Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
God is believed to be omniscient. This means that God knows all moral facts (by moral facts I mean a set of facts that rightness and wrongness of an action can be derived from) if there are any. Any intelligent agent such as humans therefore can know the moral facts. We however know that there is no moral fact. Thus, believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts.
Comments (233)
For example, lets say that God did exist and knew all moral facts. First, we don't know if humans have the intelligence to comprehend something that is omniscient, because we're not. Second, belief in a God that does know all moral facts, does not give us any tools to understand or resolve those facts. So we can conclude as a starting argument that belief in a God that does understand all moral facts does not mean we are able to comprehend them, or have the tools and knowledge to resolve them.
I'm just noting that to reach your conclusion you're adding a lot of other unproven assumptions in there (barring the 'if God exists' assumption of course :) ).
I think we intellectually and linguistically evolved well enough to find out a moral fact if there is any. In the end, a moral fact is nothing but a combination of words. The fact that no one throughout history could not offer a moral fact means that there is none.
If God's existence and 'believed' nature are given, he not only knows what's right, he decides what's right; moral facts are whatever god wants them to be. That doesn't mean he'll communicate his conclusion in any given instance. (But he will judge you on your uninformed decision.) So, what use to you is his omniscience?
Quoting MoK
No human can know all the facts about any situation. We always operate on incomplete information, filled out with assumptions, previous experience and intuition.
Quoting MoK
Of course it doesn't. But believers are usually supplied with a holy book full of examples of rewarded and punished human actions, as well as a cleric to offer guidance. Non-believers have only their own conscience to answer.
I disagree with many of your statements some of these disagreements are because of the different definitions I use. First, good and evil are features of our experiences. Our actions can also be good or evil depending on how they make us feel. When it comes to morality both good and evil actions are permissible depending on the situation. A good action may be wrong or right in different situations. The same applies to an evil action. Given the definition of good and evil existence is neither good nor evil. What matters when it comes to morality is to find out whether we should do good or evil, one is right and another is wrong. We normally either follow our conscience or teaching when we want to decide what to do in a situation. However, as I mentioned in OP there is no moral fact so we are left by either our conscience or teaching.
He knows wrong and right based on what? His nature?
Quoting Vera Mont
Of course, He cannot decide about what is wrong or right. God either acts based on His nature or based on moral principles so His act cannot be arbitrary.
Quoting Vera Mont
An Omniscient God knows all facts including moral facts if there are any.
Quoting Vera Mont
We can agree on many facts. Here my focus is on moral facts that there is none. And no, we do not always operate on incomplete information... We only sometimes operate on incomplete information... when there is no fact to help us.
Quoting Vera Mont
But there are lots of conflicts in the teaching of different religions. So either there is no God or we should not follow any religion.
Correct.
Is that a fact, or a feeling? If its a fact, then we have a moral fact. If its a feeling, then what if I feel this is incorrect? Who's right? And that still doesn't counter the base definition I put that good is "What should be".
Quoting MoK
Based on feelings, or the situation? Which situations are permissible and which are not? If I'm a serial killer and I feel its right to murder people for fun, am I doing good? Why or why not?
Quoting MoK
If you understood the argument correctly, the question was, "Should there be existence?" It is a yes or no question. If one is invalid, the other is valid. If the answer is 'No', then it is good for there not to be existence. But the only way for there to be good, is if good exists. Good must then also cease to be. But if what is good is 'non-existence', and it is good to destroy good, then good is not really what should be, and it contradicts itself. Therefore by proof by contradiction, the answer to "Should there be existence?" is yes. So at its base, any objectively real morality will conclude that existence is good.
If you want to address the arguments specifically, its better that we take the discussion there so I can quote and direct easier. No need, just if you want to continue.
Well, that's just one interpretation of god. But don't forget that for many theists god doesn't properly 'know' anything because god is the source of all goodness and all potential - god is not reducible to the status of some kind of sky wizard, with a set of opinions, god is the ultimate concern and the ground of being itself.
Quoting MoK
Theists have no objective basis for morality. In this respect we are all alike. The best a theist can do is form personal beliefs or preferences or subjective views about what they think a god's morality might be. This is why, even in the same religion, theists are all over the place and can't agree on so many moral questions, from the status of women, to euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment, gay and trans rights, blood transfusions, stem cell research, divorce, human rights, etc, etc.
On the next sentence. He made the rules.
Quoting MoK
Why the hell not? He's GOD! He can do anything he wants, make any rules he wants, lose his temper like he did in the Big Book of God Fables, delegate entire tribes to be subservient to other tribes, punish people onto the nth generation for a transgression by an ancestor committedbefore she knew good and evil.... any damn thing he wants.
And that's why gods are a bad idea. We can screw up quite royally enough on our own.
Quoting MoK
He knows, but if he doesn't tell you, his knowledge is no use to you.
Quoting MoK
That's up to the individual. Religious teaching is fallible - and sometimes dead wrong. Secular law is fallible and sometimes dead wrong. Social mores are fallible and sometimes dead wrong. You make choices, and sometimes they're dead wrong.
Plato says as much in his dialogue Euthyphro.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
That is just a definition.
Quoting Philosophim
Good and evil are features of our experiences and they are both necessary.
Quoting Philosophim
Feelings together with reasons, teaching, etc. are factors that define a situation.
Quoting Philosophim
A serial killer enjoys killing. So that is one factor, feeling, that plays a role in his/her decision-making. Killing to serial a killer is good and to others is evil.
Quoting Philosophim
Ok, I will try to discuss my points on your thread later.
Even if we presume God is omniscient and know all the moral facts, but does he care or intervene on every human affairs and events happenings in the world?
He makes rules either based on His nature or based on moral facts. God is accepted to be a moral agent at least within believers.
Quoting Vera Mont
Is God a moral agent?
Quoting Vera Mont
I read those stories but I am not a believer of them. I think all believers think that God is a moral agent though. I started this thread in the hope of discussing things with believers too. So far no believer has joined the discussion.
Quoting Vera Mont
Correct.
Thanks for sharing the link. I will read it when I have time.
That is not the point of my discussion in this thread. I am arguing that humans can also know moral facts if there are any known by God. Anyhow I think God if we accept Him as a moral agent would care to intervene in human affairs.
You started the OP with "Quoting MoK, hence it sounded like God's intervention on morality was highly significant factor in the thread.
You are still maintaining God's involvement in morality after claiming it was not your main point.
Quoting MoK
Here as well. I am sure there are many sayings by God, which speaks on morality in the Bible. I am not familiar with the Bible, but just inferring.
No, it does not sound so.
No, I am not saying that.
Quoting Corvus
Again, God's intervention is not the subject of this thread.
OK, you are just wanting to discuss about the morality of humans i.e.
Quoting MoK :chin:
Thanks for your clarification.
I want to discuss two things: 1) Morality is not objective and 2) Believing in god does not resolve moral conflicts.
I don't know how anyone can argue effectively that a belief in god can resolve a moral conflict. How? How do we know what God thinks about moral issues? Which God is true? Can anyone demonstrate what God's relationship to morality is? Believers can't even agree on morality so it's clearly not working as a useful source of morality.
There are definitely the objective morality for sure. For example, harming others is morally wrong. No one in any corner of the universe would agree that is morally right.
Quoting MoK
Of course not. Believing itself has little do with morality. Morality is about your actions, not beliefs.
However, there are many religious countries in the world, whose moral values are based on their God's teachings. They would say, X is morally right, because the God has said so.
So it depends on which religion you are talking about. Even in Christian religion some of the biblical doctrines are still basis for morality such as love your neighbors, treat others as you want to get treated etc.
A definition of a moral fact! :D
Quoting MoK
Is it a fact that they are necessary, or simply a feeling and thus only an opinion?
Quoting MoK
When you include things like reasons, you include facts. Meaning you actually believe that morality is based more on feelings, but also reason. What reason guides us to moral conclusions?
Quoting MoK
One issue this brings up is you've equivocated two separate definitions into one. "What I like is what is good." Doesn't that really just translate to, "What I like is what I should do?" In what discussion of morality would that ever be accepted? Morality is a discussion about what a person should, and should not do and often concerns the consequences of that action, not merely feelings. For example, if a serial killer is unchecked, he could kill an entire small town. Is this good? If the majority of humanity woke up one day infected with a gas that made them want to kill everyone else and enjoy it, this would be good?
There is a temptation to attribute what we like with good, because then we get to justify what we like and avoid anything that tells us, "You might like it, but you shouldn't do that." But a real examination that can abandon this personal desire shows how disingenuous the claim, "Whatever I like is good" is.
:up:
I think you are talking about the conscience that the majority of people agree with it. The conscience is however not a fact.
Quoting Corvus
Some believers think otherwise.
Quoting Corvus
Morality is about whether an action is right or wrong. The point is that one needs a fact to realize this. There are however no facts when it comes to morality. Therefore, the morality is not objective.
Are you looking for a definition of moral fact? I defined it in OP.
Quoting Philosophim
Think of pain that is evil. That is a sign of injury in your body. You look for a cure when you are in pain. Without pain, you could harm yourself more. People who don't feel pain have shorter life expectancy.
Quoting Philosophim
Not moral facts since there is none. But other facts are involved in a decision like a thief wanting to rob but he is aware that he might be arrested and sent to prison.
Quoting Philosophim
I don't think that there is any moral fact.
Quoting Philosophim
We have four things when it comes to morality, good, evil, right, and wrong. Good and evil are features of our experiences and we are different in telling what is good or evil in some situations like the example of the serial killer who feels good when he kills while others feel it to be evil. An act might be good but wrong and vice versa. An act might be good and right and vice versa. We mostly depend on our conscience, reason, etc. when we want to decide in a situation.
Quoting Philosophim
The majority of people think that the serial killer's act is evil and wrong. He does not.
Quoting Philosophim
The majority of people based on their conscience think that it is evil and wrong.
Quoting Philosophim
I already differentiated between good and right in my previous comments. Something might feel good but it is wrong.
God is accepted as the moral agent by most believers. If God says "Take your son up that mountain and cut his throat." then the true believer goes up that mountain and kills his kid, because it's the right thing to do, because God said so. Never mind the wimp-out in the OT, the Phoenicians and Carthaginians sacrificed plenty of babies to their gods, as did the Incas and Maya. Indeed, that Abraham-Isaac story is indicative of the change in the Hebrew culture when human sacrifice was discontinued. At some point they questioned the infallibility of their god's moral compass - or at least the terms as relayed by their priests.
Quoting MoK
Most gods have been constrained by some ethical consideration. But not Big Omni, supposed creator of the whole shebang. He makes the Law; he's not required to operate within that law. He said as much to Job when confronted with his arbitrary persecution of that faithful servant.
Quoting MoK
How do you know what believers think when you don't share their belief? Where do you suppose they get their mental image of their god, if not from the holy books and clerical teaching? Do you imagine that all believers in a unigod have the same concept of that god's nature and will?
I think you've oversimplified and overgeneralized the concept of deity, then made sweeping claims about his moral position, leaving very little for believers to discuss.
My point is that you were stating a moral fact, but declared there was none.
Quoting MoK
So is pain good or evil? If people who don't feel pain live less, is that good or evil? Is a shorter life expectancy good? Why? What if a person is depressed or sad at a loss and doesn't want to live? Is taking their own life good because they want to?
Quoting MoK
Then this would be a moral fact. If a moral decision is included through reason, then it is a deduced fact.
Quoting MoK
All of this boils down to a feelings and reason, and reason would be a fact of what is good and what is not. You're being abstract, so lets drill in and make it defined. Why is the serial killer evil, even though he wants to kill and believes he is good?
Quoting MoK
I thought you said whatever I like is good. If more people like something than not, does that make it good? If more people liked murdering babies, would that be good then? Or if a majority of the population approved of sending Jews into a concentration camp to be gassed? If the majority liked enslaving another race of people?
Quoting MoK
I missed this then. How is it wrong if there are no moral facts?
Yeah, that's the really sad part. Kierkegaard says that this is the essence of Christianity, and that it is irrational and unethical. To be a true Christian, a knight of faith, in Kierkegaard's terms, one must be irrational and unethical. Blind faith, absolute fideism. Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. It's really sad stuff when you think about it rationally.
He's right about that. The story in a nutshell: God makes humans credulous, but with no understanding of right and wrong. Then he punishes them forever, for becoming conscious moral agents. Eventually, he finds them so offensive, he just can't forgive them without a really, really good guilt offering. Well, they don't have anything valuable enough for the magnitude of the sin, so, ever helpful, God impregnates an unwitting virgin and lets her raise a perfect demigod, for the sole purpose of having him painfully killed, in order to appease the same god who intelligently designed both mortals and the Sacrificial Lamb.
Right, and he impregnated her as a ghost, because that's what the Holy Ghost is: a ghost. Some people say "no, it's the Holy Spirit" but then in the same breath they say that yeah it's a ghost too in some sense. Anyways, the Holy Ghost is usually represented as a pigeon (a Holy Pigeon, if you will). Was it literal or metaphorical that Mary was impregnated by a Holy Ghost-Spirit-Pigeon?
The most mind-boggling case in that sense (to my mind, at least) is the story of how Eve came to be. God created her from one of Adam's ribs. Did that really happen like that, literally? Or is this is also metaphor? But if it's a metaphor, what is the underlying comparison or analogy here? A metaphor of what? When I say something like "Her teeth were white as pearls", I'm comparing teeth to pearls, on account of their "whiteness". If it's metaphorical that God created Eve from one of Adam's ribs, then what's the comparison here? What's the actual metaphor in this case? There isn't any, so the only rational conclusion is that we should read this story literally. Now, did that really happen? Apparently not, if we are to believe the most basic facts about human biology. People don't emerge from ribs, that's just not how it works.
Could have been a nod to Leda and the divine swan. Or not. The peace dove may have been added much later. I think the ghost was always meant to be a spirit and just fell prey to translation issues.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
The first ever clone with involuntary gender reassignment. You have a problem with that?
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
It may be a reference to earlier stories of Mesopotamian peoples, where y of how the gods, deep in their cups, amused themselves by creating living things out of inanimate matter, such as mud and wood. In the Egyptian one, humans are made from divine exudates; in the Sumerian myth, a god is sacrificed and his blood mixed with clay to fashion a servant race.
Or, it may be an allusion to the subordinate role of women: a mere adjunct to, and nothing without men.
In the first version, God created fish, birds and animals in the plural, each according to its kind, and then created multiple humans, male and female.
That's what was more interesting to me: the contrast between the first and second chapters of Genesis. Also that little editorial slip:
"Gen 3:2 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: "
Obviously, both the first chapter and this bit were left over from an earlier mythology - likely Sumerian - with a pantheon instead of a unigod.
The stories are just that. Interesting, revealing of how the authors thought and of how cultures developed; not without literary merit - but still just stories. All peoples had them, clung to them, and still have them. We are a species of story-tellers.
I regret this has no bearing on the moral question. Gods are not usually moral or law-abiding entities.
But that's my point: how could God clone her, if there were no eggs for the clone cell? She was the first woman, right? So where did the egg come from? Did Adam have a secret ovary? Like, it gets progressively worse the more you think about it. This one is way, waaay worse than the "dinosaur thing", in my view. The kind of theory that one requires in order to defend it is just so unfeasible that I don't think that anyone can really make a coherent case for it. Folks will usually tell you that dinosaurs didn't exist, but they're reluctant to explain what this "magic rib" even is.
(edited due to severe confusion on my behalf)
I was being facetious. It makes no more difference than how the entire earth can be covered in seawater, and then uncovered, reverting to normal, or how a bush can burn and not be consumed, or a virgin give birth or five thousand people can picnic on 5 loaves of bread and two fish, and have baskets of leftovers. These are not scientific treatises - they're myths!
I know, I was just playing along.
Quoting Vera Mont
Vera, I'm not sure I need to remind you that there's people that say that the Earth was created just a few thousand years ago, and that God put atoms and isotopes that "seem to indicate otherwise" just to "test the physicist's good Christian faith". Like, I'm not making this up, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. It's a real problem in education just at a merely institutional level, to say nothing of a cultural level.
I'll make an exception of Buddhism and other religions of the sort. But between modern moral philosophy and religion there is no comparison.
What do you mean by that?
Non-theistic systems that will invoke "religious" concepts e.g. karma, rebirth, etc.
Would you include the indigenous religions of the Amazonian peoples in that group?
https://dbe.rah.es/biografias/20789/jose-manuel-peramas
I have that book. Here is an extract, that I translated to English myself:
"No republic, comparable to that of Plato, will be able to subsist in Europe, based on its impious dogmas. It is more appropriate to ask: Does such a republic exist? Did it ever exist in the world? That is what we propose to investigate here. And we hope to be able to demonstrate that among the Guaraní Indians of America, Plato's political conception was realized, at least approximately."
(edited for clarity)
Yup. I'm afraid I can't fix that. Stupidity is part of the Human Condition.
Unfortunately, the bulk of that effort was not directed toward making sense of moral issues, but justifying their religious tenets. Not just Jews and Christians, Muslims, too, have struggled to rationalize their irrational god. That doesn't make their moral system more sophisticated, just more convoluted.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
We don't actually need an authority to give us a reason to do right. We have subjective motives, social motives and a few of us have spiritual motives.
Quoting Vera Mont
Oh, I was not aware of that passage. I used other verses to challenge Christians' views.
Quoting Vera Mont
I discussed this topic with believers elsewhere to death. As far as I can tell from my discussions with Christians, God's nature is good and He wants us to be good like Him.
I have never said that there is a moral fact.
Quoting Philosophim
Pain is a subjective experience so it could be good for a masochist and evil for normal people.
Quoting Philosophim
Neither. As I mentioned good and evil are features of our experiences and have nothing to do with right and wrong. People who don't feel pain live less. This has nothing to do with morality.
Quoting Philosophim
Are you asking whether taking their own life is "right"? In my view, that is not based on any moral fact; any person has all right to his/her life.
Quoting Philosophim
The fact that a thief knows that he may be arrested is not a moral fact.
Quoting Philosophim
A serial killer is evil to us since the act of killing is not pleasant to us. Killing to a serial killer is good since he gets pleasure from it.
Quoting Philosophim
Good and evil as I mentioned are features of our experience so they are subjective and not objective. So we are different in calling what is good or evil.
Quoting Philosophim
If they do it for pleasure then it is good otherwise is evil.
Quoting Philosophim
People do things for different reasons or feelings. They might feel that an act is evil but right for some reason.
Quoting Philosophim
People think things are wrong or right based on their consciences, beliefs, and the like.
Conscience is your psychological state of feeling guilt when doing morally wrong things. It is not an agreement. Morality is based on the moral code. Moral code is in the form of "Do this" or "Don't do this".
Quoting MoK
Morality is a subject discussing what is morally right or wrong acts, principles, and the basis for the judgements of morally right and good actions of humans. You don't need facts. Maybe you need facts for the social science topics.
Yes, we do not have a common conscience on many things. We also have a common conscience on many other things.
Quoting Corvus
How could you judge that an act is right or wrong if you don't have any moral facts?
But we have common moral codes. That is what morality is about. Not conscience.
Quoting MoK
The moral codes give you the ground for moral judgements. What do you mean by moral facts?
What do you mean by moral codes?
Quoting Corvus
I already defined moral facts in OP. By moral facts, I mean a set of facts that we can derive whether an act is right or wrong.
For example in the Bible, there are 10 commandments.
In other religions, I am sure they have their own moral codes.
Quoting MoK
The ancient folks derived the moral good and bad from the religious moral codes such as 10 commandments. But Kant said, that we have the practical reason we derive the moral good and bad from all actions of humans, which are universal and objective.
Moral facts sounds not appropriate and has nothing to do with moral good or bad.
Yes, somewhere in the Bible, ten Commandments, God says that you should not kill. In other places He says kill everybody but virgin girls who you should keep for yourself, Numbers 31:17-18. So, we have a problem with what we should do in a situation, kill or not kill!
Quoting Corvus
I don't think that moral right and wrong are objective and universal.
Quoting Corvus
Moral facts are required if morality is objective.
You haven't answered what moral facts are. You just said moral facts are required. If you don't know what moral facts are, how can you say it is required?
Do you want me to give you an example of moral fact? How can I give you one when there is none?
The point is not whether it exists or not. The point is it is nothing to do with Moral good and bad.
Read some Kant. He says we all know what moral good and bad is from our practical reasoning which is universally objective. You don't need moral facts which seems a dubious word.
Moral facts are required if we want to derive whether an act is right or wrong.
Quoting Corvus
How could morality be objective when there is no fact/right premise that we can use to conclude whether an act is right or wrong?
It is the moral code still the base of the most moral right or wrong. You need to read the 10 commandments, and reflect on the many moral rights and wrong now. They are all related, and originated from the code.
I have not heard of Moral Facts before, hence I am not sure what it is, and why its non existence is the reason for moral subjectivity. Maybe it doesn't exist, because it has never existed in the first place?
And as Kant said, we know what moral good and bad are by simply reflecting on the human actions by our practical reasoning which is universal and objective.
Yes, of course. They learn that in Sunday school and just keep repeating it, because it sounds right, feels right and gives them some reassurance that, if only they try hard enough to deserve his favour, God will make everything all right. Most of the Christians I've met - sincere, half-hearted or cynical - haven't read very much of their holy book. Or else, they wave off the nasty bits of their religion's underpinnings with 'interpretation': "It doesn't mean what it says; it's metaphorical or allegorical or lost in translation...."
But you have replied in a way that indicates there is one. A person can claim that plants don't need water to live, but then proceed to water their plants during a drought saying, "I do it to make them more comfortable, they'll die if they're not comfortable." Its not saying, "Plants need water to sustain life," but implicit in the action and belief there is the understanding that they'll die without it. After all, you're not playing them music for comfort. =P
Silly analogy aside, reason relies on facts. If you say that morality is determined partially by reason, then you by consequence are saying it relies on facts. If morality truly has no facts, then no amount of reason can justify any good or evil action. At that point, good and evil don't exist. If this is a fact, then reasonably every action is permitted, and no action is restricted. The concentration camps were not evil, kicking a baby and laughing at its cries of internal bleeding and pain are fine to celebrate.
Be careful to really understand that an armchair conclusion is not the same as a real world decision. Would you actually behave in real life as if good and evil were simply opinions, or would you think it was a fact that a person of sound mind is evil and should be stopped who laughed at killing innocents, raping women, and blowing up property for fun? Because there is not a single person in the world across all cultures who wouldn't call that man evil.
Quoting MoK
There is a condition that a person can have where they feel no pain. Many of them die early, and have terrible scars and disfigurements the longer they live because the lack of pain doesn't allow them to detect when they're injuring themselves. For example, as kids they'll put their hand on a hot stove and burn their flesh away not realizing the damage they're causing. If a person with this condition wouldn't like the feeling of pain, isn't it still good to have pain as a warning that something is hurting your body? The objective answer is: Yes. It is irrelevant to whether a person likes it or not.
Quoting MoK
Then what is right and wrong? Generally what is right is synonymous with a good action, while wrong is synonymous with a wrong action.
Quoting MoK
Did you know that rights are moral assertions? A right is a statement that no one else has moral justification in taking something away from you. Freedom of speech for example is a considered good, or what should be, because the exchange of ideas in a free and comfortable area allows a situation to be thought through on all sides, encourages creativity, helps solve solutions most effectively, and lets societies grow. All of this is a moral assertion that such things are good. There are lots of individuals who don't like the freedom of speech. They say, "I don't like when someone insults me or my favorite politician. That's wrong because I don't like it, and should be thrown in jail." If your assertion is there is no moral fact, then there are no rights.
Quoting MoK
But we've already demonstrated the problem with 'good = what I want". It leads to contradictions and anything is allowed. At that point, how do we handle a conflict of likes without moral facts? I could kidnap my neighbor, torture him because he dared start building a fence 1 inch on my property, then kill him 30 days later after inflicting as much pain as possible on them. And no one could say I was factually wrong, just, "I don't like that you did that." And if I didn't like that they said that, I could do the same to them as well and no one could reasonably say I was wrong to do so either.
Everything else is a repeat. Think about this for a while and don't respond immediately if you don't mind. All good philosophy is about considering with seriousness anything that could counter our initial beliefs. Try to prove that I'm right, then if you see contradictions if I am right, point them out.
I already mentioned that the Bible is not a reliable source for morality. You mentioned Ten Commandments and I mentioned Numbers 31:17-18.
Quoting Corvus
I have already defined moral facts in OP. How can we say that an act is right or wrong if we cannot derive the rightness or wrongness of it from a set of facts?
Quoting Corvus
I don't think that Kant is right in this instance.
Very correct.
No, I am saying that morality is not based on any moral facts since there is not any moral fact.
Quoting Philosophim
Correct. We cannot justify any action if there is not any moral fact.
Quoting Philosophim
Good and evil exist even if there is not any moral fact.
Quoting Philosophim
These actions look evil to the majority of people and people who think otherwise try to avoid them because of social constraints yet these actions are not right or wrong perse.
Quoting Philosophim
The evil person who commits these actions does not think they are wrong.
Quoting Philosophim
The right action, good or evil, is what we should do and the wrong action, good or evil, is what we should not do. We punish our children when they do something wrong. Punishment is evil since it is not pleasant to parents and kids yet it is right. I have to say that our conclusion that the punishment in certain situations is right is not based on moral facts but on our conscience, belief, and the like.
Quoting Philosophim
The very existence of conflicts between people for their rights is an indication that there is no moral fact.
Quoting Philosophim
I have been thinking about morality for a very very long time and I think I am correct in saying that there is no moral fact therefore morality is subjective.
Then the only thing we can reason is that we can all do whatever we want to each other and no one has a reasonable way of saying what can and cannot be permitted. So if a person murdered your friends and loved ones reasonably, what they did was good on their part. If you conflict, all they have to do is end you and they are ultimately right. Might and emotional desire make right basically.
Quoting MoK
You also cannot justify forbidding any action either. MoK, this is when armchair philosophy fails. You know darn well that if someone stole from you, you would want society to agree with you that it was wrong, despite what others feel. You know that even if a majority thought it was good to murder an entire group of people in a concentration camp, that would still make it wrong. I can't take a person seriously who does not consider these realities.
Quoting MoK
No, because it would have to be a fact that they exist. If good and evil are not facts, they don't exist. Even if you claimed, "Good is what I like", then you are asserting that as a fact. If its not a fact, then its only an opinion, and therefore nothing anyone has to agree with.
Quoting MoK
Of course not, but if I think that a magical rain dance made it rain, it doesn't mean I'm correct.
Quoting MoK
Alright, we're getting somewhere now. How do we know what we should or shouldn't do? You noted:
Quoting MoK
So you think that right and wrong have some factual basis to them, because they exist independently of social constraints or opinions. Those would be moral facts MoK.
Quoting MoK
Again, this is summarized as feelings. Not reason. Not facts. Just how we feel that day. So if I feel like killing someone this morning its good? Tomorrow I don't so its evil? I feel like staying married today so I don't divorce my wife, but tomorrow I feel tired of her so its good for me to divorce her without consideration of the real consequences for tomorrow? What separates your claims of good and evil from the actions of a child?
Quoting MoK
How so? That's just an assertion, not a reasoned explanation. My point that if there are no moral facts there are no rights stands. But saying that because there is conflict over something, that something cannot be a fact is absurd. If my wife and I fight over who gets the last cookie, is there no cookie? :D
Quoting MoK
What you think isn't philosophy or a reasoned discussion. That's just a belief. Like me believing the pink elephant dancing in the corner of my room's name is Fred. We all think we're correct in our own beliefs. Philosophy and reason is about putting those beliefs out there and being open to challenging them, questioning them, refining them, and sometimes changing them. "I think I'm correct therefore I am," is not thinking, that's feeling.
I am not saying the Bible is the reliable source for morality. I am saying that many current morality is based on the Bible.
Quoting MoK
I did read the OP again. Your just wrote God must know all moral facts. That is not a definition. How can God know all moral facts, if it doesn't exist? Can you give some examples of moral facts?
Quoting MoK
Why don't you think Kant is right in this instance? If someone talks badly to other folks about you with false accusations and lies about you for some egotistic motives for him. Would you not reason and judge it is morally wrong?
Anyone in the world would judge the case as morally wrong because we all have practical reason which is universal and objective according to Kant. But you don't agree with Kant. Why don't you agree with his theory? Would you need moral fact to judge that is morally wrong?
We cannot do whatever we want because of social constraints. Social constraints are however based on what the majority agree on and this agreement is due to having the same conscience, belief, interest, and the like.
Quoting Philosophim
No, we can forbid many actions because of social agreement. This agreement is possible since the majority of people have a common conscience, belief, interest, etc.
Quoting Philosophim
What looks good to me may look evil to others, which is the source of social conflicts. Have you ever asked yourself what is the source of social conflicts?
Quoting Philosophim
The only source that we have to see what is permissible and what is not is conscience, belief, interest, and the like. But people have different consciences, beliefs, and interests and that is the cause of all struggles that we witness now and existed in the past.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, I think morality can be objective if there are moral facts.
Quoting Philosophim
Of course, there is a last cookie. You however have your own interests and that is the source of conflict.
All you've replaced is personal emotion with group emotion. Meaning I could nuke a group that doesn't have the emotions I do to do what I want, and that's good. That's genocide. According to your argument, there's nothing wrong or evil with genocide. Might makes right is the end result.
Quoting MoK
I nuke them, and there is nothing rational that forbids me from doing that. If its all emotions, rationally nothing is forbidden.
Quoting MoK
All the time. Social conflict is not always about good and evil, but wants and needs and the denial of those wants being fulfilled. Currently if what you like is good, then an argument with a partner over which move to see is a battle of good and evil. :) The argument that you have a different opinion on what is good or evil suddenly makes there be no fact of good or evil is the same as saying I have a different opinion on whether that's a tree or a bush, therefore there is no tree or bush. That doesn't invalidate the terms good and evil any more than the terms tree and bush.
Quoting MoK
Once again, you can sum that all up as 'feelings'. MoK, can I believe something and realize its wrong? Of course. What you're noting is that we can believe whatever we want and it can never be wrong. What I like is good because I like it, so therefore its good. You're saying no one can ever make a mistake as to what is good and evil, and that there is no rational way to handle conflicts, that anyone who disagrees with what you want is a hinderance, you don't like it, therefore they're evil.
According to you, I'm evil because I'm holding a position you don't want. If you couldn't convince me, and that annoyed you, rationally you could come shoot me while humming and there would be nothing wrong with that. Is that the type of morality you think works in the world? Is that the morality you follow in your own life? If you come up with a philosophical argument that you yourself don't live by, that's an indicator its not a very good argument.
Quoting MoK
And my point is that you asserted one.
It is what it is and you cannot deny it. It is the group decision that makes something right or wrong. I am not saying that it is objectively right or wrong though.
Quoting Philosophim
Even if you can nuke the group your action from their perspective is evil.
Quoting Philosophim
Wants and needs are affected by feelings. You want to eat because you feel hungry. How could you have any needs if you have no feelings?
Quoting Philosophim
Two things affect humans, reason or feeling. These two are fundamental. Conscience for example is a sort of feeling. Belief is based on reason and feeling. You have certain beliefs because of the reason of the afterlife. You worry about entering Hell and prefer Heaven.
Quoting Philosophim
Where?
Correct.
Quoting Corvus
I mentioned that moral facts are a set of facts that we can derive from whether an action is right or wrong.
Quoting Corvus
Because I think that morality cannot be objective.
Quoting Corvus
From my perspective, he did something evil and morally wrong. He may think otherwise.
Quoting Corvus
Could you give a reason why an action is universally and objectively wrong?
Obviously his moral sense doesn't exist. Why should you care his thoughts make sense?
Quoting MoK
Ok, let's focus on his first formulation of categorical imperative since the second formulation is derived from the first one. From Wiki: "The moral proposition A: "It is permissible to steal" would result in a contradiction upon universalisation. The notion of stealing presupposes the existence of personal property, but were A universalized, then there could be no personal property, and so the proposition has logically negated itself." I think this formulation does not consider two aspects of a property, namely the right to have a property and the ability to have a property. I think universalizing stealing negates the right to have a property but not the ability to have a property. A person could be strong enough to steal a property and keep it for himself/herself. Therefore, saying that "there could be no personal property" does not follow hence his argument fails.
It is not about personal property. It is about the action i.e. stealing.
Accepting stealing as permissible negates the right of having a property, not the ability to have a property. A person could be politically, socially, ... strong and steal from others and keep it as his/her property.
Stealing is universally regarded as morally wrong. No one in the world would think stealing is morally right regardless the property were personally or publicly owned. Stealing shouldn't be permitted in any circumstances by universal law.
By whom? A person who is hungry and steals food does not think so. And where is the argument for that?
The universal moral law will say stealing is wrong. The hungry folk should have asked for some food explaining his / her situation from those around him. Without doubt some charitable folks out of sympathy would have offered the hungry fellow man with hot food and drinks.
Under the universal and objective moral law which is residing in all human reasoning, stealing is morally wrong.
What is the argument for that?
The argument is based on the logical implication from the Ethics and Practical Reasoning by Kant, and the concept of Sympathy of Hume in A Treatise of Human Nature.
I can definitely deny it. :) Especially if its subjective. It only can't be denied if its objectively true. A group decision results in what action occurs, but does not determine if its right or wrong. If a group of people decide to steal a plane and fly it into the twin towers, does that mean it was good to do so? If a group decides to nuke the world and end all life, is that good to do so? No one would rationally argue it is, and a person with subjective morality doesn't care about rationality because there is none if there are no moral facts.
Quoting MoK
And if its all just a feeling, then its irrelevant what they feel or believe. Its irrelevant what the nukers feel and believe. Everything is irrelevant but feelings. Pump yourself full of meth and feel amazing! Shoot people with glee and abandon! This is good. Lie, cheat, steal, rob, rape, destroy, and ruin for pleasure, its is good. Do you really believe that in practice? You would approve of that for your children, your family, your friends, and even yourself?
Quoting MoK
Feelings are indicators of our needs, they are not the needs themselves. Remember the people who cannot feel pain? They still need to not hurt themselves, they're just lacking a tool to minimize harm. Even if you're not hungry or thirsty, if you don't eat or drink you'll eventually die. Feelings are digests of a situation that compel us to act or not act. They are not focused reading or studying of the situation. Feelings are very useful for general application and impetus but do not produce thoughtful actions or discoveries alone. Cell phone technology was not discovered on a whim, but through careful application of math, science, and rational study.
Quoting MoK
I'm an atheist MoK. I don't believe in an afterlife. I'm much more concerned about morality for how it impacts the short time we are conscious beings on this planet. I agree we have both reason and feelings, but so far all I've seen from your assertion of subjective morality is feelings. If you've recently freed yourself from a religion or someone who imposed a moral order on you from their subjective viewpoint, I can understand the resistance.
A real objective morality is not about controlling people MoK. Its a freeing idea that allows us to rationally, not emotionally, not for status, not for dominance or misery, to analyze actions and come to a rational conclusion of what would be more beneficial to reality. An objective morality requires rational argumentation, allows debate, and is always open for questioning. It does not insist that it be followed or you will receive eternal punishment. It does not insist on a reward that no one is really getting. Its a note about how to function best as an emotional and rational human agent in the world.
Quoting MoK
You noted that right and wrong have some factual basis to them because they exist independently of social constraints or opinions.
I already mentioned the problem within Kant's argument, first formulation. I am currently reading this article on Hume's argument on the topic. The article is however very long. Could you summarize Hume's argument?
Sure. It is rather simple. When we see a fellow human being suffering, we want to offer help to save the folk if we can. It is out of our sympathy in our emotion which we share with all the human beings in the world.
When we see the fellow human being saved from our help, we feel moral good, that we have done something good for other human beings. It is the nature of our mind which are loaded with these sharable emotions called sympathy, Hume says.
By the group, I mean the majority of the human population.
Quoting Philosophim
No, I won't approve of any of these but my disapproval is biased by how I feel in such situations. My feeling is not a moral fact though.
Quoting Philosophim
Quite opposite. There would be no needs or wants without feelings. I didn't say that needs are feelings though.
Quoting Philosophim
Even as an atheist, you have certain worries about your life.
Quoting Philosophim
But there is no objective morality since there are no moral facts.
Quoting Philosophim
I have never mentioned that.
Well, that is not an argument in favor of objective morality. The majority of the human population feels the same way in the same situations. But there is a minority that enjoys from inflicting pain on others. Therefore, the feeling cannot be a base or fact for objective morality.
If good is just a feeling, why should the majority of the human population matter? If a minority feel a certain way and can act on it, who cares? Why is the majorities feelings any more important than the minorities feelings?
Quoting MoK
Is it purely based on your feelings, or do you have some reasons you put out there? Let me be clear, a feeling is not a thought. So you would feel bad about it, not think about it, and act on it. Do you ever have any other thoughts? Justification for that feeling? Consider the situation prior to acting on the feeling, then act?
As an example, I want to kill this person that I think stole from me. I have an opportunity to act, and I do. In another scenario I see the opportunity, but I want to be sure it was them first. I really feel like killing them is good, but I hold off. Five minutes later I discover it wasn't them that stole from me. Am I still a good person in the first scenario? Am I still a good person in the second scenario? Is there really no way for me to rationally say, "I behaved better in the second scenario than in the first?"
Quoting MoK
I'm very well off MoK. I have everything I need, and almost everything I want in life. My arguments against a subjective morality are purely because of the irrationality of its stance, and the utterly destructive outcomes it leaves in its wake in the world if followed to the letter.
Quoting MoK
This was several posts back and I do not care to search through and find this again. If you are stating now that right and wrong do not exist independently from social constraints or opinions, then this particular point no longer holds.
Does the fact that a minority of people also reject that the Earth is round, the germ theory of disease, or that the Holocaust happened also demonstrate that there is no fact of the matter on these questions? Why must knowledge of moral facts be universal and infallible?
Historically, sentimentalist approaches to ethics, those which attempt to ground ethics in universal or common "feeling," already assumed that there were no moral facts in the way there were "descriptive facts" (and the dichotomy already assumes a difference). So, if we take them as paradigmatic ethical theories we run the risk of slipping into accidental begging the question.
I would argue there are clearly facts related to values. Consider:
It is bad for children to be exposed to high levels of lead.
It is bad for a bear to get its leg stuck in a bear trap.
Michael Jordan is a better basketball player than my toddler son.
Garry Kasparov is a better chess player than all the kids at the local kindergarten.
Plowing your life savings into Enron stock in 2001 or Bear Sterns stock in 2008 would have been a bad investment.
Throwing a dart at a list of explanations for a given phenomena and deciding that whatever the dart has landed on is the correct explanation is a bad way to do science.
The person committed to the idea that there are no facts about values is committed to the implausible position that the statements above lack any truth value, that they are, in a sense, undecidable.
Likewise, there will be no fact of the matter about what constitutes good or bad argument, good or bad evidence, or good or bad faith vis-á-vis arguments, and no fact of the matter as to whether truth is truly preferable than falsity.
I'd argue that moral anti-realism and nihilism only seem as plausible as they do because people try to scope it down to "moral values," making "moral good" a sort of sui generis good that is divorced from all other notions of goodness, choiceworthyness, desirability, etc. But is this a proper distinction? I don't think it is, since it is unclear what such a distinct "moral good" is supposed to consist in once it has been isolated from all other questions of value.
And here is the objectional premise driving the slide to moral nihilism in much thought. "If something has to do with desirability or choiceworthyness it always has to do with feelings (i.e., the passions and the appetites) and never involves reason directly."
Is this so? Why can't the desire to know the truth, or the desire to know what is truly best, be ascribed to reason? To claim that reason only deals with facts, and that facts exclude values, or that all questions of value are based on desire, and that reason is never involved in desire, might prop up nihilism, but it seems much harder to justify in itself.
The universal and objective morality as a human nature is the principle of Ethics. It doesn't mean 100% human beings understand and practice the moral law.
There would be real life cases where some of the minority folks' judgements and understandings get impaired due to various reasons. And there will always be some minority folks going against the human nature and the normativity also for various reasons.
The principle cannot do anything against them apart from saying that they are morally wrong. However, the principle still stands as the normativity of morality.
They feel the same way; they establish the laws based on that and everybody has to follow the laws.
Quoting Philosophim
There is no problem as far as there is no conflict of interest between majority and minority. But that is not always the case.
Quoting Philosophim
Because they establish the laws.
Quoting Philosophim
It is merely based on feeling in my case. Reason however could matter for some individuals who want to harm others for example. They are afraid of getting arrested.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, we could have reasons that it is wrong to follow certain feelings. Consider the previous example.
Quoting Philosophim
Accepting that killing is permissible in such a situation, your action is wrong in the first scenario and right in the second one.
Quoting Philosophim
It is not irrational at all. Subjective morality is functional because the majority agree on it.
Quoting Philosophim
Morality therefore is subjective if we accept that.
If you ever want to consider the topic seriously, private message me or open it up somewhere again. Until then, good luck with yourself and I'll chat with you another time. :)
I challenge the belief of those who think that moral facts are universal and infallible. All people who believe in an eye for an eye for example. All people who believe that killing a serial killer is right. And I don't think that the knowledge of moral facts must be universal since we could have a healthy life following our common feelings that are subjective.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I don't disagree with the truth value of those statements. I however think we have to be very cautious about the truth value of the statements that are accepted as facts related to morality.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I am not a moral nihilist. However, I think that moral anti-realism is correct. All our values are subjective. What we call good or evil is subjective. Don't take me wrong. I think that the subjective values and features of our experience, good and evil, are important when it comes to morality, without them, we cannot be functional and have a healthy life.
I think it leads to moral anti-realism. Why do you think that it leads to moral nihilism?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Well, reason requires facts as its premises. I am wondering what are the facts when it comes to objective morality. I am not saying that reason or fact is divorced from subjective morality though. A thief for example has a reason or fact not to steal since he knows he may be arrested. So I distinguish between reasons that are involved in subjective morality (the thief example) and facts that lead to objective morality.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I think that knowing the truth or what is truly the best can be based on both reason and feeling. We know for sure that advancing in science is good by reason. Reason as I mentioned in the example of the thief plays an important role in a stable and healthy society as well. I just don't think that there are reasons or facts for objective morality.
I am wondering what is the argument for objective morality. As I mentioned Kant's argument is false. Hume's argument is based on specific feelings that are not common between human beings.
I am not stuck. I hope we can chat on another topic sometime soon. :)
Please read the SEP article on Kant's Moral Philosophy. Here is an article about Hume's Morality as well. And this is Kant vs. Hume on Morality.
After your reading, please let us know the reason why you think they are false. You cannot say they are false, if you don't know what they are.
Ok, I will read them when I have time.
:ok: :wink:
Let's focus on Kant's first formulation of morality since the article is long and he has several formulations. We can discuss other formulations after I have time to read and think about them. Here is the first formulation: "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law". My main objection to this formulation is why I should accept to only act according to a maxim that I can will when it becomes a universal law.
It is discussed in the article that four steps must be taken to find out whether an action is right or wrong. These four steps are: "First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your proposed plan of action. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this new law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible." We of course cannot conceive a world in which a specific maxim, like killing is permissible, but my question is why we should generalize a maxim to become a universal law.
Think of a person with locked-in syndrome. He suffers from being in such a condition greatly. He wishes to die desperately. Isn't it right to assist him to die? Is it right to keep him in such a condition? Accepting that we only can find the rightness of a maxim by generalizing it to become a universal law has this danger of putting people in an undesirable and unfair situation such as people with locked-in syndrome.
Universal law doesn't mean some legislative codes or official declaration. It means the way moral good and bad is judged. It is judged by our practical reasoning on the actions, decisions on the moral situations.
In Kant, reason is an objective and universal way of thinking. Everyone on the planet says 1+1=2 (by analytic reason), and killing is morally bad (by practical reason). This is what Kant means by universal and objective.
Moral good is not something God tells you what to do, and it is not an absolute concept existing somewhere in space, in Kant's view.
OK there are some controversial cases in real world, where decisions and judgements could be controversial or contradictory such as your example of the locked-in man. Even in that case, the judgement and decision on the situation are to be made from practical reasoning, so that the result is thought to be best for achieving moral good (not by God's instruction or the absolute moral Good as some folks seem to think).
Moral good is not about what some folks feels different on certain situations. It is about the actions which have been performed, and decisions which have been made. It is not about the feelings. It is about the actions. In that sense moral judgements are reflective and analytical which are made via practical reasoning.
You may feel about something totally different in moral judgements from the rest of the folks in the universe. That is not morality. That is just a psychological disposition or beliefs which can change through time and by rethinking. But when you performed a certain act on the moral situation, it will then be judged morally good or bad.
According to Kant, accepting a maxim as a universal law is a way to determine whether an action is right or wrong. Once people agree that an action is right or wrong, they can establish the legislative code accordingly.
Quoting Corvus
Could you derive whether killing a person with locked-in syndrome is morally right or wrong using Kant's first formulation? How about people who are terminally ill? How about when your country is at war with another country and the enemy is about to occupy your country?
Quoting Corvus
If morality is based on reason only then it is objective.
If a community or society come to agreement on certain moral codes, they could make them into the objective and universal law. Then the moral code becomes the legal legislation. For example, in some countries of South Asia such as Singapore and Indonesia, drug trafficking offenses are punishable by death. Where does the legislation come from? It must have from the moral code which they have agreed to make into their universal law.
Note here "universal" doesn't mean for the whole universe, but for all cases in the country or society or group.
Anyhow, it would be a result of their practical reasoning on the cases which drug uses and trades cause harm to the population in the countries. And it must have been derived from the universal law that harming others is morally evil.
Quoting MoK
If you or the society you belong to, have accepted the maxim that killing is bad under all circumstances, then it would be morally wrong to assist the locked-in man to die.
However, in some countries in Europe, assisted killing is legal in such cases. Hence it would depend on the society the situation has risen. Again here, "universal" doesn't mean the whole universe. It means for all cases in the country or society or group.
Quoting MoK
Not just reasoning, but humans also share similar emotions in the form of sympathy according to Hume. But Hume was, I gather, a moral nihilist. He said, you cannot derive "ought from is", hence there is no obligation for one to be expected to perform moral good out of the maxims or universal law.
From what you have been saying on morality, Hume seems to be on the same side as your idea.
Quite the opposite. If an action is proven to be objectively right or wrong then any society must accept it as right or wrong.
Quoting Corvus
That is a matter of their opinion that is different from the opinion of people in other countries.
Quoting Corvus
If it is so then morality is not objective.
Quoting Corvus
But practical reasoning is different from pure reasoning. I think that Kant believed that morality is objective based on pure reasoning. Don't you think?
Quoting Corvus
That does not answer my question. I asked whether you can derive that killing is wrong under all circumstances using the first formulation of Kant.
Quoting Corvus
But people have different opinions, beliefs, feelings,... How could we agree on a maxim if we want to derive rightness or wrongness from opinions, beliefs, feelings,...? How could morality be objective then?
Quoting Corvus
Indeed, that is quite ironic!
Quoting Corvus
No, I believe in subjective morality.
It is the same meaning as " Any society prove an action is objectively right or wrong, they must accept it as right or wrong.", but you just changed the sentence from active to passive form, and then wrote it is quite the opposite.
Quoting MoK
Different countries and societies could have their own objective and universal laws in morality.
Quoting MoK
It is objective within the countries, and societies.
Quoting MoK
Practical reason is what deals with the moral judgements, not pure reason.
Quoting MoK
The answer is "It depends on which country you are residing, when the killing took place." It will be judged by the universal law in the country where the action had been taken.
Quoting MoK
Hume was a moral relativist. He said, you cannot derive "ought from is". But still human beliefs, feelings and emotions are common in most times in the form of sympathy.
Quoting MoK
Hume has his points.
Quoting MoK
Subjective morality means a moral nihilist.
Sorry, I should have written all societies instead of any society.
Quoting Corvus
The fact that countries or societies have different laws means that morality is not objective but relative.
Quoting Corvus
Therefore, morality cannot be objective.
Quoting Corvus
Therefore, morality cannot be objective.
Quoting Corvus
That is not correct. There is no moral truth in moral nihilism. Moral subjectivism is however based on a person's perspectives so moral truth depends on the individual subjective perspective.
Well, that is exactly same thing as saying the other folks judgements on the morality don't count or matter at all. Morality itself implies objectivity and universality in the judgements. When you deny that you are denying morality itself. There is no such thing as subjective morality. That would just mean a psychological state or disposition, nothing to do with morality.
I say that morality is personal. A person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his/her life for example.
Quoting Corvus
I don't think that there is such a thing as objective morality. I gave you time to defend objective morality. You mentioned Kant's formulations that are based on pure reason, at least his first formulation to the best of my understanding. You on the one hand believe in objective morality and on the other hand believe that different societies are allowed to have different beliefs on the rightness and wrongness of an action.
Quoting Corvus
I just deny objective morality. To me, each individual has all rights to his/her life and has no right to the lives of others.
Quoting Corvus
Of course, there is. People as you mentioned yourself have different opinions about an action, whether it is right or wrong. That means that morality is subjective and not objective.
Quoting Corvus
Opinion, belief, feeling, and like play an important role in morality to me. These are however personal, therefore I believe in moral subjectivism.
I think your problem seems to come from not understanding what "universal" means. Universal doesn't mean the whole universe in here. It means in all occasions. Please consult the Oxford Dictionary on the meaning. A word has different meanings, and here it is being used for the specific meaning. Hence the universal law can be effective in one country or the society you live in.
For Kant's morality, he was talking about the way moral judgements are made. Not what the morality is.
I wasn't defending objectivity of morality. I was just trying to clarify your misunderstandings.
I am busy on doing other stuff the now, but will get back to you with the other points. But this is just a quick post to point out the main problem you seem to have on the topic.
Morality is value judgements on the actions of humans by the other humans, hence saying morality is personal is negating morality. Life is precious, and should be prolonged no matter what circumstances the life is in.
That is the moral code from the ancient times which is accepted by the majority of the civilized countries even now. Hence it would be morally wrong to assist in terminating life of the locked-in man. That would be a judgement from morality. TBC~
Quoting MoK
Think of this example. It is a fact, and truth that there is a book titled "General Logic" on my desk right now. But you wouldn't have known the fact until you read what I typed up above. You would have never believed that the book existed on my desk until you read the sentence. What does it tell you?
Even if some folks don't believe a fact or truth, that doesn't mean the fact or truth don't exist.
Likewise, moral rights or wrong is objective whether some folks have different ideas, feelings, beliefs or judgements. Just because you have different morality doesn't mean morality is subjective.
Quoting MoK
Well, they are just your psychological state, which has nothing to do with morality. People can have different feelings, beliefs and opinions, but that doesn't mean morality is subjective. If you say morality is subjective, and what you feel and believe is morality, then it is no longer morality. It is just your feelings and beliefs on certain aspects of human actions to other humans.
I rather consult the SEP webpage that you cited to see what Kant means with the universal laws.
Quoting Corvus
Morality is about whether an action is right or wrong. Our judgment is however based on, opinion, feeling, belief, practical reasoning, or pure reasoning. Morality is objective only if it is based on pure reason. Otherwise, it is subjective.
Don't you think that there are societies that have different opinions on whether an action is right or wrong? Doesn't that negate what morality is?
Then give me an argument for morality being objective. I think we have been through this.
Quoting Corvus
Morality is objective only if it is based on pure reason. I claim that there is no such thing as pure reasoning when it comes to morality. Therefore, morality is subjective.
The SEP articles are written in standard English. To understand them, you need to understand the standard definition of the words in English.
Quoting MoK
If everyone was saying, what they feel and believe is morality, then there would no point talking about morality. It would be better to say, what everyone feels and believes is right. That would be same as saying there is no morality.
Saying morality is subjective is denying morality, but also at the same time denying the fact that morality is being denied.
The SEP article you cited states what universal means: "Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances."
Quoting Corvus
You already mentioned that societies have different moral codes based on their opinions, beliefs, and practical reasoning, yet you claim morality is objective.
Quoting Corvus
It is what it is. Morality is subjective when there is no solid ground, the pure reason, that all rational agents can agree on.
Within the country you live in, by the law and by the judgements of the society, they are the universal law.
Quoting MoK
Please read above.
Quoting MoK
Practical reason deals with the moral judgements on your moral actions. Pure reason deals with reflections on your reasoning itself. But if one denies the objectivity of reasoning, then reason cannot help to guide you into truth. As Hume said, "Reason is a slave of passion." Passion and emotions on your beliefs on the wrong ideas and falsity could blind your faculty of reason.
No, they are not. At least according to Kant.
Quoting Corvus
How do you define objective and subjective when it comes to morality?
You need to be able to read between the lines on his writings to be able to apply them into your own circumstances wisely.
Quoting MoK
I think I repeated on them numerous times, even with the examples. You need to go back and reread them if you missed the points.
Circumstances define a situation. According to Kant, we need to universalize a maxim to determine whether it is right or wrong. By universalizing, he is very clear that the maxim must be accepted by all rational agents.
Quoting Corvus
You have never defined objective and subjective when it comes to morality. The examples you provided support morality to be subjective. So, the tension in our discussion arises from the fact that we don't use the same definition for objective and subjective. To me, as I defined it, morality is objective if it is based on pure reason. It is subjective if it is based on opinions, beliefs, interests, and the like. Do you agree with these definitions? If not what are your definitions?
If a guy comes to Mok's house, and steals everything, then what would MoK say about the stealing?
The guy says to MoK, he is morally right to steal MoK's life saving possessions, because he and his mates were thirsty and had to buy some beer and whisky for him and his friends in the pub from the money he made stealing MoK's life time savings.
In fact he was not just morally right in stealing but he must be also awarded for his bravery breaking into MoK's house risking his life in order to save him and his mates lives from dying of thirst in the global warming apocalypse. And then he sent you an invoice of 1 million dollars to MoK for the compensation for making it challenging for him to break into the house by installing various security devices and security alarms, which made his stealing more difficult than it would have been.
Would MoK approve the guy's moral judgement and agree to compensate him, because according to MoK, morality is subjective, and his moral judgement is true?
The thief and I have different opinions on stealing, so it does not follow from my opinion that morality is objective if that is what you want to conclude. As I mentioned before, objective morality is based on pure reason.
That sounds like you are accepting the thief's claim as morally right, while maintaining your claim as morally right too, which are totally contradicting judgements. So who is really right?
Quoting MoK
What do you mean by pure reason? Is it a Kantian term? Or is it your own definition of reason?
Could you please explain the difference between pure reason and practical reason in Kantian philosophy?
No, I am saying that the thief thinks he is right. I think he is not right so welcome to the subjective moral world.
Quoting Corvus
Any person thinks that he is right.
Quoting Corvus
By pure reason, I mean a sort of reason that is based on a prior principles.
Quoting Corvus
To me, practical reason is not based on a prior principle but on opinions, interests, beliefs, feelings, and the like.
It just sounds like you are contradicting yourself.
Quoting MoK
The world will collapse with break down of law and order if that was true.
Quoting MoK
What is a prior principles?
Quoting MoK
They are just opinions, interests, beliefs, feelings. Why do they have to be practical reason?
No, I am just mentioning that there is always a conflict in the subjective moral worldview.
Quoting Corvus
The world, fortunately, hasn't collapsed yet. The history of wars, conflicts, etc. is a witness that there have been always two sides, each side thinks it is right.
Quoting Corvus
A prior principle is a principle that is either evidently true or can be proven to be true based on deduction rather than observation and experience.
Quoting Corvus
We are rational agents yet we are very dependent on opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings in order to function.
Of course there would be conflicts on judgements. But morality itself means that there is the objective universal law within the countries and societies one belongs to. Universal law means which will be regular and constant in its exercising in all cases, not the whole universe.
Quoting MoK
What does it tell you apart from the fact that the world is run by the universal law and objective morality, which governs right and wrong, hence the balance of moral goods and justice is being kept. Of course when the balance is tipped, there will be a collapse of the society or country.
Quoting MoK
Isn't it just deduction? Why do you call it pure reason?
Well, from my knowledge deduction or induction has nothing to do with moral judgements.
Deduction is a kind of reasoning based on the definition of words, axioms, theorems or principles and laws. They are not from experience or the external world events.
Induction is reasoning based on the external world events and experiences from reality.
Both reasoning has nothing to do with moral judgements, because they deal with truth or falsity (in the case of deduction), and high or low probability (induction) on the conclusions or inferences .
Moral judgements are always right or wrong on the human actions. They have nothing to do with true or false, or probable or not probable on the value of the judgements.
Hence your claim that morality is based on pure reason, and pure reason is deduction, and morality is subjective is not making sense.
Quoting MoK
Yes, I agree with you on that point. However, you seem to be missing the critical point. Opinions, interests, beliefs and feelings are not the foundation for morality. They are psychological states, which are not subject for moral judgements. For moral judgements, it is practical reason which is applied to the judgements.
What do you mean by objective when it comes to morality? To me, objective morality is based on pure reason and all rational agents agree on it.
Quoting Corvus
My point was that the conflict between people about who is right or wrong indicates that morality is not objective but subjective.
Quoting Corvus
The pure reason includes deduction. Pure reason is a broad concept referring to any form of logical thinking in an attempt to reach a conclusion. Deduction is however a type of reasoning in which you start with true premises and reach a conclusion. Deduction as well as pure reason has its use when it comes to morality. For example, if we accept that killing a human is wrong as a true premise then it follows that killing me is wrong since I am a human.
Quoting Corvus
How could you make a moral judgment in a situation if morality is not objective? Opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings construct a situation where a decision is required. If pure reason cannot help us to judge a situation and decide accordingly then the decision is merely based on opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings, therefore morality is subjective.
Your understanding on pure reason seems to be completely wrong. Please go and read about it again.
Pure reason is not deduction. Pure reason means the reasoning is not based on experience in Kant.
Pure reason also means when reason reflects on reason itself, it is called pure reason. it has nothing to do with deduction. Deductive reasoning means the reasoning is based on the meaning of the concept itself. For example, a bachelor is an unmarried man. Bachelor has the meaning included in the word itself.
Moral reasoning is different type of reasoning from deduction or induction, and it has nothing to do with pure reason.
Moral reason is based on practical reason on the human actions. Moral judgements are objective when they are based on pure reason which are objective and universal in human nature.
We say morality is objective when it is based on practical reasoning. When the judgements are based on your beliefs, feeling and opinions, that is not morality. It is your feelings, beliefs and opinions and dispositions.
Therefore saying morality is subjective is identical claim to there is no morality.
I don't think so.
Quoting Corvus
I didn't say so. I said pure reason includes deduction. That is not my definition though. You can google it yourself.
Quoting Corvus
What is the practical reason to you?
Quoting Corvus
Objective morality to me is based on pure reason. Any rational agents, including humans, would agree on objective morality if there is any. I am arguing that morality is not objective but subjective though.
How do you define practical reasoning?
Quoting Corvus
To me, practical reasoning is based on beliefs, feelings, opinions, and interests. What would the practical reasoning be based on if it is not based on these factors?
Quoting Corvus
I don't think so. There are plenty of people who think that morality is subjective.
I just had quick scan of Kant dictionary, and it says when moral judgements are based on the universal law or categorical imperative, it is then said to be based on pure practical reason. It is still practical reasoning, but pure here seems to mean that like from CPR, it is not based on experience.
Practical reasoning is the type of reasoning which come to judgements of moral good or bad on the human actions.
When it is based on the categorical imperatives or universal laws such as stealing is bad or killing is bad, then it could be classed as pure practical reason.
Quoting MoK
I don't agree. Reasoning has to be objective in nature. If it is subjective, then it is not reasoning anymore. Beliefs, feelings, opinions and interests would be psychological states or dispositions, which are indeed subjective. How can objective reasoning be based on subjective psychological states? Isn't it a contradiction? Practical reasoning is also reasoning. Practical reasoning doesn't mean it is beliefs, feelings, interests, opinions.
Quoting MoK
Well, there are many kind of folks in the world of course. Some will even say 1+1=2 is not true. It doesn't mean truth is falsity. We just have to accept the fact that some folks have no sense.
I asked what is your definition of practical reasoning. You however define pure practical reasoning that I think you believe to be objective because it is based on the the universal law, Kant's first formulation. Anyhow, I can buy that definition. I however have objections on whether his first formulation leads to that morality is objective. Please read below.
Quoting Corvus
I have two objections to his first formulation: 1) Why should one universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong? and 2) Based on what justification one can exclude feelings, desires, interests, beliefs, and the like when it comes to a maxim. Let us consider the example of a person with locked-in syndrome. A person with locked-in syndrome may wish to die and another person may want to live. Saying that killing is wrong just puts the person who wishes to die in a miserable condition that is against his right in my opinion.
Quoting Corvus
We are left with beliefs, feelings, opinions, and interests if we cannot find a solid ground to agree that morality is objective. Until then, these factors are the only ones that our decisions are based on.
Quoting Corvus
These folks don't say nonsense. They have their arguments against objective morality. I read these two articles, Moral Anti-Realism and Moral Realism, before. My mind is not fresh about the contents of these articles right now but I would be happy to read them again and discuss them with you if you are interested.
If you asked my definition of practical reason, it is the reasoning which deals with the judgements of right or wrong on human actions.
There are different types of reasoning i.e. deductive, inductive and practical reasoning. The type of knowledge from the judgements of right and wrong on human actions are different from those from deductive and inductive reasoning.
When we witness, perceive or think about thief stealing, we judge the action of stealing as morally wrong via practical reasoning i.e. not by inductive or deductive reasoning, and not by feelings, beliefs, interests or opinions.
Quoting MoK
1) The ancient moral code "Thou shall not kill." is the universal law, because the majority of the human population living in the world approves it as the law, and the approval is based on the pure practical reason.
2) Quoting MoK
They don't warrant objectivity. Morality implies objectivity.
To judge whether the locked-in man should die or not, you must think carefully on all aspects of the situation, whether indeed dying would be the best option for him or not, under moral reasoning. It is not a simple matter of feeling or believing that the man should die for his own good.
In this type of real life case, some serious thinking and reasoning must be involved in the moral judgement. The final judgement must be based on the objectivity of morality which would involve not just the man, but also the family of the man, and the moral code of the society he lives in. But most importantly, by the universal law and category imperative, thou shall not kill, which comes from the ancient moral and religious code in the whole world.
Quoting MoK
You cannot find the solid ground, because you are not taking the universal law and moral code "Thou shall not kill." into account, which is the most critical core of morality. As said above, beliefs, feelings, opinions and interests has no objectivity, and has nothing to do with morality.
Quoting MoK
Sure, I am aware of the moral skeptics, relativists and nihilists arguments. But I understand that most of their argument are based on the ontological uncertainty of moral good, rather than moral good being subjective. If you read the first article, that is what the article seems to be saying too.
By all means, please feel free reading the sources that support your views, and come back with your further argument, and I would be grateful and interested to have read on them, and discuss the points further with you. Many thanks for your endeavor trying to clarify the polemic points of views here. I feel that I will learn something useful and interesting when the discussions are over.
You didn't answer my question. Let me explain things further to make sure that we are on the same page. According to Kant's first formulation, one needs to universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. This is discussed in the article you cited. I am asking why we should accept such a prescription, universalizing a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong.
Quoting Corvus
Yes, but they are very important. Exclude them from human nature to see what is left. They are the main forces in our nature while rationality is only a guide.
Quoting Corvus
Well, that is the subject of discussion. I don't think so though.
Quoting Corvus
Quite oppositely, it is a matter of what he is feeling. Keeping him alive is like torturing him. He wants to die. He is the only person who has the right to decide about his life. Therefore, it is our responsibility to assist him in terminating his life if he wants it.
Quoting Corvus
Yet, you need to provide an argument for why killing a human is objectively wrong in all circumstances. Needless to say, the God of the Old Testament commanded to kill all people including innocents, and just keep virgin girls for yourself elsewhere (Numbers 31:17-18). So I am wondering how you could explain such a conflict.
Quoting Corvus
I am looking for an argument and not a command cited in the Bible.
Quoting Corvus
Well, these factors define a situation without them discussing morality is nonsense.
If you are asking about Kant's position on the matter, we need to universalize the moral maxim in order to keep consistency in moral judgements within the society. It would be good for people's lives to be able to live in a fair and orderly society.
Universalizing maxims would also prevent folks trying to overrun the society and harm the other folks by driving their egoistic motives on moral issues. It would be also good to have a society run by rationality in moral laws which will increase the possibility of fairness and justice on moral affairs.
Quoting MoK
You need to exclude feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions in moral judgements, because they don't belong to morality at all.
Quoting MoK
If you lived alone in a desert, then there would be no such a thing as morality. Morality activates when the others in the society you live in approve your actions either right or wrong based on practical reasoning which are common to human nature in general.
Quoting MoK
When I think about the locked-in man's case again, I realise that no one has the right to judge his case, and tell him what is right or wrong for him to do. He has to decide what is best for him by himself. After all, it is his own life. How did I come to the judgement? From practical reasoning. No feeling, no belief, no opinion and no interest, but from practical reasoning i.e. mulling over the situation.
Quoting MoK
The universal law and maxim is from pure practical reason. It is like 1+1=2. Do you want an argument why 1+1=2 is true? You know it by pure reasoning i.e. because you are a human, you know it by nature. No external perception, no experience and no explanation is needed here. The answer is already contained in the maxim itself.
Quoting MoK
Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests change any time and with no certainty and consistency. Morality based on the psychological states would be just contingent emotional events which have no ground for justification and objectivity. Therefore it is not morality. It is anti morality.
Now you are arguing in favor of Consequentialism which is different from objective morality. You didn't justify why such a prescription, universalizing a maxim, is valid. So again, why should we accept such a prescription?
Quoting Corvus
As I mentioned before, these factors construct a situation in which a moral decision is required so they are relevant to morality. Whether they are all factors or not is the subject of the discussion. I claim that these factors are all we have regarding morality. You claim that pure reason is relevant to morality yet couldn't substantiate this.
Quoting Corvus
And where is your argument that he has the right to terminate his life? That is a feeling that troubles his life. It is my mere opinion that he has the right to terminate his life. By the way, how about people who are terminally ill? How about adultery? How about killing a serial killer who attempts to kill you?...
Quoting Corvus
Then you need to explain why we should universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong.
Maxims are good in itself. Good is better than bad, and happiness is better than unhappiness by nature. There is no reason for the fact. It is the maxim, and it is universal law. Why valid? Because it is good. Good is better than bad.
Quoting MoK
They make moral judgement not reliable. IOW they hamper and obstruct moral judgements.
Quoting MoK
You seem to be confusing the point of life, and the point of making decision for oneself. Life is precious, and needing to be kept. This is the instruction from the maxim.
But one has also right to make own decisions to one's own problems. They are different issue.
The other examples of real life cases, terminal illness, adultery and self protection etc, all need more details for the situation, so that you could think and reason to be able to come to moral judgements. It is not simple matter of saying how about this and that. Moral judgements need good thinking and reasoning reflecting all the factors involved in the situation. It is not matter of feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions.
Quoting MoK
Well, said above, but will say again. Because good is better than bad, and happiness is better than unhappiness. People want good and happiness by nature, and hate and reject bad and unhappiness. There is no explanations or reason for that. That is why maxim is universal law. It is ultimate and pure just like 1+1=2 is true without reason, argument or explanation.
You have to think of morality as a framework by which life abides by. We, as humans, depend
on the well-being of ourselves and each other, that is true of life just as 1+1 = 2 is true of math.
Under the condition that this is the case, it is objectively true that in accounting for well-being, *and by well-being I mean the interdependent well-being of life (or humans for arguments sake), some actions are *better* or *worse* than others.
( I say better or worse because I still dont believe one can make definitive moral oughts without taking into context the thing in which theyre referring to )
It is objectively true that preventing suffering is better for the well-being of the human species than allowing it, and by that standard, suffering is bad.
To say there are inherent laws of morality that are prevalent in the universe, the same way laws of logic are, would be untrue, but also an irrational standard to hold morality to.
Morality is agent dependent - this just isn't the case for i.e., the law of excluded middle - you could retort and say well in that case morality isn't objective - sure, but at that point it would be a meaningless discussion, as everything is conditional to some extent, and be weary not to use moral subjectivity or relativity in its place.
I don't think that a maxim is good or bad in Kant's terminology. For example, increasing my wealth is a maxim. Kant however provides a test on a maxim, killing a human for example, to see whether the action that maxim refers to is right or wrong. So, I believe that a maxim in Kant's terminology is not good or bad per se without passing the test. It is through the test that Kant concludes that killing is wrong for example. That requires considering killing a human as a maxim and show that it leads to a problem because of the test.
Quoting Corvus
What do you mean by good and bad? Isn't happiness just a feeling?
Quoting Corvus
They define a situation and they are important to consider when it comes to morality.
Quoting Corvus
That, life is precious, is just a mere opinion. That is true that most humans agree on it but that is nothing but a byproduct of evolution. Life is shaped by evolution and those genes that work against life are simply excluded through evolution.
You are very welcome to this thread.
Quoting KantRemember
What do you mean by conditional objectivity?
Quoting KantRemember
I don't think that it is morality but "common" interests, beliefs, feelings, and opinions. I used "common" to stress that we are social animals and we could not possibly survive without collaboration. Humans managed to survive and evolve a long time ago when we had no idea about morality. Unfortunately, we are still tribal creatures so we have conflicts in interests, beliefs, feelings, and opinions when it comes to my tribe versus your tribe, my group versus your group, my country versus your country, etc. These conflicts are still the main source of tension between human beings. The conflicts unfortunately even exist within a human group. We still have poor and rich people in many countries while we are familiar with the concept of morality. So the question is why we as rational agents cannot manage to reach a state of harmony where all individuals' needs are fulfilled, all individuals are treated equally, all individuals are governed by universal laws in a united state, etc. I think the answer to this question is that we haven't yet evolved well enough. What do you think?
Quoting KantRemember
I think you are referring to Utopia. There are still power abuses even in well-developed countries. There is a boss who has all rights to the intellectual properties produced by workers. He is rich and workers just receive minimal wages to survive. He has the right to fire workers. Unfortunately, humanity can function under such a condition. It was working under such a condition and it will.
Quoting KantRemember
Well, that is true if we live in Utopia. Is that right to torture a terrorist who put a bomb in a location to get information about where the bomb is? You can save many lives just by torturing him. What do you think?
Conditional Objectivity is state of objectivity that is contingent on predefined conditions or framework(s). That is to say, if X, then it is objective that Y. Y would be conditionally objective, with the condition being X.
Quoting MoK
An understanding of morality is not needed to abide by it. Morality is the principles by which right and wrong are judged. A tribal community in the amazon unexposed to the idea of morality could still act moral (or immoral) based on the actions they do. The conflict between human beings is very much a real thing, but this does not undermine the idea of (conditional) objective morality.
By equal treatment I'm going to assume you mean equitable treatment, but to answer your question, I'd say because human beings, while rational, are selfish. I'm unsure as to why we haven't evolved to otherwise yet, I doubt I'm qualified to answer, but one thing is for sure, throughout history, we've seen a gradual progress towards [I]better[/I] societies, and [I]better[/I] laws that govern us, this at least implies that there is some standard.
Quoting MoK
I agree, there are. All this does, however, is highlight that there a yet flaws and iniquities in our nature, its a matter of sociology *and/or capitalism if you ask Marx* rather than morality. As much as humanity can function under such conditions, it does not mean that it should, or that it is beneficial for the interdependent wellbeing of those in such a system - there is a reason why we progressed from slavery and accepted it as abhorrent.
Quoting MoK
It's not just true if we live in a Utopia, but also true if we wish to better as a species, or care for our wellbeing, and everybody cares for their wellbeing, and by care I do not mean conscious intent, but goal-directed behaviour, life values life, its inherent. Even still, if everybody abided by the moral laws within a system, then a utopia would be the end result - think of Kant's categorical imperatives.
W/regards to your trolley-problem esque question, that would depend on the ethical framework you abide by, but doing so involves the implication of caring for well-being to some extent. Anyway, pragmatically, I would probably opt. for the option that saves many lives, however, I'm not saying, or necessarily conforming to the idea that, this is the right thing to do.
The discussion was in terms of the general principle how morality works and based. 1+1=2 was an analogy given to @MoK to help thinking in parallel to the example when thinking about morality. Of course moral judgements are not deductive reasoning. Moral judgements are practical reasoning.
I agree that each moral case must be considered for its own situation and all the factors involved in the case, hence the reason why moral judgements are based on reason. That is my point.
How do you test something without reasoning? Test requires reasoning. Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests cannot carry out testing on anything.
Quoting MoK
Good and happiness are the goals of life and conducts. Good and bad are the value of judgements. Happiness is also a concept. It is not just a feeling.
Quoting MoK
They don't. In most cases, they are irrational, groundless and inexplicable in their causes and origins.
Quoting MoK
"Life is precious" is inferred maxim from the other maxim "Thou shall not kill." It is all about reasoning and inferring in rational way. It has to do with the other maxims "Harming others is bad.", and obviously killing the innocent life is related to harming others, and so forth.
Evolution and opinions have nothing to do with the maxims and moral codes which are objective in moral judgements.
No worries my friend. Your point was very lucid and made sense. I appreciate your post. Thank you.
Are you saying that objective morality depends on the situation? If not, do you mind elaborating and giving examples of X and Y?
Quoting KantRemember
Quite oppositely, an understanding of morality and good linguistic skills are required to obey morality. How could one obey morality if he has no understanding of it? Linguistic skills are also required to pass the knowledge of morality from one generation to another. A rational agent who is not mentally evolved to understand morality just follows his feelings and interests.
Quoting KantRemember
Correct.
Quoting KantRemember
They mainly act based on feelings and interests.
Quoting KantRemember
It does undermine the idea of objective morality. In all conflicts there are two sides each believes they are right and doing right. All conflict would be resolved if people as rational agents agree on objective morality. I still do not know what you mean by conditional objective morality though.
Quoting KantRemember
We have many bad genes that are hidden and circulate in the human population. Selfishness is related to one gene. Psychopaths have another common gene. Some people are not intelligent enough to understand morality. And many others. The only way to get rid of these bad genes is to either monitor unborn children and abort those who have bad genes and disallow people with bad genes to have a baby otherwise we have to deal with this problem that there is no solution for it. Whether people ethically have the right to follow this approach is subject to discussion.
Quoting KantRemember
Yes, I agree that we had some gradual progress towards better societies.
Quoting KantRemember
Morality is a very crucial concept when it comes to any society. I don't see how one can divorce sociology and morality.
Quoting KantRemember
Yes, we shouldn't live under such conditions. But the question is why we still do. I think that Capitalism is a form of weak slavery. The minority takes advantage of the situation and gets the most profit while the majority just receives a minimal. All intellectual products are confiscated by the minority. The majority have no right to have a secure job and life. Etc.
Quoting KantRemember
We cannot reach Utopia until there are bad genes that are hidden and circulate in the human population. Once these bad genes are removed either by evolution or by us then we have a chance to live in Utopia. I read about Kant's categorical imperatives and I am discussing his first formulation with Corvus right now. My main problem with this formulation is that he suggests that one has to universalize a maxim to see whether the action that the maxim refers to is right or wrong. I am questioning why we should universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. I also have a problem accepting how reaching a problem by universalizing a maxim helps us realize whether an act is right or wrong. Let me give you an example: Consider killing a human is right as a maxim. Now according to Kant, we need to universalize this maxim by this he means that all humans should act according to this maxim to see whether killing humans is right or wrong. Well, of course, there could be no human if everybody attempts to kill another. He then considers this as a problem and then concludes that killing is wrong. This however requires accepting that the existence of humans is objectively right otherwise you cannot conclude that killing humans is wrong.
Quoting KantRemember
So do you torture him? Yes, or no?
If life is precious to me then I simply don't kill. I don't need Kant's first formulation to realize this.
Quoting Corvus
I asked for a definition of good and bad. Happiness is of course a feeling.
Quoting Corvus
Can you define a situation in which feelings, opinions, interests, and beliefs are not involved? Just give me an example.
Quoting Corvus
These are not arguments.
Quoting Corvus
Evolution has a very important role in shaping us as creatures as we are. We have common opinions about all maxims because of evolution and not objective morality. Evolution was in place when humans had no concept of objective morality.
The concept Evolution is purely for the biological sense for the developments and changes of the bodily organs and their capabilities of the animals. Evolution is not a concept to be used for the moral judgements.
Applying the concept Evolution to the other domain of knowledge than its original use and application would be classed as misusing the concept.
I will try to come back on the other points you asked in the post as time permits here. Later~ :wink:
Morality as a whole depends on agency and conscious beings, viz., rocks aren't moral or immoral, they're amoral, they just are. The objectivity of morality, however, is contingent on the valuing of life (or wellbeing) - and to reiterate, by 'value' I don't mean conscious intent.
To give an example of X and Y: Iff we value well-being (X), then it is objectively true that suffering is bad (for the well-being of life) (Y).
Quoting MoK
I think in using the word understanding there are two underlying assertions - we could take understanding (of morality) to mean an understanding that an action in particular is right or wrong - which is what I was referring to with my Amazonian example, or an understanding of morality conceptually. Right or wrong, should or shouldn't, better or worse, all of these are in having agency - following your feelings and interests is still behaviour predicated in the assumption that whatever you're feeling is either right or wrong.
The example of a rational agent who hasn't evolved to understand morality and saying they can't act morally is the same as saying a child couldn't do an action that is considered moral or immoral. From their frame of reference, they may not know they're acting morally or immorally but that doesn't mean they aren't (or are). You wouldn't say that my donation to charity is an amoral act just because I'm unaware that donating to charity is good.
Quoting MoK
Objectivity doesn't entail the compulsion to act in such a way that aligns with it, or that humans would agree on it. Even still, it's not something that happens in an instant. Over millennia, we agreed, explicitly, or implicitly, that cannibalism is bad for the survival of our species, that slavery is bad, and I'm sure even today nobody agrees that war is good, it just so happens that the teleology behind is what we disagree on, not the act in itself.
Quoting MoK
I'd like to think most of us would agree that mass selective reproduction and weeding out those deemed to be genetically inferior is highly unethical.
Quoting MoK
What I mean is that sociology and morality/ethics are different subjects. A ethics professional would not be a qualified sociologist and vice versa.
Quoting MoK
' A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats is weakest members ' - Ghandi or something
Quoting MoK
I'm likely in less of a position to answer than @Corvus, but if I may, I presume it boils down to the consideration of not how our actions effect ourselves, or the people we care about for that matter, but everybody. Your example exemplifies exactly why killing a human isn't *generally* considered the right thing to do. Under Kant, it is wrong. I'm unsure if you've seen the movie Purge, but this highlights how, on broad scale, the permission of theft, murder, and other heinous acts are detrimental to society and life. And to your last statement, that falls in line with what I was saying earlier, life inherently values life - the acceptance of the axiom that life is inherently valuable is necessary for life to exist, and to continue existing, even though this may not be a conscious acceptance, we imply that we accept it by living, to live and to state that you don't care would be paradoxical. And not only this, it's also a biological imperative, otherwise the life wouldn't evolve and reproduce. From the acceptance of this, the rest follows.
We are what we are because we have evolved as social animals. Human life is valuable to us because we could not have survived if we had another opinion on this.
Quoting Corvus
Cool. I will be waiting for your response. :)
Thanks for the elaboration. I agree that morality (not objective morality) is contingent on the value of life. But I think the value of life also is contingent on the fact that we are social animals and could not have survived if we had lived separately or had different opinions about the value of life.
Quoting KantRemember
It just follows that suffering is subjectively bad. Consider the example of the terrorist that we discussed. The well-being of a person is a matter of opinion if he threatens the well-being of others.
Quoting KantRemember
Correct. People did not have a conceptual understanding of what morality is yet they avoided certain acts like killing individuals of the same tribe. My point is that this disposition was mainly due to their feelings, interests, opinions, or beliefs.
Quoting KantRemember
I agree that feelings, opinions, interests, and beliefs play an important role in morality.
Quoting KantRemember
Here I disagree. An action is subjective if humans do not agree on whether the action is right or wrong.
Quoting KantRemember
Cannibalism yes, it is vanquished. However, we still deal with human terrific. Capitalism as I mentioned is a weak form of slavary. War is unavoidable because people have different opinions, feelings, beliefs, and interests. So no, we disagree on whether different acts are right or wrong in themselves.
Quoting KantRemember
That I understand. But my point is that social change or shape is due to the interests, opinions, beliefs, and feelings of the individuals that live in a society. These factors are the same factors when it comes to morality.
Quoting KantRemember
Well, I think there shouldn't be any weak or strong in a great nation.
Quoting KantRemember
I disagree. We cannot possibly reach Utopia if we allow the breeding of those people who have genetic problems with the rest of the population. We have to deal with murder, selfishness, etc. all the way otherwise.
Quoting KantRemember
My point is that we can conclude that killing is wrong based on Kant's formulation if we accept that life is valuable. Well, I wouldn't simply kill a human if life is valuable though. So I don't understand why we should follow his formulation if we accept that human life is valuable.
When you make moral judgements, you need all the facts that you will need to consider, reason and make judgements. You don't just judge on the moral cases with your fleeting feelings, beliefs and opinions and interests. That would be a disaster in the judgements with no knowledge about even what is involved. No one will approve moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions.
Quoting MoK
Evolution is a theory or hypothesis that animals biological organs and bodies change to adapt for the environments they live in. It doesn't apply to human minds, morality or even biology.
Quoting MoK
:ok: :cool:
Another problem with moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests is that you will be facing moral conflicts and dilemmas within yourself.
You will still have your own practical reasoning telling you that your moral judgement is wrong, but your feelings and beliefs are saying that your judgement is right. That is a moral conflict within oneself, which can be tricky to resolve. Better to listen to your practical reasoning rather than relying on your feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions on moral judgements.
I asked whether you could give an example of a situation in which feelings, interests, beliefs, and opinions do not play a role.
Quoting Corvus
Could humans survive and extend to such an extent without having the ability to think? Once, you have an agent with a rational ability, then she/he asks all sorts of questions and tries to rationalize things.
No problem. I will wait for your reply.
No problem with that. I can decide in any situation since I am a free agent.
Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests often trap you in illusions which blocks your freedom. By definition those concepts imply groundlessness, unfoundedness, falsity, prejudice, misunderstanding, and irrationality in their nature and origin.
Isn't it reason that you have to listen and follow in order to be a free agent?
Quoting MoK
I agree but this doesn't make morality, or the value of life subjective, it just makes it contingent. The value of life is contingent on the fact we care about our own wellbeing, it's true that we care about our wellbeing... and so on.
Quoting MoK
Under the framework of valuing life, suffering is not subjectively bad, it impedes the wellbeing of life which, if we value life, is bad. What's subjective is the justification behind it, whether the teleology justifies the action.
I'd agree that "the suffering of X" is subjectively justifiable, but not that suffering in and of itself is good.
Quoting MoK
This is a tricky one. At a certain level, everything is due to, or at least involves, our interests, opinions, and beliefs etc., so it'd be meaningless to make morality reducible as such. As I said before, the objectivity of morality has no propelling factor that makes us act in such a way - it's not like the law of gravity, it's just that some actions we partake in do coincide with what's moral, and other actions do not.
Quoting MoK
Not true. Disagreement on any act, X, is independent from whether X is objective or subjective. What's subjective is the belief about the nature of X, not the nature of X itself. i.e., I could believe the earth is flat, and you could believe the earth is round. This doesn't make whether or not the earth is round or not subjective concern. The earth will still objectively be round whether I believed it to be or not.
Quoting MoK
True, actually. We disagree on whether the act is right or wrong in themselves AND whether the justification behind the act is right or wrong.
Quoting MoK
Marx'd love you.
Quoting MoK
I don't think this isn't the case, because its impossible to separate feelings, interests, beliefs, and opinions when it comes to agency and decision making, but this doesn't impede the objectivity of morals.
Quoting MoK
I mean isn't that what evolution is for? The natural order of life is to ensure that the best fitted survive, the ethical difference is that nature isn't a moral, rational agent. Morality doesn't apply to it.
Quoting MoK
Your second sentence is the logical succession of the first. You state that you wouldn't kill a human being if life is valuable and Kant's imperatives state that if life is valuable we shouldn't kill human beings. You're already in agreement. His formulation doesn't just apply to killing, but moral actions as a whole - it's something that provides framework and consensus - granted, you're not compelled to accept it and it doesn't solve all moral qualms but something is better than nothing I suppose.
All my moral judgements have been based on practical reasoning. There is no single case that I have made moral judgements based on my feelings, beliefs, opinions or interests. Because these psychological states and events are not reliable basis for the judgements on moral right or wrong.
In order to make my moral judgements, I would need all the details about the case, decisions, causes, the people involved and possible relation to maxims, universal law and the society the agents were living in as well as the moral code within the society.
With all the factors involved available in hand, there will be hard thinking and reasoning for the moral judgement on the case. Without the full factual knowledge and evidence on the case, no moral judgement would be possible at all. It is like a scientific conclusion that without relevant data for the possible new theory, there would be no conclusion.
Depending on the nature of the case, there might be personal feelings and beliefs that could creep up into mind at times, however practical reasoning will resolutely kick them out as not necessary and irrelevant factors for the judgement. Practical reasoning is the faculty of mind, which rules moral judgements, be it right or wrong.
These factors define a situation where a decision is required. Freedom is different from free will. By free will, I mean the ability of an agent to decide when he is uncertain about what to do. I discussed this topic in another thread.
Yeah, they could. But they feed with the irrational and illusional side of situations. They creep up even when you are trying to reason on the facts and analytic knowledge. They tend to cloud your judgements and reasoning, and force you to make wrong judgements for the situations.
You must be able to put them aside, and rely on reason only on the decisions.
Going back to the OP, we seem to be in agreement on the point that believing in God does not resolve moral conflict. However, you seem to be claiming that feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests are the basis of morality. Whereas my point is that pure reason is the foundation of morality.
It makes the value of life subjective as well, by subjective, I mean that people have different opinions or feelings on the value of life. A person who is highly depressed feels that life is very awful. Life not only has no value for him, but it also is like a trap that he wants to get rid of by committing suicide, for example. The same person feels differently about life when the depression is gone.
Quoting KantRemember
Yes, the value of life is contingent on the fact that life is not possible if we feel differently about it.
Quoting KantRemember
If the suffering of X is justifiable, then morality is subjective.
Quoting KantRemember
I think the source of our disagreement is that we disagree on what we mean by objective and subjective. Do you mind providing your definition of them? I define morality as subjective if it is based on feelings, opinions, interests, and beliefs. Morality is objective if it is on pure reason.
Quoting KantRemember
Therefore, morality is subjective, given my definition of subjective.
Quoting KantRemember
I love him as well.
Quoting KantRemember
Correct, evolution does its job but we can expedite the process of reaching Utopia as well. We are rational agents. We know what we need and what we don't need.
Quoting KantRemember
No, my point is that according to Kant's first formulation, we can only conclude that killing is wrong if we accept that life is valuable. According to this formulation, one has to universalize a maxim, killing a human is right, to see whether the action that maxim refers to is right or wrong. He then argues life is not possible if we universalize this maxim. He then concludes that killing a human is objectively wrong. There are two issues here: 1) Why should we universalize a maxim to realize that the action that maxim refers to is right or wrong, and 2) How could we conclude that killing a human is wrong from the fact that life is not possible if we universalize the maxim? This conclusion however only follows if life has a value.
Quoting KantRemember
No, my point is that he tries to give a general formulation that killing a human is objectively wrong. I think that killing a human is permissible, given the circumstances, so no, I don't think that killing a human is objectively wrong. To me, life, to be clear, is generally valuable, but there are cases in life where living just involves suffering. Think of a person with locked-in syndrome, a person who is terminally ill, etc. To me, killing these individuals is right if they want to terminate their lives. Following Kant, we are not allowed to kill any of these individuals, which to me is cruel.
Quoting KantRemember
But he and his followers think that his formulation provides a reason for objective morality. That is something that I disagree with for the given reasons.
My point is that we cannot put them aside when we want to decide since they are factors that build the situation. No factor, no situation, and nothing to decide.
My point is that pure reason cannot resolve moral problems but adds problems. Think of a terrorist who put a bomb in a location that we are not aware of. The only way to know where the bomb is is through torturing the terrorist. According to Kant, torturing is not allowed. What would you do in such a situation? Wouldn't you torture him to find the bomb and save the lives of many? I would, and my decision in these circumstances is based on mere opinion, saving the lives of many worth torturing the terrorist.
You build the situation with your perception and reasoning, not with feelings and beliefs. Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests blind you from the reality preventing you from making right decisions and judgements.
This is why you need reasoning. You will know that torturing is not the only way to get the information. You could have good conversation with them, and persuade them to give you the information from their own accord. It is all about utilising your practical reasoning wisely and skillfully.
You see how feelings and beliefs could make rash judgements and decisions, and just resort to the barbaric ways to resolve the problem? Use your practical reasoning wisely, and the world problem could be resolved amicably for win win results.
Reason can only guide you in making a choice. Committing to the choice will always be an act of belief. Reason absent committed belief is just rhetoric. Which is why belief - in whatever it may be - is always the foundation of every person's moral choices.
Belief without reason can be groundless and unfounded. Beliefs must go through verification of reason to be fit for judgement and decision. They say justified beliefs via reasoning are knowledge. Beliefs based on feelings and opinions and interests are blind and misleading.
Going back to MoK's point, Kant would ask you, if torturing was the last resort for the resolution. Have you tried all other means to get the information out?
The problem with torturing to get the information out, is that it may still fail to get the information even you have tried with utmost degree, if they firmly withhold the information. Then what is the point of torturing? It wouldn't have been the method fit for the purpose for saving any life. Hence it would have been an act of blind and pointless end, which would be an evident moral wrongness itself.
I believe that it is right to treat people with empathy. That is neither blind, nor misleading. Reason is not the one single governing faculty. Nothing about human psychology even vaguely supports the hypothesis that it is. Emotions are not "misleading" - they are a huge and significant characteristic of what it means to be human. Which is why belief is its own thing, and human behaviour an amalgam of emotion, reason and...belief.
If someone said to you, "I believe that you have insulted my intelligence. Therefore I feel you are evil and bad." How do you justify that claim?
If you are talking about constructing a rational (qua logically and/or semantically sound) argument or claim then I guess you would say something like, I believe that people who insult me are evil. You insulted me, therefore you are evil. And that is the whole point, isn't it? There is no universal standard of rationality. Rationality is what emerges in and through discourse. And what makes a claim rational is, by definition, beyond mere rationality. Theories of communicative action would align with this perspective.
To impugn someone's rationality is, by definition, to impugn their beliefs, as my rational-defense claim illustrates.
We are not denying the workings of beliefs and feelings and emotion in mental events. However, these mental states are largely caused by the other mental states within the self such as self imagery, self reflections and one's past experiences rather than the facts and evidence from the real world events.
Hence they are not in the domain of truth and falsity of knowledge values. When you believe in something, it could be either grounded or groundless and justified or unfounded. Likewise when you feel angry or feel someone is bad, there is no truth or falsity value in the feeling. You either have the feeling or not.
Moral judgements are objective knowledge that is either true or false. Yes, they can be true or false too. But because they can be true or false, they are knowledge and objective.
Beliefs and emotions are subjective, hence folks can have them or not have them. There is no ground for them being true or false. They are not moral truths. They are just feelings and beliefs.
This claim is inaccurate because you are saying that reason ought to inform morality, and ought implies can. If people are only capable of acting psychologistically (which seems as though it might be true by definition) then saying that they ought to act rationally instead is either by definition impossible or else it is highly unlikely. In either of which cases it fails as a norm.
You seem to have misunderstood my point there. I have not said much about reason, ought or can. I just said, moral judgements must be based on reason.
Most of what I said was about feelings, beliefs and emotions, and how they cannot be the foundation of moral judgements.
Yes, I know. And as I pointed out, moral judgements, insofar as they may influence actions, which is their entire purpose, cannot be reasonably thought to be solely a function of reason.
This is the process of how moral judgement takes place.
External perception on the moral case -> Feelings and Beliefs on the case -> Reasoning -> Moral Judgement.
So, there would be some elements of the emotional side of the moral case perception, but it would be reasoning which filters out the emotional side of the perception by interpretation and analysis on the content of the perception. The final moral judgements are always made by practical reasoning alone.
So reasoning is a little black box then? Are you in some sense reducing reasoning to logic? As far as I know, there is no consensus on the nature of reasoning (such as is implied by your axiom) that would allow it to be so neatly distinguished from the elements of morality to allow it to be decisively identified as the basis of morality.
It is not a black box. It was to show a typical progress in moral judgement in order to help you understand where the emotions and reasoning are in the process.
Of course some folks would just make moral judgments from the Feelings and Belief stage, which are likely to be irrational psychological states, which have little to do with the moral truths.
I asked you this before: Could you provide an example of a situation in which feelings, belief, opinions, and interests do not play a role?
I wanted to say:"My point is that pure reason cannot resolve moral problems but adds problems." "Can" is a typo that I corrected it in the post.
According to Kant, killing, torturing, etc. are objectively wrong by this he means that these actions are not allowed under any circumstances. There is no room for discussion here.
Quoting Corvus
Torturing of the terrorist is allowed by all means if we can save lives of individuals. The torturing is morality right even if we assume that the terrorist may withhold the information.
:up:
You need to exclude all the irrational elements in the process of moral reasoning. If we mix them up, then you won't be able to arrive at the fair and just moral decisions.
I already have added the more explanation of how those factors do hamper coming to moral judgements with your example of the lock-in man. Hence you must use reasoning only on the judgement. If you are interested in my posts on the examples, you need to track back my posts. Obviously you missed what I wrote to you.
But you haven't asked Kant in person, what would be the case torturing the terrorists. If you did, he would have said to you "Have you tried all other means to get the information exhaustively?" and "Are you sure the terrorists you are wanting to torture are the real terrorists? What if they were not the terrorists? What if you are trying to torture innocent folks for mistaken identity?"
There is possibility that you have mistaken the identity of the folks whom you thought were terrorists, but they were not.
Torturing the folks are crime itself, hence you would be committing moral wrong there.
Also there is a possibility that no one's life is in danger, and your motive for torturing could have been caused by propaganda and paranoia or just a desire to torture someone.
And there is no guarantee that torturing the folks will give you any information to save any life. So why try to justify on torturing?
See this is a result of moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, opinions and interest. It is not only wrong in factuality, but also could be committing moral wrong itself.
Kant would say, that torturing is not right way in saving human lives. Because it won't work and it is morally wrong itself.
And I already mentioned that you cannot have a situation without considering these factors. According to Kant killing a human is not allowed in all circumstances. It is the person feelings in the case of locked-in syndrome that matters in this situation. As far as I recall, you agree that it is the right of a person with locked-in syndrome to decide about his life. This is against what pure reason suggests.
Let's assume that we tried all other approaches.
Quoting Corvus
Let's assume so for the sake of argument.
Well, if you asked me about the case personally, my answer to that would be, you are asking a wrong person. I don't have enough details about the case to apply my pure reason on the case. You need to bring a 1000 pages of the social report regarding the case with his situations i.e. medical history and psychological analysis, and his family circumstance etc etc.
I would say, if anyone made a moral decision on the case without all the factual details, then it would be a sheer nonsense, not moral judgements.
Kant is just giving you a guideline. You don't have to cling on him with the trivial contradictions. You need to face and deal with the reality at present world.
Critique and negation of norms....must count as a critique of validity claims....the conflict over normative validity is constitutive of social evolution. (Brunkhorst,Critical Theory of Legal Revolutions)
This aligns with my earlier example and explanation, which I think is rather clearer in the context of the OP. To impugn someone's rationality is, by definition, to impugn their beliefs. You cannot make pretense of some sacrosanct faculty called "reason" when normative beliefs are at least as constitutive to the holistic process and project of thought and communication as is reason.
Peirce says that man is a symbol. He is not reducing the meaning of human existence to propositions. Rather, he is expanding and enhancing the dimensions of symbolicity.
I would presume Kant would say, well by rational thinking there is no evidence torturing would save anyone's lives. Therefore torturing is not justified and wrong. Don't do it.
Your conclusion that torturing is justified is based on your wrong premise that torturing will save lives. Your argument is invalid and unsound.
So you disagree with your own statement?
Let's assume it does.
Where did I say I disagreed with my own statement?
The truth is, it doesn't. There is no evidence torturing saves human lives.
Didn't you say that a person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his life?
It may, but the fact that it may gives us the right to torture the terrorist.
I have never said that. I said it is wrong to kill any life. But he also has his right to decide on his own life. No one has right to decide his life for him.
It is a completely irrational statement based on the wrong assumption.
How are you going to assist him if killing is wrong to you?
Quoting Corvus
He can decide about his life but he cannot execute the decision so he is very dependent on us to execute his decision.
It is in fact very rational statement. You are not happy with this example, let me give you another example: You face a psychopath who is willing to kill you with a knife. You however have a gun. Would you kill him or let him kill you miserably?
If he needed my assistance, I would just say to him, "Man get a life. Get wild GFs, and enjoy life man."
Quoting MoK
Will have to persevere with advice and encouragement for leading positive life for him.
You don't know what a locked-in syndrome is. Do you?
Sure, if we define subjective to mean something that people have an opinion about, then everything, literally everything, is subjective. To reiterate, by valuing of life I don't mean conscious intent, or how much you care for life in the sense that you'd care about your dog etc., - its more so an imperative necessary for us to even live, or rational agents.
Quoting MoK
Yes, exactly - its nonsensical to say you don't value life, while being alive and living as such - for all intents and purposes its a necessary precondition. This is what makes it objective - we know that there isn't any measurable laws in the universe that define moral codes, morality isn't objective in [I]that[/I] sense.
Quoting MoK
The distinction to be made here is between something being justifiable and something being moral - but this is a huge grey area, there's other threads on the matter, and to be frank, I don't even know if my opinions are consistent across the board. Practically, how could they be?
Quoting MoK
Subjective meaning based on individual feelings interests beliefs etc... that is to say morality is merely what I, individually, think about something, It's more than that. Objective being something that's not constitutively dependant on the attitudes of observers, but reason also. We reason that morality is objective because it's a prerequisite for coherent thought and action. I will openly admit that this is all still grey for me - I'm still coming to terms as to where I stand definitively.
Quoting MoK
No. you stated earlier that subjective means for something to be based on opinion etc. and before that you stated that something is subjective if people HAVE opinions about it.
here:Quoting MoK
These are very different. We have opinions about everything, you have an opinion on X, X can be based in facts and yet you can have an opinion on how you feel towards X. That doesn't make X subjective.
Quoting MoK
1. To take into account the needs and lives of others rather than just our own or those close to us. 2. See above, life having value is a necessary precondition to rational agency and life itself. Life does have value and it HAS to have value and since this is the case, the conclusion follows.
Quoting MoK
A common retort to his deontology, this is one that keeps me questioning too. I don't know what the 'right' thing to do is in these specific circumstances. Kant would say that killing is categorically wrong but the consequentialist would say otherwise. In real life, morality is sort of a mix of both Kantian and consequentialist ethics. Both come with their limitations.
I thought it was a form of hikikomori, but maybe it is not.
It doesn't matter what it is. The whole point is about the principle of morality and how it works.
You have to understand that not every action is moral action. Moral action means that it was reasoned, premeditated and contemplated before the action for moral good or duty.
Killing a psychopath before he kills me would be an act of self defense, which has nothing to do with morality. The action may be subject to legal probes in the society later, but it is not a moral issue.
To reiterate the point, it is not the case that I am not happy with the example. It is the case that the example doesn't demonstrate a logical necessity that the premise guarantees the conclusion i.e. torturing doesn't necessarily save life.
It is an empirical case, where all possible and various causes and effects might be involved. The result is uncertain and unpredictable. Under that situation, torturing cannot be a justified ground for saving lives. With the knowledge and understanding of the situation via practical reasoning, if one went ahead with torturing believing that it would save lives, it would be a moral wrong itself.
I think four factors construct any situation when a decision is required. These factors are feelings, beliefs, opinions, and interests. We most of the time can decide in a situation merely by weighting these factors. Practical reason however can help us decide when there is a ground for it. For example, you have an interest to increase your wealth and you know that the value of the share in market is increasing, therefore you decide to invest in the market. When it comes to moral situations, practical reasoning can help us as well. Pure reason, like the one of Kant, however, gets us astray as it is illustrated. I will comment more on this in the following.
Quoting KantRemember
Morality is not objective but subjective even in the first sense.
Quoting KantRemember
By justifiable I mean morally justifiable.
Quoting KantRemember
I am arguing that pure reason cannot help us when it comes to morality. So, we are left to feelings, interests, beliefs, opinions, and, of course, practical reasoning. Therefore, morality cannot be objective but subjective.
Quoting KantRemember
Morality is subjective since the pure reason that is based on accepted facts not only does not exist but it adds problems even if we accept that there is.
Quoting KantRemember
If pure reason does not exist when it comes to morality, then we are left with feelings, opinions, beliefs, and interests. Therefore, morality is subjective.
Quoting KantRemember
I asked why we should accept universalization as a valid step. Your life has a value for you, then live it, otherwise you have all right to terminate it. We don't need Kant's formulation to decide about our lives. Accepting this step, universalization, leads to many problems as I discussed, such as whether torturing the terrorist is right or wrong.
Quoting KantRemember
Life having value is subjective. Consider the case of a person with locked-in syndrome, a person who is terminally ill, etc.
Quoting KantRemember
I am afraid that you cannot have both so you have to choose one. Either you accept pure reason which means that we are not allowed to assist a person with locked-in syndrome to terminate his life or you accept consequentialism, which allows you to help him.
You can read about locked-in syndrome here. It is a term that refer to cases in which people with this syndrome are locked-in within their body and cannot move any parts of their body but eyes. You can google yourself about those cases who wanted to terminate their lives but they were not allowed.
It is a moral issue if you accept that killing a human is wrong. By the way, how come torturing a terrorist who put a bomb in a location is wrong considering the fact that we can save lives of many but the act of killing a psychopath is permissible knowing the fact that you can only save one life, yours.
All killings and torturing are in the domain of the legal matter. They are not morality.
I am not sure what part of the world you are living, but in where I have lived and am living, any
and all death must be reported to the authority for investigation and the certification of the nature of death.
If any death was caused by killing no matter what circumstance it was, and if there were any suspicion of any form of torturing on others, then the case must be reported to the criminal investigation authorities for the legal proceedings with the courts.
Hence, they are not moral matter at all.
Well, it seems like a tough situation. But still practical reason tells me that killing is bad, and life must go on. Everyone has a cross to bear in the path of life. In some sense all life could be seen as suffering, and persevering and hoping for the best would be the meaning of life from religious point of view.
Keep going, and hoping for the miracle cure seeking the medical care in your example case with perseverance would be best for him, and doing so is moral good for sure.
I was taking some time to reflect on my arguments and have ultimately decided on a moral pluralist approach. Even if we accept the premises that 1. Life is inherently valuable and 2. It is objectively better to act in should a way that preserves life if this is the case, there is still a jump from this to the normative claim that I ought to act in such a way.
Then again, one could argue that the jump
From is to ought isnt necessary for objective morality - it would still be the case that under the premise that wellbeing/ life being valuable, there are objective statements one can make about this.
I think ultimately, objectivity is necessary for collective life, there are axioms that we just have to accept in order for society and morality to function - if we were to accept and act in a way that aligns with subjectivism on a broad scale then life would be reduced to anarchy - the truth is, pragmatically, we must act in a way that follows atleast some universal maxim, life being valuable, and it would be detrimental to reduce morality to mere feeling and opinion.
In extreme case scenarios - a consequentialist approach is often better. But there are implications to the radicalisation of both sides.
Thank you for this discussion. I hope you gain something from this and realise that outside of arm chair philosophy, morality needs to have an objective framework.
You don't wait for legal authority to allow you to kill the psychopath. Do you? You said you would kill him as a matter of self-defense. I then ask how self-defense is morally allowed if you think that killing under any circumstance is not morally allowed.
Are you a Christian?
Quoting Corvus
There is no cure available for it. It is interesting to see that at one point you say that it is his life and he has the right to decide about it. Now, you are saying that assisting him to terminate his life is not allowed.
There is no ought when we deal with subjective morality. You are basically in a situation that is defined by the four factors. You weigh factors and then decide freely. You have all right when it comes to your life so there is no problem at all.
Quoting KantRemember
Yes, there is a jump. Kant tries to resolve the gap by universalizing a maxim. There is however a valid objection to universalizing, the objection being why we should universalize a maxim to see whether the action that maxim refers to is right or wrong. There is also a danger in accepting objective morality considering the cases of locked-in syndrome, or those who are terminally ill, etc. How are you going to deal with these cases if you accept that the act of killing is objectively wrong?
Quoting KantRemember
It is a matter of practical reasoning rather than pure reason as you mentioned. We need laws as a matter of necessity but this necessity is a matter of practicality.
Quoting KantRemember
I think consequentialism is one of the best approaches. You have a situation that is defined by at least two options, you consider the pros and cons, and you then decide. As simple as that.
Quoting KantRemember
Thank you very much for your time too.
I was just commenting from the general religious point of view including Christianity, Buddhism and Hindus etc.
Quoting MoK
Reason tends to go back to the points, and reflect on them coming out with better judgements and solutions.
Another reason why the acts of self defence are not in the domain of morality. Usually acts of self defence happens without contemplation or premeditation for the end. In other words, the only purpose for the acts of self dense is saving one's own life.
Therefore there is no ground for moral judgements on the acts committed under self dense.
It is alright to change your mind. Let's say that we disagree on the topic.
The point is you kill a human being even though you think it is objectively wrong. Call it self-defense or whatever. That does not resolve the issue.
It has nothing to do with changing mind. The point is that practical reasoning is guiding you that,
1) No one but himself has right to decide what to do with his own life if he is an adult.
2) From the maxim, it is wrong to kill life even if one's own life, hence life must go on even if it is challenging.
Please bear in mind that all case involving death is legal matter. But still practical reasoning can direct you to the best advice on the situation.
I disagree. The real point is that if you acted in the situation of self defence, then the case is in the domain of legal matter of the society you live in. Morality doesn't apply to it.
So, do you agree with such a statement? If yes, then a person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his life.
Quoting Corvus
Now, you are saying the opposite.
Quoting Corvus
Where do laws come from?
You know, my friend, you don't have a coherent view and don't want to accept that it is incoherent. So, there is nothing I can do to help you. So, let's say that we disagree.
Well, one last point you must understand is that, when an act has been committed with no time for consideration and contemplation for moral good, it cannot be a moral act. But because there haven a loss of life by the act of self dense, the case will be taken up by the legal authority.
OK, MoK, my dear friend. It has been pleasure in engaging the discussions with you on this topic. But regrettably we disagree on some part of the conclusion. So be it. We can still carry on with discussions on some other topics which we have mutual interests and points. Thank you. G'day to you and yours.
Thank you very much for your time as well my friend. It was a pleasure to discuss things with you.