Agreed I agree with the first sentence, not with the second. Having one's own subjective morals does not mean you necessarily made them up, or you have moulded them according to your wants. Just like instincts are not objective (different species will have different instincts) yet your instincts can be unavoidable and at conflict with your wants (I'm referring here to having instincts, not necessarily following them). For the sake of argument, I could suggest that morals are strictly a biological feature, developed by evolution. I don't quite believe that (I think it is an emergent property of biological features), but it serves as a good example of my disagreement with your idea. If morality is purely a product of evolution, then the morals are not objective (since it will not apply outside of humanity) yet it is unavoidable. This example shows that morality being "whatever you want it to be" does not follow from morality not being objective. That's really no more of a problem than the fact that supporters of objective morality have enforced their flavour of morality, and failed to get it right. For starters, on my suggestion of a morality as an emergent property of biology, to a large extent, we wouldn't propose different moralities. At least roughly to the same extent that we would be able to agree on what an objective morality looks like. You will find that most people haven't made a cost-benefit calculation on whether murder is good, most of us agree that murder is bad. Even many of those who commit murder acknowledge it as wrong. In addition to that, modern interpretations of morality (or maybe justice, more accurately) include a "veil of ignorance", which basically says that in order to figure out morality, we must be unbiased. To figure out morality, we should imagine that we would agree upon if we did not know who we are or our circumstances. As I've mentioned above, subjective does not mean unconstrained, morality is not only due to preference even when it is subjective. In my experience, it is those who espouse objective morals who claim their morality as better than everyone else's. People with subjective morals tend to be able to consider the moral workings of others while not compromising one's own.
That was a great response Swensson, and I will keep a copy for my benefit. One other angle of analysis is the Naturalistic Fallacy. There is a built in bias with natural-scientific reductionism that focuses on “fact” and then tries to derive values from fact. Value cannot be derived from Fact. This is to say that “ought” cannot be derived from “Is.” We cannot appeal to facts to define values. Philosopher G.E. Moore called this the “naturalistic fallacy.” This is the fallacy from construing the “is” of attribution as an “is” of identity. For example, because pleasure “is” good, good is identical to pleasure. This is the naturalistic fallacy. If we equate the meaning of “good” with some determinate characteristic, we make it impossible to discuss whether that characteristic is good. Because if these said characteristics are what “good” means, there can be no point in asking whether they are good. In the sense ethical terms cannot be defined in terms of non-ethical ones.
I don't see how that makes a difference. In a similar fashion, someone can disobey one moral to follow another, or disobey a moral to follow an instinct, or disobey an instinct to follow a moral. Sure, the "good" bit of morality doesn't (necessarily) come from the abstraction part as much as from the instinct part, the abstraction just adds the intellectual flavour that makes us identify it as morality.
I disagree, I would say legitimate arguments build on agreed upon truths. Either way, it certainly doesn't build on one person proclaiming their position as self-evident and dismissing any argument to the contrary without addressing it. Well, I think it's the meat of the argument, so if there's nothing there, then maybe your argument isn't so sound. Well, there's a difference implied there. I use subjective to mean originating in the person (or as an emergent property of a group which the person is a part of), that doesn't necessarily mean that the person gets to modify it as they wish. It originates in the person, not necessarily in the person's interests or wants. Well, then the morality you're referring to isn't actually objective in the sense I use it. Let's consider a theistic morality, a morality which originates in a god. Such a morality would/could exist even without humans or other moral agents, it is objective. Humans did not create it, and if there were no humans, it would be there even though there would be nobody for it to apply to (I chose to consider "originates in a god" rather than "is decreed by a god" to remove the consideration that the god might not bother if there were no humans). When you say "morality has no meaning outside the human sphere" you are expressing the idea that I express as "morality is subjective".
Good post. I actually started the 'morality, instinct, law' thread in response to this post. You are my Muse.. for that thread, at least.. 'Subjective' morality means there are no 'objective' morals. They are human constructs.. either made up, or delusions from a manipulator. It doesn't matter who made them up. They remain human constructs. Instincts are a biological feature. They are, *a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason* But to equate morality, a rational choice, with instinct, is flawed, imo. They are 2 different things. They are different words, with different underlying concepts.. the other thread expanded on that. There is an underlying moral judgement made here. 'Good!' and 'Bad!' are moral judgments, that REQUIRE a philosophical basis. In a godless universe, 'Good!' and 'Bad!' are meaningless platitudes, to manipulate people. Animal instinct has no 'Good!' and 'Bad!' moralizing. Animals act in accordance with their instincts, and it just is. A lion can kill some cubs, or a chimp an infant, and there are no moral judgements or collective consequences. Acknowledging murder as 'wrong!' reveals a moral belief.. a judgement that there is some objective standard.. a self evident one.. that all humans feel. If it is just your opinion, why should anyone else submit to your moral beliefs? That is the logical conclusion of objective morality, which you also illustrate. You say, 'Murder is bad!', and expect everyone else to agree with your moral judgement. You seem to think it is 'better!' than someone who says, 'no, murder is good!' A subjective moralist (equivalent to an amoralist), can only offer an opinion.. a baseless platitude, with no universal application. Their favorite colour is equivalent to a moral decree, to the subjective moralist. Why would someone who believes in complete subjectivity be dogmatic about morality, if it is a human construct?
Again, the subject here is not morals but morality; and at the moment when morality is tested, the only choice is between morality and immorality. Morality doesn't come from either of those. Incorrect, obviously, since a proposition doesn't need agreement to be true. Again, I'm not here to build an argument for objective morality. Not my problem. He still gets to reject the group morality and contrive his own, so the difference is of no consequence. Fine. In the sense I use it, it is. I'm not doing any such thing, obviously.
I figured, but I didn't want to lose the lines of thought that we were currently discussing. If I find some other interesting angle there, I might respond there (or if you reply in that thread with a quote from this thread, I'll respond in that thread). I'm not sure what you mean by construct. I agree that they are human in some way (as humanism suggests) but I don't agree that they are constructed deliberately. And if you cannot construct them deliberately, most of the objections fall. You seem to have missed my point. In this argument, I am merely constructing a thought experiment which shows that there are concepts of morality which are not objective yet not subject to human whims, not deliberately made up by the human in question. I don't see how that fundamentally differs from for example an animal mother protecting its child. I reckon the difference between a bear mother protecting a cub and a human mother calling her child's murderer evil is a merely that the human applies a bit of abstraction and wordplay to contextualise their thoughts. I don't think a bear would say "the hunter isn't evil, I just want my cub to be alive", if it could speak. I agree that human ones are more developed, and easier to access (because we can talk to humans), but you've yet to suggest a reason to think they're actually different. I believe the morals are not objective, so yes, there would be no universal application. However, I believe the morals are human, so there would be human application.
Deliberately, accidently, or by deceit.. a godless universe can only produce human constructs, for morality. There can be no 'morality!', as a Real Thing. It is a delusion. There is only instinct (with no moral implications), or human law, an arbitrary decree by those in power. If it is 'not objective', then it is subjective.. an arbitrary opinion, with no self evidence. Your beliefs about morality are no better or worse than Stalin's or a sociopath. If a 'moral value!' is 'not subject to human whims, not deliberately made up', then it is an OBJECTIVE truth, and not a subjective opinion. But, if all morality is subjective, you must include ALL, and cannot just include your own favorites. Do you have an example of a moral value that is, 'not subject to human whims, not deliberately made up'? ..vs one that is? How do you differentiate between them? Why is one 'not subject to human whims, not deliberately made up', but the other is?
I think this is no worse a problem for subjective morals than it is for objective morals, although in the god-driven case, the evidence is sort of swept under the rug. What's the difference between god-given objective morals and god's personal opinion? If we are truly committed to applying the is/ought problem and call subjective morals into question, then that also allows us to do the same to god-given morals. No, a moral can be subject to things that are specific to humans, without it being subject to humans' deliberations. A moral is objective if it is "not dependent on the mind for existence; actual" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/objective), and if a moral is instilled in the workings of our brains but not subject to our whims (like an instinct) then it is subjective without being subject to our whims. I have examples of morals which are not subject to human whims, and I have tried to bring attention to it on several occasions, morals instilled in us by evolution. They are not subject to human whims, we cannot choose to not have them (although we are able to go against them or challenge them). However, they are contingent on our humanity, they arise from ourselves, not from a third party. I do not think it is an accident that our morals are closely linked with our evolutionary pressures, survival and reproduction. However, on this view, I don't have any examples of morals which are subject to our whims. Most of the examples you have provided seem to me wildly implausible. One suggestion has been that someone could decide that it is good to murder me, but while I understand the hypothetical, I find it implausible that someone would actually succeed in doing so (apart from anchoring it, however poorly, in some other morality).
The perspective that I have on the issue of morality is that ALL morality is from Humans, based on what we see as consequence from our personal behavior and what we see objectively from others. What I have found about morality, even what is labeled as "The Ten Commandments", are actually NOT commandments, being that NO ONE can command another to behave in a particular manner, but I digress. Back to my focus, Morality and Moral clauses are actually rules of engagement for a particular outcome, which is why ALL prophets gave two symposium; one for adhering to said rule or rules, and another for disregarding said rule or rules. What I am saying is that there are ONLY TWO MUSTs in life, being born as you are and dying. After these two, EVERY THING ELSE IS OPTIONAL.
we first decide whether morality is a Real Thing, or a delusion/human construct. THEN.. we determine the source. God, or evolution?, seem to be the most common answers, to the source. We can, as a followup, ask 'Why?' God or evolution would do such a thing, but that does not really solve the problem of morality as a Real Thing, or it's source. It seems to me to be an unnecessary distraction from the debate, and is more difficult for evolution to answer, if we scrutinize it fairly. ? If morality is an involuntary response, then no moral choice can be made. You would HAVE to follow it, like an animal instinct. 'Fight or flight' is a difficult instinct to overcome, with altruistic feelings of self sacrifice, but it can be done.. for 'good' and 'bad' ends, depending on which side you are on. But 'whimsical' morality does not seem to describe anything. I can see 'arbitrary', as an occasional moral imperative, and that may appear whimsical to those affected by it. And, if all morality is a delusion, or a human construct, then all of it is arbitrary and whimsical, in fact. No moral directive is better or worse than another. I cannot see how evolution can instill morality, as defined here. Instincts, such as maternalism, fight or flight, survival, etc, are obvious animal instincts. But attitudes toward theft, murder, lying, altruism, and defending the weak are contrary to animal instincts. I do not see instinct and morality as synonymous. Instincts are clearly definable, but morality is either instilled by a Creator, or is a human construct.. a delusion. My examples? Which ones? How can you debate 'whimsical morality', with no examples?
'Bad' ones? Murder, theft, assault, fraud, lying. These are common to all human cultures and societies. 'Good' ones? Love, kindness, helping in need, bravery, altruism, self sacrifice. Songs, stories, legends, in every culture, era, and region have a common thread of these 'moral values' that are not shaped by environment or the fickle whims of man. So, are these commonly known and felt moral values, 1. instilled by a Creator, or 2. made up by human manipulators?
Yet all human societies define “murder, theft, assault, fraud, and lying” differently. Same with all those “good” moral ideas. There is no universal definition of any of those that all humans adhere to.
I disagree. We have to consider the entire line of thought, otherwise, we can consider two equally improbably solutions and reject one and let the other win on walk-over just because we chose which order to consider the problems in. There is a difference between having a morality and acting in accordance with it. Dogs have an instinct to run away from loud noises, it is in a sense involuntary, however, they can make the choice to stay or even have the instinct trained away. In other words, it seems to me a morality which is similar to instinct is fully compatible with moral choice. Such a morality would be subjective, in that it originates in the subject, however, we are not at liberty to ignore it for no reason (although we are capable of breaking them in certain situations). I agree that whimsical morality doesn't seem to describe anything. All the moral arguments I have seen for subjective morality has been in keeping with my suggestions, I have only seen whimsical morality proposed as a strawman for subjective morality by people like you. Are you not more likely to survive and reproduce in a society without murder? Or in a society in which you don't have your food or shelter stolen? Does humanity not dominate the world due to cooperation and despite its physical mediocrity? There are many angles to this, though. Genes are successful by spreading copies of themselves. There is evolutionary pressure for a gene to secure the survival and reproduction of other individuals with the same gene (since that secures the evolutionary success of the gene, even though the individual is unaffected or even disadvantaged). Evolution is consequential, it is capable to take very complex butterfly effects into account (since evolution will simply let nature take its course). Because of this, it is not surprising that there are evolutionary effects that you can't see right away. Well, the problem seems to me to be that whimsical morality is a strawman for subjective morality. I have no examples because I don't believe there are any relevant examples because the concept doesn't exist (it's not quite that easy, I'm sure there are weirdos out there, but it's missing the wider point).
It needs argument to be believed though, and that's the purpose of argument. If we just wanted true things to be true, we wouldn't have to argue anything. What are you here for? So? Someone can reject an absolute morality too. Well, in the sense that it is used by most people, including those whose ideas you've attacked, it is not. This seems easily resolved by noting that you haven't actually understood the point you're addressing.
Only to those for whom the truth of the proposition is not intuitively obvious; and in the present case, clearly nothing obscures their intuition so much as their dearly held prejudices. The question is insolently idiotic. You're welcome. You haven't got a clue as to what you're talking about. Looks like you don't want one either. Even if that were substantiable, it would be no concern of mine. Pure projection, obviously.
In my experience, ideas feeling obvious mostly just means you don't understand the reasoning behind it. That's not to say that it couldn't be true, you just lose the sense of how far the logic goes. You seem to have no intention of making your post understood or argued, and at that point, I struggle to see the point of you having written one at all. I'm the one asking for explanations, not just dismissing them as obvious.
Which assumes any underlying reasoning is necessary for a statement to be true. More accurately, I'm perfectly aware that some people would rather be dead than understand it. Yeah, well just don't worry yer purty lil head over it and you won't have a problem. Only as a means of engendering confusion, as that's what you're comfortable with.
No, I haven't said anything about things being true, only about us believing them to be true. I would be happy to understand more.
That is the difference between objectivism and relativism. 'Belief!' is irrelevant, in objectivism. Something is objectively True, whether we believe it, know it, or not. IF.. there is only moral relativism, that is, there is NO objective morality, THEN.. there is no absolute Truth, and all morality is a human construct, to manipulate people. If morality is only what you 'believe!' it to be, then it is completely subjective, with no basis in absolutes.
As long as you turn up your nose at the idea of self-evident truth, you'll never understand anything about morality. The claim is belied by your every objection and your every inquiry here, which would, were they answered in a manner acceptable to you, lead you in precisely the opposite direction.
Then how do you compare your morality (or any supposedly self-evident truth) with anyone else's understanding of what is self-evident? I certainly often have a line of logic (or several) which I'm using to challenge ideas, but I don't presuppose that there are no solutions to my queries. I'm happy for there to be a solution to my comments, but I'm not happy to accept something where my concerns remain unanswered and where it seems like you don't really have an answer.
Easy. Compare them. Make a list of what you believe are 'moral standards'.. ideals for humans to follow. I would predict that these would be on your list: Bad: Murder Theft Assault Fraud Exploitation Good: Sharing with the less fortunate Acts of kindness Helping a neighbor in need Upholding justice/opposing exploitation These are 'self evident' moral standards, that we all 'sense' intuitively. Nobody has to indoctrinate these values in us, or in any other culture, time, or region. Most of our laws are reflections of these self evident truths.
