Printable View
Right, I may have understood what you mean now. But one thing still remains for me: What you said about the objetiveness of moral values doesn't seem to fit because it can only be detected or explained by human minds. And you just said that it exists subjectively because people aren't objective but subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhekti
Am I going down the wrong lane here?
[QUOTE=Themis]Right, I may have understood what you mean now. But one thing still remains for me: What you said about the objetiveness of moral values doesn't seem to fit because it can only be detected or explained by human minds. And you just said that it exists subjectively because people aren't objective but subjective. ...QUOTE]
Ow I think that's because the way I understand the word "objective" (being an object) and "subjective" (being turned to subject's) is perhaps different from the way you do. For a thing to be objective, as I understand, is (simply) to be there or to exist. Superman, for example, is an objective thing. Therefore I'd say, "Superman exists" or "There is superman". People's subjectivity, another example, is objective. There is people's subjectivity.
Now when we are talking about moral value, we talk about something which is there, exists, in other word, objective. But, the talking about moral value by us people puts moral value as a subjective thing since we people are subjects.
Take a case:
X says, "moral value does not exist" Now, in my opinion, objectively moral value does exist for X, that is at least in X's statement. Now, the X's statement means to deny the existence of moral value. That is the subjective existence of moral value for X, its being denied. (If I am to say something about X, I'll say X is a careless person)
Do we see each other now?
So is murder objectively wrong trans-socially and trans-culturally? Your words suggest both possible answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Themis
So are there no morals that are valid regardless of others apprehension or acknowledgement? If two people disagree on whether or not, say, murder (just to be consistent) is right or wrong, can not murder be either right or wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by mono
But is it possible that the death sentence is either morally acceptable or unacceptable, whether anybody acts that way or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by holograph
So, even while taking into account the fact that people may come to a cross purposes concerning the moral value, or may not even be able to apprehend it at all, it still exists objectively?Quote:
Originally Posted by bhekti
Okay. So the moral value exists apart from X’s mind, but is given a subjectivity whilst X is considering it?Quote:
Originally Posted by bhekti
Hmmm, interesting questions. Regardless of others' apprehension and/or acknowledgement, I do not necessarily think they subtract to a person's moral validity, though he/she may feel praised or insulted for his/her morals and ethics (in terms of agreement, disagreement, or partial). Again, whether entirely Absolute Objective Morals exist (I capitalized the terms purposely ;)), I cannot claim for sure (considering more of an existential aspect to the discussion), yet either opinion seems highly debatable and controversial. Whatever one considers his/her inherent morals and ethics, however, seems 'objective' to the individual, though, as we all see and experience everyday, one's morals far differ from another's, for better or worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoutGrace
I love the analogy you provided. Fortunately, according to most people's beliefs, murder does seem very wrong in accordance with their morals, and, no doubt, religion/spirituality, culture, up-bringing, etc. plays a large role. To some individual's, however, thankfully a minority of people, murder seems okay in some instances. We can expand this even further by knowing that some people, for example, call capital punishment murder that seems equivalent to the person executed (as Gandhi wrote 'an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind'); hence, with some exceptions, what some may call murder, others find justified according to their morals.
Most philosophers think moral values are objective, born out of reason (Kant), utility (Mill, Bentham, in a sense Peter Singer as a modern philosopher) or society (Marx). Of course you could ask if society is something subjective and then, wouldnt moral values be too? However, although society has subjective features (such as public opinion, self-perception of groups/nations etc.) it is, as an entity, objective. I agree with Marx here. That killing is morally wrong must be true of every society, since the individuals making it up need to be protected, otherwise this society falls apart. However, in a society of no significant private ownership the rule that stealing is wrong wouldnt make much sense. I think it is an indication that moral values depend on society (and on human beings whose nature it is to live in societies, i.e. its genetic) that certain modes of killing, like in war or by the death sentence, require justification. And attempts are always made, like in psychological warfare, to give them. Reasons are put forward to justify these killings which wouldnt be necessary if the prohibition of killing would be subjective or individually random. It should not be forgotten either that objectiveness doesnt mean you have to act on it. There is what Aristotle called acrasia (the weekness of will) or other motives that overrun the sense and the acceptance of wrongness.
As I see, we are now talking about moral value and there is nobody who totally can't apprehend it. This proves that there is moral value. In other words, yes, moral value exists objectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoutGrace
Yes. And in X's case, the subjectivity of moral value is its being negated.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoutGrace
However, I don't believe that there is in reality such a person as X. When somebody in this life says that he/she does not believe in the existence of moral value, he/she is actually talking about something else which is quite apart from the case of the existence of moral value.
PS: Hmm..with this conception on objectivity and subjectivity in my mind, the sentence "do objective moral values exist?" ceases to be a question. The sentence itself proves the objective existence of moral values.
ah, guys. there is no such thing as an objective moral value. all moral values are subjective because man is subjective and ideas are subjective. morals are feelings and perceptions, which are the meaning of subjectivism. there is nothing to argue here.
there are no morals flying in the universe waiting to be caught and put into a jar. a moral is a personal perception on what is right and what is wrong. yes, society may create these moral ideals, and society can be objective. what is moral for an individual is how the individual defines himself. there are no moral givens. killing, lying, stealing, hating, loving, are all subjective ideas. punto final.
That is to include you idea as well, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by holograph
Actually, I think there is.Quote:
Originally Posted by holograph
I'll agree with you that that is, in all likelihood, true in a literal sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by holograph
Quote:
Originally Posted by holograph
That depends on who you ask.
To quote the signature of one who hasn't been around for some time now:
"There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just stuff people do."
Steinbeck's character took that bent. The atheist philosopher Michael Ruse said:
"Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth, and morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction - any deeper meaning is illusory".
Some people disagree with that idea.
Well said, Holograph. I think it was the pre-Socratic, Protagoras, who once declared that "Man is the measure of all things." And so man is, still. :D But then Plato introduced his concept of "Forms" and the Western world was on it's way to being Christianized (i.e. Saved). Nietzsche was right blaming Plato and Socrates for ushering in the philosophical foundations for "slave morality." Aquinas invoked Aristotle, so you can add him to the list of moralizing masters. I could never quite grasp why people hotly dispute this silly topic, as if the moralist has some 4th dimensional view from which it can see truth. But, the religious mind thrives on the insanity of morality in the same spirit it thrives on the idea of "God." You mentioned that "society can be objective,' but it's "inter-subjective" in that morality is shared among and affirmed by members who comprise a community; e.g. "Christians," "Muslims," "Buddhists," "Human Rights Watch," "Greenpeace," and so on. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is predicated on this very notion of inter-subjectivity---it's an idea with the force of law in some communities, which leads us back to the subjectivity of acceptance and application. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by holograph
..........
Maybe the difference between objective morality and "inter-subjective" morality is the difference between "Christians" and "Greenpeace", which you have so forgetten or ignored with a careless example. Inter-subjective morality comes from common individual moralities, yes; but what causes those commonalities, mere chance? Ah, perhaps you know it is not as clear as you said it is. Notice "maybe"; 'tis only a call for a better explanation, much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1jt
What communities are those? What communities built their legal systems upon the idea of inter-subjective morality? I thought legal systems were built upon only morality; and it is us who are debating as to the nature of that morality, a debate not clearly won or lost. What if the "force of law" in some communities were "with" the idea of supernatural moralities? Where would that lead us, back to the supernaturalness of "acceptance" and "application"? Notice "what if"; just another call for a better explanation. Ah, perhaps it really is not as clear as you said it is.Quote:
it's an idea with the force of law in some communities, which leads us back to the subjectivity of acceptance and application.
Oh no, I was being very careful when I gave that example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Regit
ALL communities build their codes of behavior upon the idea of inter-subjective morality. Legal systems are built according to notions of truth--- that is, an identifiable belief system that develops over time. We call it custom because the community has upheld patterns of behavior it deems acceptable and rallies around as 'required' forms. The "we," then, are products, mere representatives of those communities which we are naturally part of. For example, you may be a member of some community that accepts the term "supernatural" as something identifiable, tangible, that others will accept as a meaningful idea and respond accordingly in a dialogue format such is this. Whereas the community I am part of considers all things deemed supernatural to be vulgar. And once that little word is injected into the mix, we begin to speak past each other, not with each other, and the dialogue, hence, ceases. So I'm very happy that you put it in 'what if' terms. :D Some communities are built on supernatural ideas and such corresponding codes of behavior are invariably more prescriptive and acceptance and application normative. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say, "supernaturalness of acceptance and application." This is a typical example of the devoid nature of this term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Regit
In a general way you are right, but this isn't, or shouldn't be, a discussion of objectivity but a discussion of moral values. Let us assume that we agree on the meanings of the concepts and words in this matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by holograph
I would contend that moral principles are derived from biological needs. All living things desire to survive. Depriving any living thing of its survival is morally wrong to the thing that is deprived, but that must be weighed against the survival of the thing that did the depriving. I agree that there is subjectivity in all moral decisions, but the principles that underlies the moral decisions are objective and not relative.Quote:
there are no morals flying in the universe waiting to be caught and put into a jar. a moral is a personal perception on what is right and what is wrong. yes, society may create these moral ideals, and society can be objective. what is moral for an individual is how the individual defines himself. there are no moral givens. killing, lying, stealing, hating, loving, are all subjective ideas. punto final.
Which definition of society do you use that allows society to be objective?
yes, it does. "i think therefore i am" is bull****. my idea is just as subjective as your moral value. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bhekti