Why ISN'T morality subjective?

[zago]

Isn't that paper arguing morality is subjective? Here's it's concluding sentence (bold mine):

I read this as morality is subjective, but hey, that's a good thing.

Did you just read the end of the paper or something? I would have to disagree with you - what she said isn't quite what you translated.

She specifically uses her line of reasoning to prove that there is a right way to live.

 

[Standuble]

I have no idea how anyone can say morality is subjective. Those people ALMOST (almost) deserve to have to live in concentration camps for saying something like that, 'cause it is like spitting in the face of 1) the people who have fought for the better world of today and 2) everyone who has suffered at the hands of grossly immoral people.

These idiots don't even think living in a death camp is different than living in historically unprecedented liberty and prosperity. LITERALLY. That's actually sickening. "It's all just an opinion man. What if someone WANTS to live in a death camp? It's all subjective. Hitler is technically just as good as George Washington." RIGHT. RIIIIIIIIIGHT. I mean how stupid can you possibly be?

There is a right and a fucking wrong god dammit. FUCK people who think morality is subjective.

I think you may be a feeler in disguise.

 

[zago]

I think you may be a feeler in disguise.

If anything that post displays my lack of regard for F.

 

[Mole]

We are inter-subjective animals, so we share the same subjectivity.

And when we share the same subjectivity, it becomes objective.

And when share the same morality, it becomes objective.

For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is objective morality, and Sharia is objective morality.

Both moralities are objects and can be compared, analysed, evaluated and ingested and digested or regurgitated and rejected.

 

[zago]

To do cartwheels every 4 seconds is an objectively wrong way to live.

It is objectively wrong because we are programmed not to want to do it.

The right way to live is the way that best complements our evolutionary programming. In other words, minimization of suffering.

Suffering is a neurochemical pathway, btw.

That paper explained it perfectly, really.

If you want an easy example to illustrate this, think of morality as analogous to health. A stupid person could say, "what if someone wants to get small pox, what if that is their definition of health?" Thing is, that will only EVER be a what if. Just because what promotes medicinal health isn't the exact same thing for everyone does not mean medicinal health does not exist as an objective science.

 

[WhoCares]

My brain hurts. I have to confess to spending no time whatsoever in such tedious thoughts. You folks can sort out the tedium of life, I'm too busy escaping into my mindscape. This is the kind of shit hardcore hipsters engage in.

 

[zago]

My brain hurts. I have to confess to spending no time whatsoever in such tedious thoughts. You folks can sort out the tedium of life, I'm too busy escaping into my mindscape. This is the kind of shit hardcore hipsters engage in.

I'm glad you said this. Recently I have been seeing the things different people are into and wondering how they could possibly stand or even perhaps enjoy such tedium. This means I am like them. I have been wondering if I am just a complete dabbler, but maybe I have actually gotten into something somewhat deeply.

 

[WhoCares]

Maybe. I'm just poking fun because I realise I have spent zero seconds pondering the great questions in life. Been asking plenty of personal ones, but those cosmic topics? None. Must now mull over whether I'm missing out or not.

 

[danseen]

I have no idea how anyone can say morality is subjective. Those people ALMOST (almost) deserve to have to live in concentration camps for saying something like that, 'cause it is like spitting in the face of 1) the people who have fought for the better world of today and 2) everyone who has suffered at the hands of grossly immoral people.

These idiots don't even think living in a death camp is different than living in historically unprecedented liberty and prosperity. LITERALLY. That's actually sickening. "It's all just an opinion man. What if someone WANTS to live in a death camp? It's all subjective. Hitler is technically just as good as George Washington." RIGHT. RIIIIIIIIIGHT. I mean how stupid can you possibly be?

There is a right and a fucking wrong god dammit. FUCK people who think morality is subjective.

Washington owned slaves, and endorsed Africans as inferior to whites. Hmmm.. a great guy? Choose a better example. lol.

 

[zago]

Washington owned slaves, and endorsed Africans as inferior to whites. Hmmm.. a great guy? Choose a better example. lol.

Focus on the actual argument and use your brain. Hitler was a monster. Washington acted in a way standard for the time by owning slaves, and he happened to be a spectacular leader. In the same way, things you and I do today will be looked back in 200 years from now as immoral.

 

[SensEye]

Did you just read the end of the paper or something? I would have to disagree with you - what she said isn't quite what you translated.

She specifically uses her line of reasoning to prove that there is a right way to live.

I read the whole thing. But her reasoning is that there is a right way to live because people figured out there is a right way to live.

Another excerpt from her paper:

I would argue not. Rather, I would argue that these very results—the undermining result
if we assume a mind-independent conception, and the non-undermining result if we assume a
mind-dependent conception—are actually what settles the debate between these two views of
value, with the right conclusion being that the undermining result implied by the mindindependent
conception is so implausible that it’s the mind-independent conception that must be
thrown out.

She argues a mind-indpendent conception (objective) is implausible and must be thrown out. And she argues the non-undermining result is a mind-dependent conception (subjective).

 

[danseen]

Focus on the actual argument and use your brain. Hitler was a monster. Washington acted in a way standard for the time by owning slaves, and he happened to be a spectacular leader. In the same way, things you and I do today will be looked back in 200 years from now as immoral.

And there were no other dictators in Europe in the 30s and 40s? got it...

And social equality was the norm then too? got it. Plus if you believe that morals change over time, then by definition they are subjective. Use your brain.

 

[zago]

I read the whole thing. But her reasoning is that there is a right way to live because people figured out there is a right way to live.

Another excerpt from her paper:

She argues a mind-indpendent conception (objective) is implausible and must be thrown out. And she argues the non-undermining result is a mind-dependent conception (subjective).

But evolution.

We have been asking whether an evolutionary biological explanation of our values ought to undermine them. The answer I’ve suggested is “yes and no.” The answer is “yes” to the extent you started out thinking that here are mind-independent truths about value. If that was your view going in, then I’ve suggested that you ought to abandon it and move to an mind-dependent conception. But once you adopt a mind-dependent conception of value—or if you already held such a view to begin with—then the answer is “no,” evolutionary explanations of our values aren’t undermining in the least.

We may have different conceptual schemes--religions, cultures, governments--but every last one of us underwent the same process of biological evolution, and indeed are all subject to the same laws of physics and chemistry as well. If those are the processes that created us there really doesn't need to be anything outside of them about right and wrong. It is possible for us to make right and wrong statements about those fields.

So in a sense the best system of morality would actually be "evolutionism" or "physicsism" or something, but people would definitely have a problem with at least the former because of their prior conceptions about the cruelty of evolution. Biologism would probably lead to less confusion, but isn't it still a bit too far removed from our experience? It isn't possible for us to think of our everyday actions in terms of biology at this point. Even though that's ultimately what determines right and wrong, being that suffering and well-being are neurochemical states.

In the "western morality" thread, I addressed this idea as well. I told danseen that he was basically taking the point of view of a rock as if it is somehow more true than the point of view of a human. From that sense I have already acknowledged, nothing that happens in the human world has any value. Everyone could be tortured forever and a rock wouldn't care.

Ultimately the point of the paper is that biological evolution doesn't just not undermine an absolute notion of right and wrong, it forms the basis for one.

 

[zago]

And there were no other dictators in Europe in the 30s and 40s? got it...

And social equality was the norm then too? got it. Plus if you believe that morals change over time, then by definition they are subjective. Use your brain.

You're still splitting hairs and calling it a valid argument.

I could certainly talk about other equally evil dictators, it doesn't change my point. Hitler is merely the standard idea of a monster with too much power.

I didn't say morals change over time. They don't. Science doesn't change over time either - we just get better at it.

 

[danseen]

lulz.. whatever dude. morals are a fiction and non-existent. or at best invented by humans solely. and if morals are absolute, explain why psychological differences lend to different behaviours and value systems?

 

[zago]

lulz.. whatever dude. morals are a fiction and non-existent. or at best invented by humans solely. and if morals are absolute, explain why psychological differences lend to different behaviours and value systems?

1. If morals exist only for humans, they still exist.

2. You misconceive morality. Above I compared a science of morality to a science of medicinal health. Not everyone needs the same interventions and prescriptions.

 

[danseen]

You just proved subjective morality.

 

[SensEye]

But evolution[/IUltimately the point of the paper is that biological evolution doesn't just not undermine an absolute notion of right and wrong, it forms the basis for one.

I wouldn't say absolute. Just a notion of right and wrong, and it's a subjective one. Primitive man would not have shared the same moral standard as modern man, although primitive man probably still had some standard of acceptable behavior.

Again, if morality was objective (outside of a personal viewpoint), primitive and modern man would still be following the same codes of behavior, because these codes would exist regardless of our opinion of them.

 

[Mole]

Development and Morality

Morality isn't subjective because it is developmental.

Morality follows a developmental pattern in the growing child and adolescent.

And morality follows a developmental pattern in child rearing practices in that as a society becomes more prosperous and educated, child rearing practices improve along a developmental curve.

And moral development in children and society can be objectively observed and measured.

 

[danseen]

eh? All morals are subjective. Yes, there is normal human development, but then explain why some children are kinder and others are rougher?

All things in this universe are subjectively perceived.