Is morality objective?

[Exorcet]

We don't allow hollow points in warfare, nor do we allow poissenous gas, lasers, flamethrowers,... The list is endless, in that regard I find it hard to say I see no issue in genetic modification for a super soldier while we don't know what that would entail.

I think a lot of the concern over banned weapons comes from collateral damage and excessive pain and suffering. Genetically enhanced soldiers shouldn't contribute to either of that. Honestly I expect genetic engineering to become normal for everyday people eventually, so people of every trade will probably be genetically modified to enhance their abilities.

Also how are sports going to be a 'fair' playingground. Will we have 2 different leagues? Will this be doping? Will this mean only the ones able to pay will be able to play?

It shouldn't be very different from how things work now. Nature isn't a fair playground in the first place. There is a pretty big gap between your average person and a star athlete, and then even among the best we tend to group people into categories to make things more competitive (age, size, sex, etc). Genetically enhanced athletes could just be another category, although again I think that far enough into the future everyone will be genetically enhanced to some degree.

Edit: to be fair on the soldier aspect, while I see why we have armies and while I understand most soldiers enlist because they believe to help the world I can not accept this as a moral occupation. I have family and friends in the army some of whom are the world to me so I'm not saying they are bad people. I just find it hard to accept risking your life because some officer or nation said so...

In an ideal world, I think military service is unquestionably just. It's simply organized self defense. In reality it can be corrupted by a number of factors, like blindly following orders as you point out. I don't think that is enough to invalidate the principle of it all though.

 

[Danoff]

Mostly I posted genetic engineering as a moral dilemma because the child cannot give consent... no child can ever give consent to the DNA they are born with. From a certain perspective, every child conception is a moral dilemma. But it's easier to see that moral dilemma if you start talking about genetically engineering an extra set of arms or something.

 

[Rallywagon]

Well while I agree with your opinion on the children. I find it harder to accept the supersoldier.

We don't allow hollow points in warfare, nor do we allow poissenous gas, lasers, flamethrowers,... The list is endless, in that regard I find it hard to say I see no issue in genetic modification for a super soldier while we don't know what that would entail.

The reason for those restrictions is because of the damage they cause especially to those that happen to survive. Its not due to any sort of effectiveness. Creating juiced up soldiers on the other hand doesnt outright cause horrific injuries. It just allows a soldier to be that much more efficient at their job. In that respect, a GMO soldier is in no way comparable to napalm, hollow points or double tapping.

Also how are sports going to be a 'fair' playingground. Will we have 2 different leagues? Will this be doping? Will this mean only the ones able to pay will be able to play?

listening to Joe Rogan, this is something that comes up often. Its very likely that ince we start implementing enhancements of any sort (ie, GMO, mechanical, whatever else hasnt been thought of yet) then we will lijely see the formation of a second "super human" league for any given sport.

Edit: to be fair on the soldier aspect, while I see why we have armies and while I understand most soldiers enlist because they believe to help the world I can not accept this as a moral occupation. I have family and friends in the army some of whom are the world to me so I'm not saying they are bad people. I just find it hard to accept risking your life because some officer or nation said so...

Welcome to the idea of the LDRSHIP ethos. Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, personal courage. We live(d) by it.

As for implementing enhancements on the average human. I think its inevitable. Whether it be genetic or mechanical, its only a matter of comfortability with the idea of modifications. As tech advances and modifications continue to become more and more mainstream, it will be adopted as normal. I think that is our evolutionary path. What comes after us. Cyborgs and mutants.

 

[flamingchariot]

God and morality don't mix for starters...or reality but thats another conversation. Morality isn't right/wrong its about ethics which is the complicated part most people cant grasp. Think of it simply as this "treat other people as you would wish to be treated yourself" you cannot expect favourable treatment from others when you treat them like dirt for example and vice versa. Just because you see others acting a certain way (badly) does not justify you following suit. Lead by example ...be nice to to ypour fellow humans you might be surprised at the results

 

[Danoff]

God and morality don't mix for starters...or reality but thats another conversation. Morality isn't right/wrong its about ethics which is the complicated part most people cant grasp. Think of it simply as this "treat other people as you would wish to be treated yourself" you cannot expect favourable treatment from others when you treat them like dirt for example and vice versa. Just because you see others acting a certain way (badly) does not justify you following suit. Lead by example ...be nice to to ypour fellow humans you might be surprised at the results

The "golden rule" of morality is more of a guideline really. There are plenty of times where you need to treat others differently than you would want them to treat you. I agree that god and morality don't mix.

 

[Rallywagon]

God and morality don't mix for starters...or reality but thats another conversation. Morality isn't right/wrong its about ethics which is the complicated part most people cant grasp. Think of it simply as this "treat other people as you would wish to be treated yourself" you cannot expect favourable treatment from others when you treat them like dirt for example and vice versa. Just because you see others acting a certain way (badly) does not justify you following suit. Lead by example ...be nice to to ypour fellow humans you might be surprised at the results

Ethics are born from morality, not the otherway around. And while "do onto others" is a great start. Morals arent so neatly boxed. Once upon a time, people thought it moral too sacrifice humans to their gods. Today, people think it moral to stone adulterers and throw homosexuals off buildings. Morals both come from and also shape society.

 

[Dotini]

The "golden rule" of morality is more of a guideline really. There are plenty of times where you need to treat others differently than you would want them to treat you. I agree that god and morality don't mix.

What is morality? Is it the extent to which an action is right or wrong? Perhaps an action can never be wholly binary, all right or all wrong? Maybe even morality doesn't exist, except in part, never in whole? By the same token, perhaps god doesn't wholly exist either, but only as a fragment? So, in the end, god and morality are made of the same shifting, vaporous, mixing smoke?

 

[Danoff]

What is morality? Is it the extent to which an action is right or wrong?

Lemme find a definition of morality - "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

Basically, it's a determination of acceptable/good/right/proper behavior and unacceptable/bad/wrong/improper behavior. This is an "ought" evaluation. You "should" do this, you "shouldn't" do that.

If human rights "ought" to be observed, violating them is wrong every time.

 

[Imari]

On the genetic engineering. It's not the act itself. The act of genetic engineering in itself is amoral. It's why or what we do with it. Is it moral to create 'supersoldiers' through genetic engineering? Is it moral to choose some of the looks of your child? There has to be a discussion about these questions.

But is it really a moral discussion? Is there any reason to discuss why supersoldiers or child modification should be right or wrong in an absolutist sense rather than simply letting individuals choose?

I mean, we choose our partners to have children now, and that's not generally considered a moral choice. You stick it in who you like. Yet that choice greatly affects your child's genetics, probably more so than genetic engineering will for some time.

On the robots well I agree we often work in that way. Then again I'm starting to doubt if I can keep eating meat my entire life as I find that the only good reason not to stop eating meat is my pure love for it.

So you shouldn't do something if you like it? There's a streak of Puritan self-punishment I didn't see coming.

More and more people start to question our relation towards other species. And therefore it wouldn't suprise me if this becomes a discussion in the future.

It's a discussion right now. You'll notice PETA (nutjobs that they are), along with most vegans and vegetarians as well as animal rights activists in general. It's just that most people would actually choose to kill other animals for food, or are happy enough to pay someone else to do it for them.

Edit: to be fair on the soldier aspect, while I see why we have armies and while I understand most soldiers enlist because they believe to help the world I can not accept this as a moral occupation.

You think being a soldier is immoral in and of itself? Could you explain your reasoning for this further? I don't think "I wouldn't risk my life so immoral" quite covers it.

 

[Mr Tree]

But is it really a moral discussion? Is there any reason to discuss why supersoldiers or child modification should be right or wrong in an absolutist sense rather than simply letting individuals choose?

I mean, we choose our partners to have children now, and that's not generally considered a moral choice. You stick it in who you like. Yet that choice greatly affects your child's genetics, probably more so than genetic engineering will for some time.



So you shouldn't do something if you like it? There's a streak of Puritan self-punishment I didn't see coming.



It's a discussion right now. You'll notice PETA (nutjobs that they are), along with most vegans and vegetarians as well as animal rights activists in general. It's just that most people would actually choose to kill other animals for food, or are happy enough to pay someone else to do it for them.



You think being a soldier is immoral in and of itself? Could you explain your reasoning for this further? I don't think "I wouldn't risk my life so immoral" quite covers it.

Like I said I still eat meat I love it! And while I would not tell people to not eat food I can agree with some points of it beeing less then ideal. For example the fact that we 'waste' food for making other and thus more expensive (and polluting) food.

On the soldiers thing. Well I find it a hard topic to just be on a side. While I don't see soldiers as immoral people. My personal view of soldiers are people who should act as they are told by their superiours including the (justified) killing of other people.
This is where in my opinion it turns very grey. How can beeing a soldier be moral if he shouldn't question if it's moral but accept that all orders he gets are moral.

IMPORTANT I believe a large part of the soldiers are really good people as many sign up out of some sense of altruism. I do not want to offend people for their choice to be a slodier and I accept that what they do is risk their lives to preserve our freedoms hower direct or indirect. And for that they deserve our thanks.

Again this is a though subject in my opinion. I might have a wrong view as I have a limited amount of friends who are enlisted in the belgian army. But I just don't agree with what I geuss are parts of their training as the guys enlisted if they come back from a training camp they're always very hyped up and want to get physical. I've had to stop them from overreacting and willing to get physical over stupid things. Something they don't have on other occasions. I actually have one friend who recently left the army where this behavior by himself was the final drop (there where a pletora of other reasons).

Welcome to the idea of the LDRSHIP ethos. Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, personal courage. We live(d) by it.

.

Well none of these 'properties' require you to follow orders without question. None of these actions should be unconditionally.
I don't have unconditional loyalty,
I will furfill my duties as pointed out as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others nor shall I furfill my civil duties if my rights aren't honoured,
I will give respect to those deserving respect,
Selfless service is a bit broad to.comment on what would you mean by selfless service if you mean I should selflessly serve my nation as a soldier I'd ask you why? There are way more productive ways I could serve my nation I see no point in that. And I again wouldn't serve my nation if mt nation didn't grant me some.rights and respect.

Wel the next tree are not in respect to others and thus how others behave shouldn't influence my own position on them I believe in honour (although that would be very subjective) integrety and personal courage.

And leadership ethos? What do you mean by that. Am I being ignorant?


Edit: also I added in my (flawed) perspective on the military as I wouldn't want to hide my personal bias on that. I realise I'm not the right guy to talk to about morality and armies/warfare as the be all end all balanced perspective

 

[Rallywagon]

Like I said I still eat meat I love it! And while I would not tell people to not eat food I can agree with some points of it beeing less then ideal. For example the fact that we 'waste' food for making other and thus more expensive (and polluting) food.

On the soldiers thing. Well I find it a hard topic to just be on a side. While I don't see soldiers as immoral people. My personal view of soldiers are people who should act as they are told by their superiours including the (justified) killing of other people.
This is where in my opinion it turns very grey. How can beeing a soldier be moral if he shouldn't question if it's moral but accept that all orders he gets are moral.

IMPORTANT I believe a large part of the soldiers are really good people as many sign up out of some sense of altruism. I do not want to offend people for their choice to be a slodier and I accept that what they do is risk their lives to preserve our freedoms hower direct or indirect. And for that they deserve our thanks.

Again this is a though subject in my opinion. I might have a wrong view as I have a limited amount of friends who are enlisted in the belgian army. But I just don't agree with what I geuss are parts of their training as the guys enlisted if they come back from a training camp they're always very hyped up and want to get physical. I've had to stop them from overreacting and willing to get physical over stupid things. Something they don't have on other occasions. I actually have one friend who recently left the army where this behavior by himself was the final drop (there where a pletora of other reasons).





Well none of these 'properties' require you to follow orders without question. None of these actions should be unconditionally.
I don't have unconditional loyalty,
I will furfill my duties as pointed out as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others nor shall I furfill my civil duties if my rights aren't honoured,
I will give respect to those deserving respect,
Selfless service is a bit broad to.comment on what would you mean by selfless service if you mean I should selflessly serve my nation as a soldier I'd ask you why? There are way more productive ways I could serve my nation I see no point in that. And I again wouldn't serve my nation if mt nation didn't grant me some.rights and respect.

Wel the next tree are not in respect to others and thus how others behave shouldn't influence my own position on them I believe in honour (although that would be very subjective) integrety and personal courage.

And leadership ethos? What do you mean by that. Am I being ignorant?


Edit: also I added in my (flawed) perspective on the military as I wouldn't want to hide my personal bias on that. I realise I'm not the right guy to talk to about morality and armies/warfare as the be all end all balanced perspective

LDRSHIP is an acronym containing that which makes up the US army values. Its not actually leadership. Just an acronym. That said, i was speaking directly to your end statement avout "following some officers or nations orders." I assume you have a job? Do you not follow your bosses orders? Are there not rules at your work place? Keep in mind, combat arms is a small part of a nations military, quite a bit more of it is support. Cooks, mechanics, IT, comms, medics, etc etc. While i was enlisted, i was either fabricating or voluteering for community out reach programs. We may train as soldiers first, but that in practice is typically a very small part of the job. Even deployed, you spend magnitudes more time as a thumb twiddler or rock thrower than a soldier. To that extent, and perhaps its different where you are from, but our military, especially the reserves and national guard units, are generally the first on scene when we have disasters, natural or otherwise.
As for following or not following orders. Well, i meam, besides being highly frowned upon, and trained against (the saying "check down, not up" is very popular in the military) there can also be very serious legal ramifications if you plan on ignoring a lawful order. Even questioning an order would (might be different now, been out for 8 years) get the crap smoked out of you. Smoked, for the record, is forced to do physical exercises, be it push ups, running back and forth with full water jugs, any mix of any sort of exercise until you are, well, smoked. And what about "unlawful" orders? Well, you better have a good case, cause you will be brought up for court marshall and charged under UCMJ. You can ignore orders, you just need to be damn sure you are justified in doing so.
As for the hyped up friends. I wont bother explaining it. As a civilian, your not quite going to understand the atmosphere in which they trained. Needless to say, its full of chest beating, testosterone filled, competitive shenanigans that tends to bring out the "alpha male" in a person. Which, when you are training to fight and kill, is to be expected.

Now, id like to interject a bit on the animal side. I am certianly an omnivore. If you follow evolution as opposed to the big made up guy in the sky, then you already know this is how we evolved. I know a good amount of veggies, amd half of them went back to eating meat because they were starting to get worn down. They couldnt work out as hard, they started feeling tired and even sick. I never tried it, but i am not key on it. Perhaps this may come as a surprise, but I am fully supportive of animal rights, and to many extents, groups like the animal liberation front. I think things like our current factory farm paradigm, as well as things like the fur trade and trophy hunting are beyond deplorable. Absolutely shows some of the most disgusting sides of human nature. Where i tend to separate from that group is that i fully support hunting and fishing as one of the best ways to get meat. I ubderstand that this isnt somethingnthat everyonencan do, or has access too. So factory farming animals is not going away. It would however be nice to see these animals far, far better kept and maintained then shoved in to small pens, forced to wallow in their own waste, dealing with things I've been unfortunate to have witnessed.

 

[flamingchariot]

as you get older you will learn people are generally ok ...awful things happen and we often make the mistake of applying logic reason ethics or morality where you simply can't. Humans can be illogical and insane as 🤬 under any given set of circumstances. They don't have to be a pyscopath or mentally unhinged to kill someone for example. However these seem to be the exception to the rule although an increasing occurence in the 21st century. And yet as someone else pointed out in the thread all of these things can be wrapped up in culture too to add yet more confusion. When we essentially accept we are all the same instead of pointing out (falsely) things that seperate us rich poor etc etc regardledless of ethnicities

 

[Mr Tree]

LDRSHIP is an acronym containing that which makes up the US army values. Its not actually leadership. Just an acronym. That said, i was speaking directly to your end statement avout "following some officers or nations orders." I assume you have a job? Do you not follow your bosses orders? Are there not rules at your work place? Keep in mind, combat arms is a small part of a nations military, quite a bit more of it is support. Cooks, mechanics, IT, comms, medics, etc etc. While i was enlisted, i was either fabricating or voluteering for community out reach programs. We may train as soldiers first, but that in practice is typically a very small part of the job. Even deployed, you spend magnitudes more time as a thumb twiddler or rock thrower than a soldier. To that extent, and perhaps its different where you are from, but our military, especially the reserves and national guard units, are generally the first on scene when we have disasters, natural or otherwise.
As for following or not following orders. Well, i meam, besides being highly frowned upon, and trained against (the saying "check down, not up" is very popular in the military) there can also be very serious legal ramifications if you plan on ignoring a lawful order. Even questioning an order would (might be different now, been out for 8 years) get the crap smoked out of you. Smoked, for the record, is forced to do physical exercises, be it push ups, running back and forth with full water jugs, any mix of any sort of exercise until you are, well, smoked. And what about "unlawful" orders? Well, you better have a good case, cause you will be brought up for court marshall and charged under UCMJ. You can ignore orders, you just need to be damn sure you are justified in doing so.
As for the hyped up friends. I wont bother explaining it. As a civilian, your not quite going to understand the atmosphere in which they trained. Needless to say, its full of chest beating, testosterone filled, competitive shenanigans that tends to bring out the "alpha male" in a person. Which, when you are training to fight and kill, is to be expected.

Now, id like to interject a bit on the animal side. I am certianly an omnivore. If you follow evolution as opposed to the big made up guy in the sky, then you already know this is how we evolved. I know a good amount of veggies, amd half of them went back to eating meat because they were starting to get worn down. They couldnt work out as hard, they started feeling tired and even sick. I never tried it, but i am not key on it. Perhaps this may come as a surprise, but I am fully supportive of animal rights, and to many extents, groups like the animal liberation front. I think things like our current factory farm paradigm, as well as things like the fur trade and trophy hunting are beyond deplorable. Absolutely shows some of the most disgusting sides of human nature. Where i tend to separate from that group is that i fully support hunting and fishing as one of the best ways to get meat. I ubderstand that this isnt somethingnthat everyonencan do, or has access too. So factory farming animals is not going away. It would however be nice to see these animals far, far better kept and maintained then shoved in to small pens, forced to wallow in their own waste, dealing with things I've been unfortunate to have witnessed.

Thx and well let's be honnest I can question my boss every step of the way (respectfully) no court system no ******** so comparing listening to officers to listening to a boss is a not that good of an analogy. This is my issue with armies. On the training things I can't understand well I don't need to understand why or what they do. What I do understand is that this is not acceptable, we shouldn't **** people up this bad and them let them go into society. Soldier have a name here amoung people who organise parties they're considered the macho troublemaker. People we'd best do without, if this is what we create by forming soldiers why would I need to understand it. But hey I'm just not keen on the military luckely we have people who have less issues with it.

 

[Lucas]

I've always understood morals and ethics were two separate concepts. Ethics was "what the society considers to be right or wrong", and morals was "what each individual considers to be right or wrong".

With this in mind, both are subjective: Ethics are constructed by individuals, and each one's idea of what is right or wrong comes from their moral, which is subjective. Ethics are usually composed of the most popular beliefs. While ethics can force a person to consider a certain thing to be "wrong", that doesn't mean you actually feel that thing to be wrong. We obey, but just because others tell us it is like that, not because we actually believe it.

I don't think "Human Rights" are objective. Or better said: I don't think they are universal truths. They are simply a set of rights many people agreed to. They are as objective as a bottle of Coca-Cola costing $1.

 

[flamingchariot]

I've always understood morals and ethics were two separate concepts. Ethics was "what the society considers to be right or wrong", and morals was "what each individual considers to be right or wrong".

With this in mind, both are subjective: Ethics are constructed by individuals, and each one's idea of what is right or wrong comes from their moral, which is subjective. Ethics are usually composed of the most popular beliefs. While ethics can force a person to consider a certain thing to be "wrong", that doesn't mean you actually feel that thing to be wrong. We obey, but just because others tell us it is like that, not because we actually believe it.

I don't think "Human Rights" are objective. Or better said: I don't think they are universal truths. They are simply a set of rights many people agreed to. They are as objective as a bottle of Coca-Cola costing $1.

This is the heart of the problem - what people THINK morality and ethics mean rather than what they truly are...its a problem of modern society when the meanings and 'truths' have been distorted out of all proportion.

The truth is absolute its not a discussion or point of view or opinion poll or soundbite for the news...read a little more ha ha instead of thinking everything is subjective /open to interpretation or relative ...just spouting some mindless rubbish another idiot said Sometimes there are no easy answers. You can't talk about human rights when we aren't free from tyranny in places all over the world its just hot air... Its only one part of a huge jigsaw puzzle

 

[Rallywagon]

We absolutely can talk about human rights, especially if there are those having them squelched. Ideas do not pass on by osmosis. If you dont talk about a thing, then there is no thing, besides the fact that it is very ignorant to pose the old "oh your not x? How dare you talk about y." Nearly all of us are, for better or worse, arm chair quarterbacks, not experts in the fields we often debate. That doesnt mean we should collectively shut up and move on. Thats not how you become informed and its not how you both challenge or have your own views challenged.
To that exent, nothing is absolute either. Not unless you are dealing in religion. But that is only ignorant absolutes. What proof have you that morals are objectives and not subjective? You made the point that just because someone thinks something is right doesnt mean everyone should see it as right. But who decides that if not the people? We have ideas as to what should be natural morals, dont kill, rape, hurt, thieve, etc. But those certainly dont make up the whole of what we would call morals. For example, someone may find it a moral imperative to stop all drug use, while others will find immoral for others to try and stop people from imbibing.
As objective as morals can be, they can equally be subjective and victims of the current paradigm.

 

[zzz_pt]

We absolutely can talk about human rights, especially if there are those having them squelched. Ideas do not pass on by osmosis. If you dont talk about a thing, then there is no thing, besides the fact that it is very ignorant to pose the old "oh your not x? How dare you talk about y." Nearly all of us are, for better or worse, arm chair quarterbacks, not experts in the fields we often debate. That doesnt mean we should collectively shut up and move on. Thats not how you become informed and its not how you both challenge or have your own views challenged.
To that extent, nothing is absolute either. Not unless you are dealing in religion. But that is only ignorant absolutes. What proof have you that morals are objectives and not subjective? You made the point that just because someone thinks something is right doesnt mean everyone should see it as right. But who decides that if not the people? We have ideas as to what should be natural morals, dont kill, rape, hurt, thieve, etc. But those certainly dont make up the whole of what we would call morals. For example, someone may find it a moral imperative to stop all drug use, while others will find immoral for others to try and stop people from imbibing.
As objective as morals can be, they can equally be subjective and victims of the current paradigm.

All of those, with the exception of rape IMO, can be moral under certain circumstances. Rape is probably the closest thing I can think of that could be considered objectively immoral universally without it being justified under any circumstances.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: On the topic itself I admit I'm just a layman guy that likes philosophy.

I don't think morality is objective and the reason why I don't think it can be objective is because we don't know everything about the present, we know nothing about the future and we evaluate our actions based off situations that took place in the past. Also, the same action can be considered moral or immoral at different points in time, depending on what happens and what information we get next.

Taking the trolley example, imagine that beyond the 2 rails, there's a heavy fog. Regardless of the individual characteristics of the people who can die (and their numbers), what happens after the fog - say, if we decided to kill 1 serial killer on lane 1 and save 5 teenagers on lane 2 - will influence our perception of our own decision - if it was moral or not. If we decide to save 5 teenagers and kill a rapist, and one of those 5 teenagers grows up to be a Hitler-like person, at what point would we say it would be moral to save / kill him? At what point in Hitler's life could we say it would be moral to kill him instead of letting him live?

Even if we say at that moment it was objectively moral to do X, that means that we're evaluating the situation with the information we have at that moment. But no one has 100% of the information (aka Truth) to make the correct, objective moral decision ever. It's entirely possible that one of the teenagers, for instance, was planning already to go out on a shooting rampage the next day, for example, but we didn't know that yet.

I don't think our actions / decisions can be objectively moral because the value we put on them is entirely dependent on a time-line continuum - through which we accumulate new knowledge and information - that makes it impossible to crystallize independent moments of our lives as objectively moral (or immoral ofc). I think this is the main reason why morality is subjective.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, even if morality is objective, that doesn't make a difference, because immoral acts always follow moral ones and vice versa. Even if we, humans, find out evidence to support the idea that morality is objective, we have no way of knowing (although I think it would be entirely possible) if 20 generations later that idea could be revised with new information.

TL;DR I think this, as a lot of other philosophical subjects, is a nice mental exercise but nothing changes in the real world regardless of the position we take.

 

[Rich S]

I've always understood morals and ethics were two separate concepts. Ethics was "what the society considers to be right or wrong", and morals was "what each individual considers to be right or wrong".

With this in mind, both are subjective: Ethics are constructed by individuals, and each one's idea of what is right or wrong comes from their moral, which is subjective. Ethics are usually composed of the most popular beliefs. While ethics can force a person to consider a certain thing to be "wrong", that doesn't mean you actually feel that thing to be wrong. We obey, but just because others tell us it is like that, not because we actually believe it.

I don't think "Human Rights" are objective. Or better said: I don't think they are universal truths. They are simply a set of rights many people agreed to. They are as objective as a bottle of Coca-Cola costing $1.

there are different ethical theories, your describing ethical subjectivism(individual) vs utilitarianism (society). Solving moral dialemas Is the general philosophical goal in ethics. Is abortion wrong or right? Is it right to steal from the rich and give to the poor? Should gays be arrested for having sex or getting married?

Now there is the absolute ethical theorem of Kant, Kants moral imperative which asks "what if everybody did X all the time." This can define a moral truth or fact I suppose which answers the Ops question. However all ethical theories have problems including Kant's theory.

 

[Imari]

It strikes me as a bit like math. Math is logical, but it's not exactly objective because there are axioms which simply have to be assumed in order to provide a logical foundation. 2+2 only equals 4 because that's how we define addition to work.

A good moral or ethical system at least has a consistent set of values based on clear axioms. Others might not agree, but at least it's clear what reasoning you used to arrive at your conclusions. Bad systems are not consistent, and basically end up doing whatever the person feels like at the time.

You can judge various systems against various value propositions, but again you're just arbitrarily creating a scoreboard to rank them against. Some people prefer personal freedom, others the greater good, still others conformity and cooperation. You can only judge relative to an arbitrary set of values.

I struggle to see how anyone could possibly arrive at an objective "best" moral system for all sets of values. It strikes me that it would seem to fall prey to the same sort of reasoning that results in the incompleteness theorems. You're always going to be able to define another value set for which any specific moral system by definition will fail to be optimal.

 

[Rich S]

It strikes me as a bit like math. Math is logical, but it's not exactly objective because there are axioms which simply have to be assumed in order to provide a logical foundation. 2+2 only equals 4 because that's how we define addition to work.

A good moral or ethical system at least has a consistent set of values based on clear axioms. Others might not agree, but at least it's clear what reasoning you used to arrive at your conclusions. Bad systems are not consistent, and basically end up doing whatever the person feels like at the time.

You can judge various systems against various value propositions, but again you're just arbitrarily creating a scoreboard to rank them against. Some people prefer personal freedom, others the greater good, still others conformity and cooperation. You can only judge relative to an arbitrary set of values.

I struggle to see how anyone could possibly arrive at an objective "best" moral system for all sets of values. It strikes me that it would seem to fall prey to the same sort of reasoning that results in the incompleteness theorems. You're always going to be able to define another value set for which any specific moral system by definition will fail to be optimal.

yes most theories that leaves it subjective to define right vs wrong fail. One good theory is social contract theory. You consent to anothers actions via contracts. If they consent its morally acceptable. The problem is many living beings cannot make a contract like a dog or a baby. Thus one can revert to kants theorem to find an answer. The theory of property or Robinson coruso ethics is another theory , that one has self ownership central to its idea and one must not aggress on anothers property without consent .
Perhaps property rights ethics is the best, that or the moral imperitive ._.

 

[tipoma]

Some people prefer personal freedom, others the greater good, still others conformity and cooperation.

These things aren't exclusive though are they? Personal freedom does not by nature take away from the greater good, conformity I would think of as a choice for mutual benefits, and cooperation is generally a good practice isn't it?

An objective morality would be not doing anything to hinder another person's right to life which is something lost in today's subjective social moral construct.

I did not ask to be born and I sure as sure did not sign any sort of convoluted social contract upon arrival lol.

 

[Imari]

These things aren't exclusive though are they? Personal freedom does not by nature take away from the greater good, conformity I would think of as a choice for mutual benefits, and cooperation is generally a good practice isn't it?

They can be. My right to do what I like with my land could be ultimately detrimental to the community and it's sustainability in the long term. While often these things don't conflict, they can and that's a problem for an objective morality. An objective morality would have to be objectively optimal in all situations.

An objective morality would be not doing anything to hinder another person's right to life which is something lost in today's subjective social moral construct.

Read the trolley problem earlier in the thread. Simply avoiding killing anyone ever can lead to some pretty profoundly immoral actions, depending on your value system. It's not objectively correct at all.

I did not ask to be born and I sure as sure did not sign any sort of convoluted social contract upon arrival lol.

None of us did. Therefore, if there's to be objective morality it has to be somehow constructed from first principles. There's very little in the way of absolute commonality that all people will agree on beyond "I exist". It's very, very hard to get from that to a moral system without invoking additional axioms.

For example, I need not recognise other people's right to life if I don't believe they have one. They may simply be automatons or hallucinations that behave in ways that are strikingly similar to the way I behave and give the impression of being other thinking beings. It's an axiom (that many don't often consider) that I assume that other things that look and behave like me are also self-aware entities and should be afforded the same rights as myself.

 

[tipoma]

@Imari

In other words, morality is indeed subjective then.

Not recognizing another's right to life though? That is something practiced everyday by every form of government so at least we know where their morality lies.

 

[Rich S]

They can be. My right to do what I like with my land could be ultimately detrimental to the community and it's sustainability in the long term. While often these things don't conflict, they can and that's a problem for an objective morality. An objective morality would have to be objectively optimal in all situations. This issue in property ethics actually is easily solved sense if you aggress on anothers property you've violated the rule of mutual respect to property via waste spewage, pollution, etc.



None of us did. Therefore, if there's to be objective morality it has to be somehow constructed from first principles. There's very little in the way of absolute commonality that all people will agree on beyond "I exist". It's very, very hard to get from that to a moral system without invoking additional axioms.

For example, I need not recognise other people's right to life if I don't believe they have one. They may simply be automatons or hallucinations that behave in ways that are strikingly similar to the way I behave and give the impression of being other thinking beings. It's an axiom (that many don't often consider) that I assume that other things that look and behave like me are also self-aware entities and should be afforded the same rights as myself.

It is absurd to suggest others do not exist, or that they are hullucinations, in the same way 3 and 3 is 6 its easy to prove people are real, i feel that one's not up for debate!

 

[tipoma]

It is absurd to suggest others do not exist, or that they are hullucinations, in the same way 3 and 3 is 6 its easy to prove people are real, i feel that one's not up for debate!

It's not an uncommon argument to make, it amounts to people needing to be saved from themselves in the form of an authority. No one actually thinks they are the only real person in the room. I'm probably the largest narcissist I know and I even know better than that.

 

[Imari]

This issue in property ethics actually is easily solved sense if you aggress on anothers property you've violated the rule of mutual respect to property via waste spewage, pollution, etc.

I see. And where does this rule come from? Is this something that is part of your objective morality? If so, what is the justification for it?

You're also missing the point that it's not aggressing (I'm not sure that's a word, but I understand) on another's property. I'm using my property in such a way that it's likely to be detrimental to the greater community. If I fill my property with nuclear waste that's my choice on my land, but after I'm gone I've created an enormous problem for the community. Where should the balance be between my freedom to use my property and the desires of the greater (and future) community not to have to deal with nuclear waste?

It is absurd to suggest others do not exist, or that they are hullucinations, in the same way 3 and 3 is 6 its easy to prove people are real, i feel that one's not up for debate!

You're wrong. Try and do it. Prove to me that other people are real from first principles. Make your explanation as granular as possible, and I will point out all the assumptions that you're making along the way.

By the way, using the example of 3+3=6 just shows that you don't understand what axioms are. I suggest you read up on that and the foundation of mathematics before you start. It will help you grasp just how much of our perception of the world is based on very fundamental assumptions. Totally reasonable assumptions and ones that work very well to help us get through the day to day, but assumptions nonetheless.

And I agree, it's mildly absurd but that's sort of the point. If you can't see how it's a totally consistent and logical worldview, then that's a problem for having a rational discussion that isn't based on reflex emotional instincts.

It's not an uncommon argument to make, it amounts to people needing to be saved from themselves in the form of an authority. No one actually thinks they are the only real person in the room. I'm probably the largest narcissist I know and I even know better than that.

Correct, I don't believe it either. It's not a productive mentality to have. But in terms of proving an objective morality, that morality also has to be able to deal with totally valid worldviews like that. If a morality relies on frequently used assumptions, then it's not objective.

 

[Mr Tree]

Correct, I don't believe it either. It's not a productive mentality to have. But in terms of proving an objective morality, that morality also has to be able to deal with totally valid worldviews like that. If a morality relies on frequently used assumptions, then it's not objective.

I know this derives from the strict morality subject but I feel this is important to the discussion.

Where is the line drawn between objectivety and subjectivety?

While we accept certain 'subjective' axioms math is objective. Not sure subjective is the right choice of word. A defenition is not really subjective nor is objective it's a set of 'rules' we declare and accept.

The objectiveness of math is due to the fact we declared the constraints in the way we did and accept it. So what are the propertied that make something subjective or objective?

Following your line of thought without any more information leeds me to believe anything is subjective as we have to declare the constraint/axioms.

 

[Imari]

I know this derives from the strict morality subject but I feel this is important to the discussion.

Where is the line drawn between objectivety and subjectivety?

It's exactly as simple as you think it is. It's like being pregnant, either you are or you're not. You cannot be a little bit pregnant, and nor can you be a little bit objective.

While we accept certain 'subjective' axioms math is objective. Not sure subjective is the right choice of word. A defenition is not really subjective nor is objective it's a set of 'rules' we declare and accept.

The objectiveness of math is due to the fact we declared the constraints in the way we did and accept it. So what are the propertied that make something subjective or objective?

Something is objective if it's independent of the observer. Subjective is if it is not. Math is not objective as it depends upon choices that the observers make. Numbers are objective because the concept of one is independent of the observer.

Following your line of thought without any more information leeds me to believe anything is subjective as we have to declare the constraint/axioms.

Not everything is subjective, but most systems of thought are. As I said earlier, it's hard to create a fully objective system of thought when all you're working with is "I exist". You can actually get a few steps further than that if you think carefully, but it turns into a warren of rabbit holes pretty fast.

Observations of reality can be objective. But I don't think it's particularly controversial to suggest that the conclusions that we draw from them are rarely objective, because that's the whole point. To use inference and opinion to attempt to more fully describe and integrate understanding of the phenomena we observe, and then to test those subjective ideas against the objective reality.

But if we're talking about something that's purely mental like morality, what part of that could be deemed to be independent of the observer (or in this case, the person thinking it)? Yes, ultimately a huge amount of your thought is subjective, and this shouldn't be a surprise to you. It's all in your head, and so what aspects of your thought would be something that all other humans would agree on?

Think about it carefully, and try to think about the unstated assumptions that you're making in your daily life. Go back to what you know for absolute certain, that no conspiracy theory however wacky could possibly undermine. Then work up from there. You'll find a lot of assumptions, totally reasonable assumptions and ones that are important for useful human interaction, but assumptions nonetheless.

 

[Mr Tree]

It's exactly as simple as you think it is. It's like being pregnant, either you are or you're not. You cannot be a little bit pregnant, and nor can you be a little bit objective.



Something is objective if it's independent of the observer. Subjective is if it is not. Math is not objective as it depends upon choices that the observers make. Numbers are objective because the concept of one is independent of the observer.



Not everything is subjective, but most systems of thought are. As I said earlier, it's hard to create a fully objective system of thought when all you're working with is "I exist". You can actually get a few steps further than that if you think carefully, but it turns into a warren of rabbit holes pretty fast.

Observations of reality can be objective. But I don't think it's particularly controversial to suggest that the conclusions that we draw from them are rarely objective, because that's the whole point. To use inference and opinion to attempt to more fully describe and integrate understanding of the phenomena we observe, and then to test those subjective ideas against the objective reality.

But if we're talking about something that's purely mental like morality, what part of that could be deemed to be independent of the observer (or in this case, the person thinking it)? Yes, ultimately a huge amount of your thought is subjective, and this shouldn't be a surprise to you. It's all in your head, and so what aspects of your thought would be something that all other humans would agree on?

Think about it carefully, and try to think about the unstated assumptions that you're making in your daily life. Go back to what you know for absolute certain, that no conspiracy theory however wacky could possibly undermine. Then work up from there. You'll find a lot of assumptions, totally reasonable assumptions and ones that are important for useful human interaction, but assumptions nonetheless.

Well I agree with your post. But where is gets 'fishy' is when we say math is subjective (something I can agree on with our current idea). The 'problem' here is while I understand why most people just hear it's subjective, and their conclusion would be so no answer is wrong. It's what gave a voice to the stupid hovinds, ray comfort, ken ham,...

What I'm basicly stating is: I agree but presenting it as such posses a dangerous opening for people who want to use the general lack of eduction of the populace to undermine the validity of the scientific process.

 

[tipoma]

Fuzzy math.

the general lack of education of the populace to undermine the validity of the scientific process.

The general population does not care about science though as emotion, peer acceptance, and comfort with identity prevail. Science is small in the grand scale of life.