- MBTI
- INTJ
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?
is self-interest not the fundamental key to evolution?
when it comes to our own survival, does morality even matter?
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.
Well, we do know it is a absolute truth.
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.
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.
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 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 do not believe that homosexuality is wrong and is a sin. I don't see homosexuality to be a moral dilemma.
And you believe that "in most cases, torturing someone is wrong - regardless of if it's a child or not", objectively or subjectively?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.
Nah, its cool .I apologize if I came off rude and snarky- it's not how I like to be!
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
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.
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
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 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?
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.
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?
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.
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."
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.
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.
I didn't made any silly asumption. You should read more. Have you ever read Hitler's book?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.
???Again, this is your own assumption and belief.
You can't compare diamonds with...humans. Perhaps just in a poetic sense, but not in any other sense.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.
Well from where do you know that " moral worth is a construct of mind"?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.
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.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).
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?as there are many examples of judgements about moral worth in the past that we now consider seriously flaws
Well yes, but why should we minimase sufering? What if minimazing suffering is wrong? What if suffering is good?I agree with Sam Harris that minimizing suffering is the foundation for moral behaviour.
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.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.
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).
agree. so what does this have to do with what were discussing?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.
What in the world has this to do with the nature of morality?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
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"?oh wait...that would be silly because that would be subjective morality which is absurd.
Again the literature. Man...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.
He was reffering to something only those who know morality is objective understand. Therefore, you shouldn't worry to much.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.