Debate 9: Whether morality is absolute: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate 9: Whether morality is absolute » Debate 9: Whether morality is absolute

Debate 9: Whether morality is absolute

Debate 9: Whether morality is absolute

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513

Posted 06/02/06 - 03:16 PM: Subject: Debate 9: Whether morality is absolute	#1
The topic of this debate is the long-controversial matter of whether morality is objective or subjective. Floyd will be arguing for subjectivity while dclements will be arguing for objectivity. Debate Rules Number of rounds: 5 Post Length: No more than 2,500 words, no less than 200 words. The opening post to start the debate must be at least 500 words. No quote tags. You may discuss this debate in the discussion subforum thread. Edited by Paul on 06/02/06 - 03:25 PM
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 06/02/06 - 03:17 PM:	#2
First, I’d like to thank the moderators and administrators for hosting this debate, and dclements for engaging with me. Wikipedia says that morality deals with that which is regarded as right or wrong. The term is used in regard to three contexts: individual conscience, systems of principles and judgments, sometimes called moral values, shared within a cultural, religious, secular, Humanist or philosophical community and codes of behavior or conduct derived from these. The first context, individual conscience, refers to a trait that human subjects are often said to have. A conscience gives persons (subjects) the ability to assign moral value to objects. Clearly, this is a subjective process; the assigned value depends on the subjective conscience rather than solely on the objective traits of the object. This means, two different subjects (e.g. two people) could value different moral propositions differently, because those subjects have individual consciences. For example, a vegetarian may feel it is morally bad to eat meat while a pro-athlete may feel eating meat is morally good. Such an example may seem contradictory, but actually, since moral value is based on the conscience of the subject, rather than solely on the objective traits of the observed action, the contradicting opinions do not contradict. The second context, systems of principles and judgments shared within a community, refers to ethical codes created by similarity among interacting subjects. Insofar as subjects are similar, these subjects subjective opinions may also agree. Thus, when subjects of a community share a culture, religion, socioeconomic position, or etcetera, these people may also share certain moral values. These moral value opinions can than be compiled into an intersubjective morality or “moral code”. The values of this moral code are subjective, because the values are based on the culture, religion, socioeconomic position, or etcetera of the subjects making up the community. In practice, the subjectivity of communal moral codes is demonstrated when differing communities have different moral values. For example, homosexuality was a notorious indulgence in the ancient Roman empire, but homosexuality is seen as a moral sin by much of contemporary US culture. In another example, many Chinese communities value social responsibility, while many western communities value freedom and individualism. Value is the desirability, appeal, or goodness of an object to a subject. Without a subject or subjective context, an object is necessarily valueless. When referring to moral values specifically, many people seem to forget the inherent subjectivity of value itself. Any factually based concept of morality is merely a sub-class of all value. Moral values are simply any values which are either (1) related to sociology, human choices, &/or lifestyle, OR (2) are agreed upon by multiple subjects within a community. In essence, the phrase moral values is synonymous with cultural values, and a moral code is merely a culture. Perhaps, communities and people wish to falsely objectify their subjective values to justify the consequences of xenophobia. Also, perhaps, subjects (namely people) have trouble distinguishing between opinions, which are subjective, and facts, which are objective. Nonetheless, the fictional idea of objective morality was the archaic leftovers of a theistic humbleness that gave priority to the values of mythological gods. Even when the idea of the ultimate observer (a.k.a. ultimate subject) was removed (Nietzsche proclaimed “God is dead”), the archaic concept of morality, namely absolutist morality, remained. Unfortunately for believers in this ancient concept, it is clear moral values are merely opinions, which are individually verified by the subjective attitudes of subjects. It is clear that value itself is a function not of just an object, but rather of the desirability of an object to a subject or a subjective set of desires, attitudes, and opinions. The abandonment of absolutistic morality, doesn’t require abandoning moral propositions; rather, it just requires rephrasing moral propositions as opinions. For example, instead of saying “X is bad”, one can say, “X is deemed bad by Y”. While the former is merely an opinion without a prepositional truth-value, the latter proposition has a truth value (which depends on the subjective deeming of Y towards the object X). In parallel, instead of saying “X tastes good”, one can say “X tastes good to Y”. Again, only the latter statement has an objective truth-value. -Floyd
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1090

Posted 06/02/06 - 03:18 PM:	#3
I would like begin my argument by stating that I am not an advocate of objective morality in the traditional sense. What I am is a person that use to believe morality is subjective, but decided to try to a sophist position against subjective morality in order to understand the problem of objective and subjective morality better. My reasons for doing this are simple. After studying the subject and listening to several debates I began to believe that there was a fundamental flaws with both positions. Advocates of traditional objective morality make the mistake of believing their opinions of what is moral to be fact while those who support subjective morality show that they either do not truly believe or they do not understand the position by the mere act that they are willing to defend it. The problem with both arguments is that in order for any morality to objective it must be factual. As long as someone can not prove any moral concept to be a fact and not merely a opinion it will remain as morality, but it isn't objective morality. However once someone proves a moral belief to be a fact it is no longer merely a belief or opinion. Once I realized this concept I believed that it was possible to find out what objective morality was if it existed. In order to find out whether morality is objective or subjective it is required to know whether it is possible for morality to be one or the other. For centuries people have believed that if there was a omiscentant God that they would know what is objective morality. Although it is conceivable that an omniscentant being would know what objective morality is, it doesn't show that they exist nor does it explain how something is either moral or immoral. In trying to find out how it is possible for anything to be proven moral or immoral in a factual way I realized from reading and posting to a thread on this forum called 'Does consquences determine if an action is moral' that in order to judge objectively whether actions are moral or not we have to look at the outcome of actions and not judge if the just the thoughts of an individual are moral. Although thoughts themselves can be part of action that is either moral or immoral, by themselves they can not be moral or immoral if they do not in any way result in an action. To put it simply, if one is in a coma and they dream of either evil or good thoughts there is no way to explain why such thoughts why they are either evil or good, therefore thoughts by themself can not determine what is moral. Athough we like to believe that thoughts themselves are good and evil apart from the consquences they create, we believe this because it is easier in many ways to control thoughts that it is to control the consquences of our thoughts. If consequences determine morality it possible to show which actions are moral or immoral due to the consequences they create. This also allows a way to explain how it is possible for morality is either subjective or objective. If the final outcome of all human actions results in a situation the same as if we never existed no matter what we do, then it is a fact that morality is subjective. However if it is possible that human beings are able to choose actions that lead to better outcome than others, than morality is objective. All that is required is to show which actions lead to better consequences. But figuring out which actions lead to the best result is a non- trivial problem. The reason for this is that one has to know for a fact what the consequences of any possible action that anyone may take. What this means is the knowledge that is required to understand what is objective morality is not currently within our ability to know and understand, but at the same time it is also currently beyond our ability to know if morality is purely subjective. We would be left only the understanding that we can not know if morality is either subjective or objective if it wasn't for the fact that in order to know what objective morality is we are required to learn more about the consequences of our actions. And this leads directly to that objective morality is, which is that although we may not know what the actions are that lead to the best outcome we must make an attempt to understand the world around us an not accept morality based only on beliefs or faith as objective nor must we accept that all morality is subjective unless it is proven to be.
_____________________ No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 06/05/06 - 02:34 PM:	#4
I wish to remind dclements that the burden of proof is on him to prove his side as well as on me to prove mine. I agree with dclements that objective morality theories mistake opinions for facts. In regards to moral subjectivists, those that believe that opinions and/or morals are subjective can both understand, defend, and believe their subjectivist position. For example, I think I have shown a fine understanding of the position in my opening post. In regards to different moral objectivist theories, unfortunately, consequentialism, virtue ethics, and deontology all equally fail to objectify subjective value judgments. The subjectivity of (moral) value judgments is irrelevant to whether the value judgment values the consequence(s) of an action, an action, or the intentions & mental state of an actor. Regardless of what is being valued, the value is subjective, because the value explains the relationship or feelings of a subject to the valued object. The value judgment varies among different subjects. For example, agent A can find action X (morally) good or desirable, while agent B can simultaneously find action X (morally) bad or undesirable. An agent (e.g. a person) has the ability to affect the world by making choices. However, an agent cannot make the world "objectively better" or objectively worse, because goodness and badness are subjective judgments. Thus, the consequences of the actions or choices of an agent, or the actions/choices themselves, have no objective (moral) value. I agree with dclements that "we" have no proof of objective morality; we cannot know of any objective moral values. However, we can know of morality's subjectivity. We do have proof of morality's subjectivity. The inherent qualities of the function value demonstrate the subjectivity of morality. I agree that it seems wise for us people to attempt to understand the objective world around us, to learn and study objective facts, and recognize the consequences of our actions. However, any (moral) value judgments of such objective facts still remain subjective. And, it seems obviously unwise for us to falsely believe in objective morality. In any case, these wisdoms do not pertain to the subjectivity or objectivity of morality. -Floyd
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1090

Posted 06/08/06 - 03:26 PM:	#5
Sorry I'm late with my reply. I got tied down with work and errands and didn't have enough time and energy to post... The flaw I see with Floyd's argument is that although he claims that other people views on morality are subjective and that they should realize that their moral values are no better than others, he does not apply this belief to his own view on morality. Although he asserts that all moral views are subjective, he also asserts that his views are facts. If all values are subjective as Floyd suggests, what good could there be it in explaining this to people? If all knowledge, morality, and truth are subjective than people can believe whatever they wish to believe, however there can be no reasoning as to why one should believe anything because all beliefs are equally valueless. Although it is useful that one understands that their views and others can be subjective, it is no better than any other morality if they view that subjectivity is absolute and no longer needs to be questioned. For example, many people question whether God exists. If he does exists than morality has to be objective because if it was subjective God couldn't be good and therefore he wouldn't be God. If it was a fact that morality is subjective than it would also be a fact that God did not exist. Although God has not be proven to exist, most people believe that his non-existence has not been proven either. When someone is open to the idea that God may or may not exist, independent of whether they want to believe God exists or not, or any other fact than they are no longer biased. It is not required for one to believe that all views are subjective. Another thing I wish to note is that Floyd misread my opening argument when he stated that I claimed that there was no proof for objective morality. What I said was that determining objective morality is a non-trivial problem and the knowledge that is required to understand what is objective morality is not currently within our ability to know and understand. What this means is we are like the blind men of Indostan trying to see the elephant. We can see part of the truth but the whole is not visible to us. Although nobody has ever proven objective morality doesn't mean that it can not exist.
_____________________ No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 06/09/06 - 04:06 PM:	#6
The issue of the subjectivity of ethics and morality differs from the issue of the subjectivity of knowledge. Epistemological absolutism is compatible with moral relativism. Accordingly, my assertion that moral statements are opinions doesn't mean that all statements are opinions. Statements with veracity that relies solely on the qualities of the object are factual. For example, weight, shape, and density are objective qualities. So, for example, the statement, X weighs more than Y, is either factually true or factually false. In contrast, statements with veracity that relies, at least partially, on the subject (the one who observes the statement) are opinions and do not have factual veractiy. For example, taste, desirability, and attractiveness are subjective qualities. So, for example, the statement, X is tastier than Y, is an opinion without a factual veracity. X could both be tastier then Y to me and not tastier than Y to you. The apparent contradiction isn't allowed beause their is no objective truth; it is allowed because that particular statement (and all opinions including morality) doesn't rely soley on objective critera. All knowledge and truth aren't (necessarily) subjective. All moral statements are subjective. While I am an Atheist, (mono)theism has been used to argue absoluteness of morality. However, as I understand this idea of "god", "god" is a being. So, wouldn't "god's" subjective analysis be just opinions as well. A subjective statement wouldn't be objective because there is a "god". A subjective statement would be true or false depending on which subject (including this "god") was observing it. The truth of the subjective statement would vary from subject to subject. For example, what is moral, tasty, or desirable to one person may not be moral, tasty, or desirable to another person; what is moral, tasty, or desirable to one "god" may not be moral, tasty, or desirable to another "god"; what is moral, tasty, or desirable to a certain person may not be moral, tasty, or desirable to a certain "god". God, people, and all agents are all just different subjects. I agree with dclements that nobody has ever proven objective morality. I agree with dclements that there is as much evidence of objective morality to us as there is sight of an elephant to a blind Indostanian. However, I go even further: I believe that there is evidence of the subjectivity of morality. I believe that I have clearly demonstrated the subjectivity of morality in the three posts I have thus produced for this debate. In contrast, I don't think dcelements has produced much, if any, evidence of the objectivity of morality. In fact, I fear dcelements argument resembles a near forfeit of such a position. I await your reply, dcelements. -Floyd
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1090

Posted 06/12/06 - 07:51 PM:	#7
You believe morality is subjective because every person you have meet has a code of ethics based in part on opinions. Since you can not conceive of a possibility of a person who's morality is objective you come to the conclusion that all morality must be subjective. However the problem with proving you beliefs to be a fact is that there are other people who can conceive of how objective morality can exist such as the Christian belief in God. Part of their belief includes that he is omniscient and knows objective morality. Although you may believe that God's concepts of morality are subjective, Christians would argue that your assumptions are based on your very limited ability of being able to understand what an all knowing being understands and would deny God's morality is subjective just as they would deny the argument that God doe not exist. Since there is a possibility that omniscient beings such as God do know what objective morality is, your argument that morality can not be objective because we can not conceive of how morality can be objective is only your belief and not a fact. Also your argument that knowledge and truth have value outside of morality is also not a fact. If you believe that knowledge and truth have value it is because you have taken a moral position. It doesn't even make sense to talk about them having values by themselves, because they are valueless if you do not believe there is value in the world they represent. If your concept of being 'freed' from ancient concepts of morality by claming all morality is false you end up with Nihilism. Although this may sound good to you it will be hard to explain why everyone should accept it. I explained in my opening statement that even though we are not omniscient like God, we can improve ability to understanding morality by improving our knowledge and understanding of the world we live in. If we settle for morality based on what we want morality to be or give up on all concepts of morality then it would be impossible to ever know what objective morality is. Although it is likely that concepts of morality are purely subjective and meaningless it is highly unlikely all morality is purely subjective and nothing has meaning.
_____________________ No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 06/12/06 - 11:29 PM:	#8
I appreciate dclements explanation of the valid inductive argument for moral relativism: that every person met has a code of ethics based (at least in part) on opinions. However, dclements, you forgot to mention my deductive argument regarding the inherent qualities of the function value, which by definition refers to the relationship between a subject and an object. I'd love to offer a rebuttal to your argument for moral absolutism, but I don't think you made one. Dclements, you claim that, if there was a "god" or gods, that this "god" or these gods would know if objective morality existed or not. To this, I ask, so what? Even if the existence of a "god" or gods is possible, which I don't believe it is (I'm an atheist), then such theism is irrelevant to the existence of objective morality. The existence of something (objective morality) doesn't depend on a hypothetical god's observation of it. If your going to say morality comes from god (such as Divine Command Theory), then, as I explained, that particular morality would be based on god's subjective observation. So, while I disagree with your assertion of the possibility of theism, the possible existence of objective morality does not follow from the possible existence of a god or god(s). Epistemology is different than morality; dclements, you seem to forget that in your last post. The objectivity and factuality of truth & knowledge is separate from the (lack of) objectivity and factuality of morality. Epistemological absolutism is compatible with moral relativism. Epistemology deals with the objectivity of a factual statement's veracity (e.g. whether or not the turht of the statement, 2 + 2 = 4, can differ from subject to subject). Morality deals with the objectivity of the value of actions and choices by agents (e.g. whether or not the goodness of the act of eating chocolate can differ from subject to subject). Epistemology is independent of morality and vice versa. The realization of the lack of objectivity in morality leads one to moral nihilism or moral relativism. This is an acceptable position; one which I explained in my opening post quite well: The abandonment of absolutistic morality, doesn�t require abandoning moral propositions; rather, it just requires rephrasing moral propositions as opinions. For example, instead of saying �X is bad�, one can say, �X is deemed bad by Y�. While the former is merely an opinion without a prepositional veracity, the latter proposition has a factual veracity (which depends on the subjective deeming of Y towards the object X). In parallel, instead of saying �X tastes good�, one can say �X tastes good to Y�. Again, only the latter statement has an objective veracity. -Floyd
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1090

Posted 06/17/06 - 10:33 AM:	#9
(sorry again about being late with my reply..) The possibility that God exists is not a moot point if it shows your belief that morality can only be subjective belief and not a fact. I may be beating a dead horse here, but if God or any other omniscient beings knows objective morality than it is obvious that their morality is not subjective, which is just one of the possibilities on how morality may not be subjective. Your comment of 'if your going to say morality comes from god (such as Divine Command Theory)' is an obvious strawman argument which would of been better if it was just left out of your post. Also according to your own arguments your belief in subjective morality can not be a fact because it is itself a moral belief. Even if you try to argue that it is a belief based on knowledge, you would than be claiming that possible for morality to be based on facts which you stated earlier was impossible. You misunderstood what I said about knowledge and truth require morality to have value. While it is true that facts such as '2+2=4' and 'the earth goes around the sun' are true independent of what people believe, they require people to believe facts are important in order for people to put forth effort to understand them. If you lived in a society that believed that inquiry into the world around you was 'evil' and a form of witchcraft, you would find it difficult to learn any form of knowledge that was deemed evil nor could read or write anything without risking your life. Without a moral belief that knowledge is 'good' and not 'evil' it is almost impossible for it to exist. After reading your arguments on moral relativism and nihilism, I would like to know why not nihilism? If you really believe that all views are valid why do you also believe that moral relativism is better than both nihilism and moral absolutism? Also I do not think your idea that rephrasing all moral propositions as opinions is a good one since it too contradicts itself because with it one can say "Only Floyd thinks all moral propositions should be stated as opinions" and if someone doesn't want to rephrase the views as opinions its just your opinion against theirs.(On a side note, in college I had several professors tell students not to phrase our views as opinions in papers we turned in by using the phrases "I think" or "I believe" because we should expect readers to be smart enough to know statements that are only one's view and using such phrases are redundant) While reading your posts I'm beginning to believe you do not truly support subjectivity, but instead are just writing about your own moral beliefs and why everyone else should follow them. It may be true that I have not written alot about objective morality, but I do not see much reason to since you are merely dismissing all my beliefs as not true without giving any supporting arguments other than they go against your beliefs. Although I agree with some of the concepts of subjective morality, I disagree with the idea that it explains why we have to abandon all concepts of morality to be free and that doing so would allow us to live better lives. Without morality it would be impossible for people to form a society, art, science, or anything that requires us believe that object or idea has value. In Eastern philosophy there are religions such as Buddhism and Jainism that include concepts of subjective morality, but they do not reject all morality. When you come to think about it is almost impossible to reject all morality since doing so requires one to never make choices based on one's ideas of morality and value.
_____________________ No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 06/19/06 - 07:12 AM:	#10
The possibility that a god or gods exist is a moot point. If an omniscient being knows that morality is objective, than morality is objective. Obviously. And, in contrast, if an omniscient being knows that morality is subjective, then morality is subjective. Dclements argument based on god is clearly circular. Yes, an omniscient being would know if morality is objective or subjective. That isn't evidence of either. My belief in the subjectivity of morality is not a moral belief. I don't believe truth is morally good. And, nothing about my argument implies that truth is morally good. Truth is epistemologically true; that has nothing to do with morality. Dclements forgets this when dclements fallaciously conflates epistemology with morality. Yes, if one lived in a society where factual truth and rational/empirical inquiry was deemed unimportant, then ones studies in truth would be hampered. Luckily, factual truth isn't affected by people's belief in it. And, as my signature says, universal truth isn't measured in mass appeal. I think the difference between moral relativism and moral nihilism is mostly terminological. Once one accepts that morality is just a function of subjective values (such as desire, personal preference, taste, etc), one can continue to use moral terminology or replace moral terminology with amoral counterparts (sich as desire, prefer, like, etc.). The statement, "Only Floyd thinks all moral propositions should be stated as opinions", is incorrect, because I don't think moral propositions should be anything. I said that moral propositions must be stated as opinions to have a factual veracity. That statement is a factual statement, not a moral statement. If a person doesn't want to phrase their moral opinions as opinions, then they can phrase them in meaningless jibber jabber. That wouldn't be immoral, it'd just be nonsensical. Subjective functions such as moral value and taste cannot coherently be applied objectively. The statement, "X tastes good" or "X is morally good", are incoherent unless a subject is either implicitly or explicitly referred to (e.g. "X tastes good to Y" or "X is morally good to Y". Perhaps art, science, and society require the us of value. I don't believe anybody in this debate is suggesting that value doesn't exist. My position is that value is subjective, because it is a function of the relationship between a subject and an object, not solely the object. Thus, the value of an object can varies from subject to subject. I propose this argument as a factual analysis of the issue, and not as a moral analysis of the issue. (Again, please note the difference between epistemological statements and moral statements; please note the difference between knowledge and morality; please note the difference between facts and opinions.) Dclements, you ended your 4th post by saying that rejecting (absolutist) morality is almost impossible because doing such would require one to never make choices based on one's idea's of morality and value. Quite the opposite is the case. Accepting the subjectivity of morality and value allows one (to recognize that she/he) make choices based on one's own values. It is the idea of objective morality that says one "should" act on some mystical third-party "moral" code. It is the idea of objective morality that denies value, or at least denies one the option of acting on their personal values. It is objective morality that would leave a person in an irreconcilable quagmire of conflict between the aims of personal desires and the aims of an allegedly objective moral code. For example, one who has been brainwashed into believing that there exists some objective moral code often will find theirself in situations where they want to do X but "should" do Y. Thus, it is the idea of objective morality that leaves it's believer into confused inaction and/or conflict. Basically, it is moral objectivism, not moral subjectivism, which is the lofty claim. Moral subjectivism offers a theory of morality that is completely explainable in materialist and empirical methods. In contrast, moral objectivism needs a lofty unfounded and mostly incoherent basis such as dualism or prescriptive metaphysics. While moral subjectivism simply describes the field of morality by simply explaining it in materialist, empirically verifiable, and rational terms; moral objectivism alleges long-winded schemes of metaphysical, unknowable, unfounded, physically-moot pretenses, without empirical evidence, that cause conflict and confusion when implemented. (Indeed, history is full of violence, depression, war, and etc. caused by self-righteous moralists and theists who believe in the wackiest of superstitions. These objectivist-moralists ignore the humanist ends, which are based on the subjective desires of humans; and instead, these moralists act on their silly superstitions. Alas, thus is the result of unfounded, non-empirical, and/or irrational theories such as moral objectivism.) In conclusion, I've provided an argument for the subjectivity of value based on the subjectivity of value and described the way in which people can act on such a belief. I've shot down your theistic by explaining that the existence of God is moot to the issue (as a god would only know whether or not morality was subjective or objective, but wouldn't change the objectivity or subjectivity of morality). I've shot down your argument that the truth of epistemological statements implies moral absolutism. (Epistemological absolutism is compatible with moral relativism.) I think I've argued against your quasi-arguments for objective morality, and also demonstrated that morality and value is subjective, quite well. It was nice debating with you. Thank you, dclements. And again, thanks to Paul, the administrators, and the moderators. -Floyd
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1090

Posted 06/24/06 - 07:09 PM:	#11
You have misread my post and think that my argument about omniscient beings means that I believe their possibility proves that there is objective morality when my actual argument is that is possible that there is objective morality and that your argument that morality is subjective is merely a belief and not a fact. So far you have argued that it is impossible for anyone's morality to be objective. As for your comment on your belief that morality is subjective is 'truth' and not a moral proposition as a person that understands subjective morality you should know that all religious and moral systems of belief start with one or more such simple axioms. With one such simple axiom moral 'truth' I or anyone else can believe whatever we want to and we can continue to believe it as long as we do not question it. Also the criteria that you used to prove that morality can only be subjective is a truth is ambiguous so it is no better than any statement that someone makes when they claim their morality is objective, but yet does not have any proof to back it up. Again you have misunderstood what I said about knowledge and truth require morality to have value. My point is that without morality science, knowledge, and truth can not have value. If all one believes is that it is better to gather, protect, and use knowledge to make our lives better and they do not believe in any other forms of morality then their view is that morality objective since they believe that their view is better than those who think it is better to destroy knowledge. If you or anyone has a belief that your views are better than another than you are making a claim that morality is objective. It is interesting to see an argument that is supporting subjective morality imply that objective morality is evil. Your last couple of arguments about why subjective is 'good' and objective morality 'evil' makes it almost impossible to tell the difference between your 'subjective' arguments and another persons arguments as to why they moral beliefs are objective. Everything you said was a moral proposition as to why your 'subjective' materialistic morals are better than other peoples morality. Once you start claiming that your morals are better than other people's I can not see how you can still think your views are subjective since at its core subjective morality states that no single set of moral beliefs is better than all others. Since we have spent most of this debate arguing over certain aspects of objective and subjective morality I thought it might be better to take a step back and reexamine some concepts. The definition of subjective is: Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision. Existing only in the mind; illusory. If morality is subjective than all moral beliefs (including your own that materialism is better than theism) is completely illusory and moot. I believe the best way to conceive of how morality can be subjective is to think of if someone existed as only a brain in a jar and there was so way in which anyone could communicate with them and everything they knew was a dream. In this situation I believe it is impossible to argue how this person can be moral or immoral since all thoughts can not effect the outside world and when they die all memories are lost. The world would be no different than if this individual never existed. For this individual morality can only be subjective since they can not effect the outside world. In order for morality to be objective one actions must be the best one for outside world. As I said before this is a non-trivial problem and it can be tricky to even conceive. For starters, most confuse personal morality with objective morality. Then there is the problem of if objective morality is not personal morality what is it. Often people believe that objective morality is what a society believes is moral. Although social morality may be closer to objective morality than individual morality, one society does not represent all of the world. After thinking about morality for awhile, I've come to believe that everyone tries to do what is best but is unable to do to a lack of understanding. Part of this is due to not understanding what is best for ourselves and the rest of the world. We are unable to see what are the best consequences for any action we may take. Because we do not know how to control the consequences of our actions, we focus our concepts of morality on what we can control which is our thoughts. By believing that controlling one's thoughts we can be moral we are mislead to believe that controlling one's thoughts alone is enough to be moral. However, this misconception causes problems because morality of thought(virtue ethics) and morality based on consequences are very different. The best way to understand this is to realize that anything that we are able to easily understand and control the consequences of is no longer thought of as moral or immoral, such as building a house or driving a car. These consequences of these activities depends on one's skill instead of how virtuous one is. If we realize that knowing what is moral requires an understanding of the world and is a skill, like driving a car, we can overcome some of the problems. Also morality based on consequences shows a big problem with morality that is pretty much unsolvable and is avoided in virtue ethics. Until we able to understand the consequences of our actions we are unable to make the best choices. This can partly be thought of as the things we could change if we could go back in our lives and make certain choices again, but it is also about the choices we could make if we knew exactly what would be the outcome of any choice we made. It is hard to describe how much better our lives could be if we were able act on the knowledge of what all possible consequences of our actions are. It is also hard to descibe the horror in realizing the problems that are caused by not being able to act on such knowledge. Last is the problem of for whom we should be concerned with we consider the consequences of our actions. The answer is simply everything in the world. Although it is almost impossible for people to exist without harming animals and using the environment for resources, it doesn't mean that it is moral for us to do so. As we advance we should be able to take better care of the world around us, and if we don't than we will like kill ourselves in the process.
_____________________ No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513

Posted 06/24/06 - 07:43 PM:	#12
This debate is now concluded, thanks to Floyd and dclements for participating.
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.