Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've stopped using the world "subjective morality" or "objective morality" because there's a good chance I don't know what either of them actually mean. I've looked at multiple definitions of both, and their meanings still aren't clear to me.
<snip>
Nobody else knows what they mean either. Morality is much more complex than to be contained by such terms as "subjective" or "objection." There's no simple, clear-cut source for it, either. (Although some with disagree with that last part, I'll stand by it.)
It will never be anything but a arbitrary, subjective, matter of opinion.
I gotta say this: Just because subjectivity is involved, it does not follow that morality is arbitrary or a mere matter of opinion. Of course you always have the option to entirely give up on logic, evidence, and rational discussion, in which case everything I'm about to say become completely pointless, but for those who have not completely given up, I'd say this: For any experience, there are fundamental conditions for the possibility of having such an experience. Basically, the experience was a logical possibility prior to anyone actually having the experience, and (for reason's more philosophically complex than I can explain in this brief post), we can rationally say with high confidence that these logical possibilities can be analyzed in terms of universal structures - i.e., structures that apply to every experiencer. There are rational methods for identifying and inter-subjectively verifying these universal structures. Normative and moral experiences are no exception. In other words, to simply assert, straight-up, that there can never be any universally agreed-upon moral percepts is, as Clintone pointed out, sheer intellectual (and moral) laziness.
One thing we already know, of course, is that diversity is fundamental. A great many views will be purely matters of taste, and given that we can't always distinguish between matters of taste, on the one hand, and universal structures of moral concern on the other, we can benefit from a political system that allows (and encourages) different voices to be heard and different life choices to be made. But my main point here is that the subjective nature of experience does not eliminate the possibility of identifying and analyzing universal structures of experience upon which some basic universal moral percepts can possibly be based.
Bottom line: Don't give up on offering rational arguments for/against various moral views. Morality is not necessarily a hopeless morass of mere personal taste and personal opinion. After just a bit of rational reflection and meditative contemplation, we can say, without fear of being irrational, that rape is wrong. It's not a matter of mere opinion or cultural relativity. Logic does not force us to be pure moral relativists.
Now questions about the finer points of sexual morality require some complex debates that will probably never be resolved to the complete satisfaction of everyone, but this doesn't mean that voicing our own views and listening to the views of others can never be anything other than a pointless mayhem of asserting opinions. It doesn't mean that some opinions are not, in fact, just plain wrong. The morality of a sociopathic serial killer or rapist is just plain wrong. The norms of a culture that encourage rape are bad norms. Acceptance of moral diversity, within limits, is rational. Pure moral relativism, however, is not rational.
I've stopped using the world "subjective morality" or "objective morality" because there's a good chance I don't know what either of them actually mean. I've looked at multiple definitions of both, and their meanings still aren't clear to me.
I know what arbitrary means though. Perceiving rape as negative is not caused by arbitrary decision making though. People from all sorts of diverse environments will independently conclude that rape is a bad thing. Why will they conclude this? because it feels unpleasant and it breaks the social bonds holding society together. Now, it probably feels pleasant to the rapist sometimes...but it's not perceived as tolerable due to the breaking of social bonds holding society together...the bonds of trust...the bonds of security.
Describing the perspective that a "rapist" being bad as arbitrary is nothing more than intellectual laziness.
That includes if you're talking about statutory rape. Statutory rape laws were designed based not on arbitrary decision making, but on reasonable thought process that, at least in theory, serve to prevent more harm than they cause.
Now...some laws might have been arbitrarily designed. But even the stupid ones, like anti-sodomy laws, often had some kind of thought behind them. For a long time people thought homosexuality was a mental disease that should be discouraged to stop its spread. Anti-sodomy laws, and anti-homosexuality laws, therefore, might not be so much arbitrary as foolish and flawed theories about how to stop the spread of mental disease.
_________________________
Now, moving on to your implication that someone being a rapist a is merely someone's opinion. That doesn't matter at all. It's an entirely useless statement. So you perceive someone perceiving rape as wrong as merely someone's opinion...and? What's your point?
It merely being someone's opinion that rape is wrong answers no questions about why it should or should not be done. Saying "morality is arbitrary" is an explanation for absolutely no kind of behavior whatsoever. It could be used to excuse any behavior, despite that behavior having real, damaging or assistful affects, and is therefore a useless statement.
It doesn't matter what my opinions about what is right and wrong are, in terms of what is actually right and wrong. Certain behaviors will nonetheless cause damage. Other behaviors will heal. Right and wrong therefore exists independently of my opinions, and are real, regardless of what anyone thinks about it. To deny that is to deny that people can feel pain and pleasure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
Then why not blow yourself up? It's because that would result in an unpleasant sensation and cause various types of harm...which means you have motivations, and reasons for your behaviors, which render "morality is subjective" as totally useless insofar as explaining why anything should or should not be done.
Nobody does things because "morality is subjective" They do things because of certain types of feedback and real world affects. Talk about those real world effects to explain why things should or shouldn't be done. That's the only thing it makes sense to do...or there's no reason to even explain reasoning behind your motivations. Saying "morality is subjective" justifies absolutely squat.
My posts following my #62 were in reference to that.
The idea was the moral logic behind "rape" laws...specifically, rape based upon statutes that determine certain age people cannot consent, and thus, anyone over a certain age having sex with them is deemed a "rapist".
It was noted that I had not offered a "better" way.
I responded that my preferences, though "better" to me, could not be declared objectively so.
Note #62 again. If some young person has had legal sex with a partner scores of times...to bust and punish them as a rapist simply because they passed some arbitrary age threshold is what is potentially "wrong", "bad", and stupid...in my opinion.
Are all the people that celebrate marriages in foreign countries that are between early teens and men in their 50s all "bad", "wrong", and "immoral"? What about that they think proscribing that is what's "bad", and "wrong"?
Who is "right", and who is "wrong"? Or is it that much of morality (especially sexual morality) really is just an arbitrary matter of opinion?
I gotta say this: Just because subjectivity is involved, it does not follow that morality is arbitrary or a mere matter of opinion. Of course you always have the option to entirely give up on logic, evidence, and rational discussion, in which case everything I'm about to say become completely pointless, but for those who have not completely given up, I'd say this: For any experience, there are fundamental conditions for the possibility of having such an experience. Basically, the experience was a logical possibility prior to anyone actually having the experience, and (for reason's more philosophically complex than I can explain in this brief post), we can rationally say with high confidence that these logical possibilities can be analyzed in terms of universal structures - i.e., structures that apply to every experiencer. There are rational methods for identifying and inter-subjectively verifying these universal structures. Normative and moral experiences are no exception. In other words, to simply assert, straight-up, that there can never be any universally agreed-upon moral percepts is, as Clintone pointed out, sheer intellectual (and moral) laziness.
One thing we already know, of course, is that diversity is fundamental. A great many views will be purely matters of taste, and given that we can't always distinguish between matters of taste, on the one hand, and universal structures of moral concern on the other, we can benefit from a political system that allows (and encourages) different voices to be heard and different life choices to be made. But my main point here is that the subjective nature of experience does not eliminate the possibility of identifying and analyzing universal structures of experience upon which some basic universal moral percepts can possibly be based.
Bottom line: Don't give up on offering rational arguments for/against various moral views. Morality is not necessarily a hopeless morass of mere personal taste and personal opinion. After just a bit of rational reflection and meditative contemplation, we can say, without fear of being irrational, that rape is wrong. It's not a matter of mere opinion or cultural relativity. Logic does not force us to be pure moral relativists.
Now questions about the finer points of sexual morality require some complex debates that will probably never be resolved to the complete satisfaction of everyone, but this doesn't mean that voicing our own views and listening to the views of others can never be anything other than a pointless mayhem of asserting opinions. It doesn't mean that some opinions are not, in fact, just plain wrong. The morality of a sociopathic serial killer or rapist is just plain wrong. The norms of a culture that encourage rape are bad norms. Acceptance of moral diversity, within limits, is rational. Pure moral relativism, however, is not rational.
If "moral relativism" is not rational...how does it make sense to declare killing innocent children "wrong"...but slap the label "war" on it, and you can blow up entire towns and everybody in it, and the same people that declare killing innocent children to be "just plain wrong", will call those dropping the bombs "great heros" and "the very best"?
Many people that would consider it "just plain wrong" to kill a two day old baby...would think it not wrong to end its life a week before that.
Moral relativism (drop the "pure") IS rational...even "normal" and "typical".
And what is "sheer intellectual (and moral) laziness" is not digging deep into that idea and how it relates to "Right and Wrong" & "Good and Bad" .
If "moral relativism" is not rational...how does it make sense to declare killing innocent children "wrong"...but slap the label "war" on it, and you can blow up entire towns and everybody in it, and the same people that declare killing innocent children to be "just plain wrong", will call those dropping the bombs "great heros" and "the very best"?
Many people that would consider it "just plain wrong" to kill a two day old baby...would think it not wrong to end its life a week before that.
Moral relativism (drop the "pure") IS rational...even "normal" and "typical".
And what is "sheer intellectual (and moral) laziness" is not digging deep into that idea and how it relates to "Right and Wrong" & "Good and Bad" .
Because some people have that idea does not make it right.
Moral relativism (drop the "pure") IS rational...even "normal" and "typical".
One can rationally argue for some degree of moral relativism relating to some aspects of morality. But the word 'pure' in my post was important. Without that word, we leave room for the existence of some moral absolutes. And that is all I'm really trying to argue for. It is not irrational to think that we can identify some moral absolutes. And, more importantly, we should look to reason to help identify what might or might not be universal moral principles (rather than relying on, say, ancient holy books, on the one hand, or jumping straight to pure moral relativism on the other).
Because some people have the idea that X is "right" or "wrong" does not make it so. Just to them. Others may have a differing view.
Indeed, so the question is how valid or valuable is the basis for a particular view. To use your example of how the word "war" changes judgement, winning a war does not absolve you of the crimes you committed in that war, only the consequences.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
