently which are believed to be for the greater good, which I believe are questionable, I think the hardship experienced in most societies is questionable, highly questionable, especially when its life threatening but in every case anyway.

Although personally I would argue that the incan and nazi examples are also cases of societies that did not and could not endure because their departure from human nature and objective morality was too great to do so. Perhaps that's overly optimistic but I think its the case none the less.

How can society be ontological? I'm not sure I understand that - but it might be my definition of ontology.

I'm not sure I would agree that subjectivity is a version of morality...subjectivity/objectivity is a perspective and a way to evaluate truths. I would say morality is a concept which can be evaluated through the use of subjectivity/objectivity.

The Hitler example is a very strong and powerful example. If we think of any war as an example of the subjectivity of morality, we can see that innocent people are killed - regardless of propaganda. The example of Nazis is an extreme example, but really, we see this in ALL wars.

For me, I don't see ritualization to factor into the morality of the Incas. They also killed innocent people, but, because the morality at the time justified it, it was not seen as wrong (much like the death of innocence at war now).

For me, these examples suggest that morality is subjective and always changing and evolving. To add onto that, these are cases of society/population level morality issues, we can further highlight the subjectivity of morality by saying that individuals within these cases have their own morality that might conflict with the broader ideas of morality. The fact that I can have a conflict with a broader 'law' of morality, to me, is an indicator of subjectivity.

Even looking a smaller cases of morality and ethics, we can see a vast difference in what morality is. Take this example:

Alice is a nurse at a Correctional Institute. Injection drug use is frequent in the prison. Approximately one of every 60 inmates is known by the institution to be HIV-positive, and approximately one of 3 inmates is HCV-positive. Alice knows that the prisoners share needles because there are very few needles in the prison, and is very concerned about HIV and HCV transmission. However, the prison does not have a needle exchange or distribution program. This frustrates Alice, since she feels that this policy is directly contributing to the spread of HIV. However, bleach distribution is permitted, and the doctor encourages prisoners to use it to sterilize their needles. She knows, however, that the evidence that bleach is an adequate sterilizing agent is inconclusive. This adds to her guilt and frustration, since she feels she is providing her patients with sub-optimal advice and care.

One morning, Alice is conducting a physical on an inmate. The patient is HIV-negative, but confesses to sharing needles. Alice knows that at least one of the people he shares with is HIV-positive. On the table between them are clean syringes that she normally uses for vaccination. She knows that if she “turns away”, the syringes may “disappear”. This is against prison policy, but could help prevent needle sharing. What should she do?

You would be surprised at how many different responses people have to this, and how much morality determines their responses.

 

[say what]

What I'm asking you is this:
You say killing, by your morality is wrong. But your morality is subjective, so therefore, killing is not really wrong, we just pretend is wrong. There isn't anything objective in the proposition "Killing is wrong". Its subjective. Therefore, on your view, it is perfectly acceptable to kill someone, whithout any moral repercusion.
Am I right or not?

Things are "right" or "wrong" ....things can be 'less wrong' or 'more right'. You want me to give you a black/white answer and I won't.

What I'm saying is killing in certain situations is less wrong than in others- that might not make it right though.

My point of view is that there are some cases where killing does not deserve moral repercussion (e.g., cases of self-defense, war). These cases don't mean that killing is right or wrong, moral or immoral.

 

[LucyJr]

Things are "right" or "wrong" ....things can be 'less wrong' or 'more right'. You want me to give you a black/white answer and I won't.

What I'm saying is killing in certain situations is less wrong than in others- that might not make it right though.

My point of view is that there are some cases where killing does not deserve moral repercussion (e.g., cases of self-defense, war). These cases don't mean that killing is right or wrong, moral or immoral.

Yes, of course. But I'm talking about standard cases, when a man kills another innocent man for some absurd reason.
Is that wrong or not?
If you say is subjectively wrong, you just gave a free ticket to all the murderers in the world. And you know why??? Because on their morality, killing is good. Do you see how absurd is the idea of subjective morality???
Maybe you would say, "Well that's how things are. That's how evolution bring up things."
And my answer is, not really. Every man knows and thinks intuitively at worth, at his own intrinsic worth.
So the big question is: If humans are intrinsically worthy (which from the start, openly contradicts your theory of subjective morality, for how can killing something which is intrinsically worthy be good or bad subjectively?), how can evolution develop such sublime feelings, such profound knowledge and idea, that we as humans are intrinsically worthy?

You already contradicted yourself by saying 'less wrong' or 'more right'. You can use this expressions only if there is a objective standard to judge things, otherwise it would be absurd. You can not judge things on your subjective morality. That would be like the old "vanilla vs chocolate", which is non-sense.
Anyway, you don't need to answer me . I honestly appreciate all your answers you gave me up to now.

By my answers, I just wanted you to think how deep and profound are the implications of a subjective morality.
I know there is a intrinsic contradiction if we go on the line of subjective morality. And this is good, because we can defend ourself from our own stupidity. The Bible say this. We have a consciousness, whcih tells us and acuuse us that some things are good and worthy, while others like stones, are whithout life, whithout objective value. And the argumentation could go endlessly. We just need to think and judge things.

 

[say what]

Yes, of course. But I'm talking about standard cases, when a man kills another innocent man for some absurd reason.
Is that wrong or not?
If you say is subjectively wrong, you just gave a free ticket to all the murderers in the world. And you know why??? Because on their morality, killing is good. Do you see how absurd is the idea of subjective morality???

You're making the assumption that their acting based on their morality. You don't know their morality. They may know it's morally wrong, and still kill a man. You're making assumptions. You're believing that everyone thinks, reason, and acts how you would. It's my belief that you can't do this.

Maybe you would say, "Well that's how things are. That's how evolution bring up things."

Again, this is your own assumption and belief.

So the big question is: If humans are intrinsically worthy (which from the start, openly contradicts your theory of subjective morality, for how can killing something which is intrinsically worthy be good or bad subjectively?), how can evolution develop such sublime feelings, such profound knowledge and idea, that we as humans are intrinsically worthy?

You already contradicted yourself by saying 'less wrong' or 'more right'. You can use this expressions only if there is a objective standard to judge things, otherwise it would be absurd. You can not judge things on your subjective morality. That would be like the old "vanilla vs chocolate", which is non-sense.
Anyway, you don't need to answer me . I honestly appreciate all your answers you gave me up to now.

Does a flawless, perfectly cut, white diamond have an intrinsic value? It has the value that we give to it (with a lot of help from the diamond industry marketing team). Humans do not have intrinsic worth, but nevertheless, we consider ourselves to be worthy of love, respect, appreciation, etc., because we are empathetic creatures, capable of empathizing with the needs and desires of others, promoting individual rights and collective cooperation because those qualities are as lovely as the brilliance of a superb diamond. I think it is much more potent for us not to pretend that we have intrinsic value, in the sense of some kind of magical, absolute way, but rather for us to embrace the fact that we are evolved creatures who are what they are, and that we can do a lot with what we have.

Do humans have intrinsic moral worth? No, because moral worth is a construct of mind, not an intrinsic property. It is like beauty. It is in the eye of the beholder. What is pretty much universal is that we have the feeling that humans have moral worth. That is because we need such feelings in order to survive as a species.

By my answers, I just wanted you to think how deep and profound are the implications of a subjective morality.
I know there is a intrinsic contradiction if we go on the line of subjective morality. And this is good, because we can defend ourself from our own stupidity. The Bible say this. We have a consciousness, whcih tells us and acuuse us that some things are good and worthy, while others like stones, are whithout life, whithout objective value. And the argumentation could go endlessly. We just need to think and judge things.

We determine moral worth using a combination of what we feel, and discussions with others. What is important is that we don’t assume that our feelings about moral worth are some measure of absolute truth. They are more a measure of shared views and our genetic and cultural inheritance. Pretending that there are absolute values is a poor approach, as there are many examples of judgements about moral worth in the past that we now consider seriously flaws (such as regarding the rights of children, or concept of slavery).

I agree with Sam Harris that minimizing suffering is the foundation for moral behaviour.

The truth is that the only rational basis for morality is a concern for the happiness and suffering of other conscious beings. This emphasis on the happiness and suffering of others explains why we don't have moral obligations toward rocks. It also explains why (generally speaking) people deserve greater moral concern than animals, and why certain animals concern us more than others. If we show more sensitivity to the experience of chimpanzees than to the experience of crickets, we do so because there is a relationship between the size and complexity of a creature's brain and its experience of the world.

Unfortunately, religion tends to separate questions of morality from the living reality of human and animal suffering. Dogmatic adherence to a set of arbitrary rules, whether they come from an imagined creator of the universe or a real one, does not deserve the name morality.

 

[LucyJr]

You're making the assumption that their acting based on their morality. You don't know their morality. They may know it's morally wrong, and still kill a man. You're making assumptions. You're believing that everyone thinks, reason, and acts how you would. It's my belief that you can't do this.

I didn't made any silly asumption. You should read more. Have you ever read Hitler's book?

And again you're contradicting yourself. You say "They may know it's morally wrong, and still kill a man.", AS IF your standard of what is moraly good is objective. Had you already forget that morality is subjective, conform to your view?
The fact that you continously keep contradicting yourself, and you can not accept the subjectivity of moral values, say something else. You can speak subjectivity, but you can not live it!

Again, this is your own assumption and belief.

???

Does a flawless, perfectly cut, white diamond have an intrinsic value? It has the value that we give to it (with a lot of help from the diamond industry marketing team). Humans do not have intrinsic worth, but nevertheless, we consider ourselves to be worthy of love, respect, appreciation, etc., because we are empathetic creatures, capable of empathizing with the needs and desires of others, promoting individual rights and collective cooperation because those qualities are as lovely as the brilliance of a superb diamond. I think it is much more potent for us not to pretend that we have intrinsic value, in the sense of some kind of magical, absolute way, but rather for us to embrace the fact that we are evolved creatures who are what they are, and that we can do a lot with what we have.

You can't compare diamonds with...humans. Perhaps just in a poetic sense, but not in any other sense.

Do humans have intrinsic moral worth? No, because moral worth is a construct of mind, not an intrinsic property. It is like beauty. It is in the eye of the beholder. What is pretty much universal is that we have the feeling that humans have moral worth. That is because we need such feelings in order to survive as a species.

Well from where do you know that " moral worth is a construct of mind"?
And if you do know it, with what do you compare it? What is your standard?
If feelings would be the mark of our survival...is survival good or it isn't?

We determine moral worth using a combination of what we feel, and discussions with others. What is important is that we don’t assume that our feelings about moral worth are some measure of absolute truth. They are more a measure of shared views and our genetic and cultural inheritance. Pretending that there are absolute values is a poor approach, as there are many examples of judgements about moral worth in the past that we now consider seriously flaws (such as regarding the rights of children, or concept of slavery).

But moral objectivity is not "assume that our feelings about moral worth are some measure of absolute truth.". Truth is our measure, not we are measure to truth. If would be so, truth wouldn't be truth.

as there are many examples of judgements about moral worth in the past that we now consider seriously flaws

And again a contradiction. If some moral judgements that were considered true in the past, and we consider wrong, what does this tell, that morality is subjective or objective?
If its subjective, both us and the ones in the past were right. Do you see how absurd is your theory?

I agree with Sam Harris that minimizing suffering is the foundation for moral behaviour.

Well yes, but why should we minimase sufering? What if minimazing suffering is wrong? What if suffering is good?

Unfortunately, religion tends to separate questions of morality from the living reality of human and animal suffering. Dogmatic adherence to a set of arbitrary rules, whether they come from an imagined creator of the universe or a real one, does not deserve the name morality.

Well rules aren't arbitrarely in religion. That's in your theory, of subjective morality. That's where moral rules are arbitrarely. You contradicted yourself again.

 

[Walter Zeitgeist]

The 'I'll save a drowning person only so I can feel good about myself' selfishness idea, together with the 'killing an innocent person for no reason is subjectively bad' subjective morality idea mirror the mental perversion of the power elite. If we want to have a chance at beating them, we better get our act together.

'Is self interest the best or only basis for morality'

Is the self the best and only basis for life?

What is the self anyway? It has been sad that it's not 'I am', it's 'I are'. Within you are millions of different people, it changes all the time.

Who are you, when you observe the feelings and thoughts, as they flow through you? What is this thing called 'consciousness'? Do you own it?

What is life about? Is it about you? Who are you? What are you?

The boundaries we put up when we use words are completely man made, arbitrary. We say this is a 'table'. There is a boundary between the table legs and the floor. That's arbitrary. If you want you can join up the floor and the legs of the table, see that as a whole. Seem for human beings and the 'self'. The boundaries that come with the word 'I' are completely arbitrary and have aren't recognized by nature at all. You can extend or limit this concept as far as you like. Extend it to the food that is in your refrigerator and that you will eat soon, your friends and family that influence who you think, limit it so that only your brain is you, only your mind is you, only your consciousness is you. You can both limit and extend this concept until there is no more 'you'.

 

[say what]

I didn't made any silly asumption. You should read more. Have you ever read Hitler's book?

And again you're contradicting yourself. You say "They may know it's morally wrong, and still kill a man.", AS IF your standard of what is moraly good is objective. Had you already forget that morality is subjective, conform to your view?
The fact that you continously keep contradicting yourself, and you can not accept the subjectivity of moral values, say something else. You can speak subjectivity, but you can not live it!


???


You can't compare diamonds with...humans. Perhaps just in a poetic sense, but not in any other sense.


Well from where do you know that " moral worth is a construct of mind"?
And if you do know it, with what do you compare it? What is your standard?
If feelings would be the mark of our survival...is survival good or it isn't?

But moral objectivity is not "assume that our feelings about moral worth are some measure of absolute truth.". Truth is our measure, not we are measure to truth. If would be so, truth wouldn't be truth.


And again a contradiction. If some moral judgements that were considered true in the past, and we consider wrong, what does this tell, that morality is subjective or objective?
If its subjective, both us and the ones in the past were right. Do you see how absurd is your theory?

Well yes, but why should we minimase sufering? What if minimazing suffering is wrong? What if suffering is good?


Well rules aren't arbitrarely in religion. That's in your theory, of subjective morality. That's where moral rules are arbitrarely. You contradicted yourself again.

I'm not contradicting myself.

You're not reading what I'm saying, and choosing not to contemplate my perspective. You're talking within circle, and focusing on minute examples rather than understanding the borad range of historical moral dilemmas. That's fine- but it's not a discourse of ideas if all you're trying to do is to get me to conform to your narrow, theological-based ideas (that's my subjective opinion).

Just because you've read a select literature on one perspective within one discipline does not make you well-read; nor does me not reading the books within that select, narrow, and tiny portion of literature make me not-well read. Instead of reading, perhaps you should go out and experience life and work in areas where people deal with in-the-moment ethical and moral decisions, and then base your perspective of morality on that...oh wait...that would be silly because that would be subjective morality which is absurd. My bad. You would rather base your entire understanding of the world around on a piece of literature that was written outside the context, understanding, and social environment of the world we currently live in. That's cool. That doesn't sound silly at all- of course I'm the silly one.

I'm no longer going to try and have a respectful dialogue here. It's pointless, and has only pushed me to be disrespectful and rude.

Also, I'm also glad that someone took the effort to create an account, only to misquote what I said, and misconstrue it into a context that it was never said within.

 

[LucyJr]

I'm not contradicting myself.

You're not reading what I'm saying, and choosing not to contemplate my perspective. You're talking within circle, and focusing on minute examples rather than understanding the borad range of historical moral dilemmas. That's fine- but it's not a discourse of ideas if all you're trying to do is to get me to conform to your narrow, theological-based ideas (that's my subjective opinion).

.

Just because you've read a select literature on one perspective within one discipline does not make you well-read;

agree. so what does this have to do with what were discussing?

nor does me not reading the books within that select, narrow, and tiny portion of literature make me not-well read.

agree. so what does this have to do with what were discussing?

Instead of reading, perhaps you should go out and experience life and work in areas where people deal with in-the-moment ethical and moral decisions, and then base your perspective of morality on that

What in the world has this to do with the nature of morality?
Aha, I think I get a line here. You want to say that I should experience life more, and then I would understand more your point of view, subjective morality, right, perhaps even come to believe in subjective morality?

Dear miss, my answer on your invitation is that rarely men who really lived their lifes, in misery, fear, manipulation, orrors, wars and so on, would come at the conclusion that morality is subjective.
Do you think the survivors of the Holocasut would believe in subjective morality after they have been trough, after all the misery, after all the fear?
What do you think they were saying: "Oh, this is so sweet and beautiful. Evolution is so wondeful, and Hitler's morality is so awesome!"

oh wait...that would be silly because that would be subjective morality which is absurd.

Well yes. Have you tried to live with a criminal, especially when he "deal with in-the-moment ethical and moral decisions, and then base your perspective of morality on that"?

You would rather base your entire understanding of the world around on a piece of literature that was written outside the context, understanding, and social environment of the world we currently live in. That's cool. That doesn't sound silly at all- of course I'm the silly one.

Again the literature. Man...

I'm no longer going to try and have a respectful dialogue here. It's pointless, and has only pushed me to be disrespectful and rude.

Also, I'm also glad that someone took the effort to create an account, only to misquote what I said, and misconstrue it into a context that it was never said within.

He was reffering to something only those who know morality is objective understand. Therefore, you shouldn't worry to much.

 

[Lark]

How can society be ontological? I'm not sure I understand that - but it might be my definition of ontology.

I'm not sure I would agree that subjectivity is a version of morality...subjectivity/objectivity is a perspective and a way to evaluate truths. I would say morality is a concept which can be evaluated through the use of subjectivity/objectivity.

The Hitler example is a very strong and powerful example. If we think of any war as an example of the subjectivity of morality, we can see that innocent people are killed - regardless of propaganda. The example of Nazis is an extreme example, but really, we see this in ALL wars.

For me, I don't see ritualization to factor into the morality of the Incas. They also killed innocent people, but, because the morality at the time justified it, it was not seen as wrong (much like the death of innocence at war now).

For me, these examples suggest that morality is subjective and always changing and evolving. To add onto that, these are cases of society/population level morality issues, we can further highlight the subjectivity of morality by saying that individuals within these cases have their own morality that might conflict with the broader ideas of morality. The fact that I can have a conflict with a broader 'law' of morality, to me, is an indicator of subjectivity.

Even looking a smaller cases of morality and ethics, we can see a vast difference in what morality is. Take this example:



You would be surprised at how many different responses people have to this, and how much morality determines their responses.

Society is a priori to the individual, while individuals come and go society goes on and individuals do not exist in nature outside of and apart from society in "splendid isolation", its simply not possible.

Do you mean that there is subjective discovery or interpretation of an objective morality?

I dont think the Hitler example is that astonishing or anything, the genocide of the nazis is not comparable to the deaths of combatants and civilians in any conflict, there's no moral equivlence I think there. Its part of the reason that annihilation can not be considered a legitimate war aim and why there is such a thing as just war theories and the geneva conventions.

Inca wise, would it be considered morally correct or permissable for anyone to kill anyone else randomly in the fashion of the high priests or was it something reserved for a select subject and reserved to the priestly caste? I dont know a lot about the Incas but I suspect this was the case.

The thing about the moral relativistic position, grounded in subjectivity, is that because it considers it difficult to rule anything as permissible or impermissible it defaults to the position that all is permissable, which I think itself is a problematic position, it would be as logical, by that light to consider all things impermissible but that is seldom the case, why do you think that is? Personally I think its a result of the ascendency and triumph of the morality requisite by the economy and the social character arising from it, the culture of commerce, conspiscious consumption etc.

I'm not sure what the point of your ethical dilemma is, its interesting, I know what my answer would be and it may differ from others, sorry if I'm being obtuse (its not deliberate )

 

[Wildfire]

The thing about the moral relativistic position, grounded in subjectivity, is that because it considers it difficult to rule anything as permissible or impermissible it defaults to the position that all is permissable, which I think itself is a problematic position, it would be as logical, by that light to consider all things impermissible but that is seldom the case, why do you think that is? Personally I think its a result of the ascendency and triumph of the morality requisite by the economy and the social character arising from it, the culture of commerce, conspiscious consumption etc.

This makes perfect sense to me, and although I’m not sure it’s what you’re implying here, I hold the position that the evolution of consciousness will take us forward, or where we need to go.

 

[Lark]

What if one empathise with Stalin?
Isn't empathy by its nature 'with'? Mercy is different, mercy is 'for'. I don't think empathy can afford mercy.

Empathy, I believe, is a little like Adam Smith's discussion of sympathy in his book system of moral sentiments, which he thought was the more important of his books on moral philosophy (yup, that's right, the guy who is remembered by many as the founding father of economics was a moral philosopher and had a very definite moral-cultural agenda and vision), describes its operation as a product of imagination and consequence of individuals being able to imagine themselves in similar circumstances to who they are thinking about.

So in the final instance self-interest is still operative, he would have said the same about altruism, mutual aid, gift relationships, or I suspect any of the other alternatives to self-interest pure and simple but then I'm not sure that Kropotkin (mutual aid), gift relationships (Marcel Maus) or altruism (Spencer) theorists would have had any problem with that.

Although self-interest as conceived by a sadist or psychopath, such as Stalin, would obviously be pretty different from that conceived of by anyone capable of empathy or sympathy.

 

[Lark]

This makes perfect sense to me, and although I’m not sure it’s what you’re implying here, I hold the position that the evolution of consciousness will take us forward, or where we need to go.

I believe that moral relativism and the permissive society are byproducts of sort of culture that capitalism creates to sustain itself and its appeal.

I've always thought this was a very bad thing, at the very least it is reductive and homogenising, removes all diversity of opinion and lifestyle, instituting in its place a single disatisfactory and alienating culture which people live but are estrange from and feel no ownership of or responsibility for.