Is morality objective?

[TexRex]

In this context, does navigation mean survival? Living the best life you can doesn't necessarily mean continuing to live, in my mind.

 

[Danoff]

In this context, does navigation mean survival? Living the best life you can doesn't necessarily mean continuing to live, in my mind.

Ok fair enough!

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

In this context, does navigation mean survival? Living the best life you can doesn't necessarily mean continuing to live, in my mind.

It's intentionally vague.

 

[TexRex]

It's intentionally vague.

The question I posed was far more rhetorical than a solicitation ("Here's a possible interpretation and this is how I look at it.") but I acknowledge that that fact wasn't necessarily apparent.

👍

 

[PocketZeven]

Trolley is going to hit the 5 people, you're at the switch, do you make it hit the 1 person?

So what if I told you that the 5 are all convicted murders and the 1 is a nobel prize winning scientist?
what if those 5 were not convicted murders, but instead were mentally handicapped. What if they were fast food cooks? What if they were truck drivers? What if they were software engineers who had just been laid off? Gainfully employed? One of them was convicted of shoplifting. 2 of them have kids. 1 of them beats their kids. How are you throwing the switch (or not) in each one of these cases?

If you didn't change your mind, let's say it was only 2 convicted murders... who had the death sentence tomorrow... and who had threatened to kill you and your family...

From a human rights perspective, this question is easy. From a utilitarian perspective (which is what most people try to adopt when they're first introduced) it is an absolute nightmare. Try to weigh the contribution of the artist against the engineer. The musician against the businessman. The wall street investment banker against the corner baker. The life of someone who employs 2000 people against a mother of 4.

Every single time you invoke utilitarianism you have impossible choices to make.

Alle the scenarios are kind of all over the place.

Like judgments in a court murdercase every situation will ask for different decisions and will very depending on the circumstances and rules that apply.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the world is not black and white? How is it impossible?

Imagine if the law was applied black and white in every crime? Someone stealing a piece of candy getting the same sentence as someone stealing a million dollars. Or someone killing someone when attacked receiving the same sentence as someone who just felt threatened?

 

[BobK]

Alle the scenarios are kind of all over the place.

That's precisely the point.

 

[PocketZeven]

That's precisely the point.

What point exactly?

 

[Exorcet]

Imagine if the law was applied black and white in every crime? Someone stealing a piece of candy getting the same sentence as someone stealing a million dollars. Or someone killing someone when attacked receiving the same sentence as someone who just felt threatened?

In these given examples it doesn't seem hard to apply black and white logic. If you steal something, repay the victim. The candy thief owes someone candy, the money thief owes money. Kill does not equal threaten, so why do they have to be considered the same? If anything I think you highlight an issue with a legal system that isn't granular enough rather the difficulty of enforcing a consistent standard.

 

[PocketZeven]

In these given examples it doesn't seem hard to apply black and white logic. If you steal something, repay the victim. The candy thief owes someone candy, the money thief owes money. Kill does not equal threaten, so why do they have to be considered the same? If anything I think you highlight an issue with a legal system that isn't granular enough rather the difficulty of enforcing a consistent standard.

No that isnt black and white thinking. Stealing property is stealing property, so both should be punished equally, that was what I meant with black and white thinking. Considering one kind of stealing of property as misdemeaner vs the other being a felony is gray area thinking. My whole point was that tax is stealing, but for a greater good and therefore should not be treated the same as afformentioned examples.


In example 2 I meant killing someone, because of feeling being threatened vs killing in actual physical self defense

 

[Exorcet]

No that isnt black and white thinking. Stealing property is stealing property, so both should be punished equally, that was what I meant with black and white thinking.

Stealing property is stealing property, in all cases. But the property stolen can have different value and it's absence can bring different consequences to the victim.

Considering one kind of stealing of property as misdemeaner vs the other being a felony is gray area thinking. My whole point was that tax is stealing, but for a greater good and therefore should not be treated the same as afformentioned examples.

Then we're using the term black and white differently. I'm using it as something akin to objective or consistent. Tax is theft, so it's as wrong as any other kind of theft. "Greater good" doesn't give it any additional morality.

In example 2 I meant killing someone, because of feeling being threatened vs killing in actual physical self defense

In that case killing in self defense is pretty clear cut, I don't think we'd disagree over whether it's justified. Killing over threat could fall under the same category if the threat was indistinguishable from an act of violence, but again the only issue I see here is one of granularity. You just need to determine if rights were violated to figure out who was in the wrong.

 

[PocketZeven]

Stealing property is stealing property, in all cases. But the property stolen can have different value and it's absence can bring different consequences to the victim.


Then we're using the term black and white differently. I'm using it as something akin to objective or consistent. Tax is theft, so it's as wrong as any other kind of theft. "Greater good" doesn't give it any additional morality.


In that case killing in self defense is pretty clear cut, I don't think we'd disagree over whether it's justified. Killing over threat could fall under the same category if the threat was indistinguishable from an act of violence, but again the only issue I see here is one of granularity. You just need to determine if rights were violated to figure out who was in the wrong.

I agree. That is context which changes the weight of such an action. If I steal from you 10.000 dollars , but give it all to child needing exactly 10.000 dollars to pay the medical bill. Would you punish me the same if i used it for myself to buy a rolex?

I am not arguing that tax is not theft. I am just adressing that if everyone agrees (majority) that tax is for the greater good. Actually does change its morality because of concensus.

One cannot live their life being purely objective in every situation. I would definately not want to live with a government that is like that too.

The same with example 2. the action are the same, but the motivation and circumstance are different. So the punishment should als o be different.

 

[Exorcet]

I agree. That is context which changes the weight of such an action. If I steal from you 10.000 dollars , but give it all to child needing exactly 10.000 dollars to pay the medical bill. Would you punish me the same if i used it for myself to buy a rolex?

Me personally? Maybe, but that doesn't make the theft any less wrong. I'd possibly be willing to look the other way since only I was harmed and I might sympathize with the end use of the money. If the loss of the money harmed me though, then no matter what you did with it, I'd come after you for it.

I am not arguing that tax is not theft. I am just adressing that if everyone agrees (majority) that tax is for the greater good. Actually does change its morality because of concensus.

I don't see why consensus matters at all. If the majority supports the theft it's still exactly the same as if only the thief supported it. You just have more thieves. If the majority is so sure of their greater good then they should be willing to fund it themselves. Any other option makes them morally bankrupt.

One cannot live their life being purely objective in every situation. I would definately not want to live with a government that is like that too.

It's the only option for a fair government. Otherwise you can never be sure where the limits are or when you'll find yourself on the losing side.

The same with example 2. the action are the same, but the motivation and circumstance are different. So the punishment should als o be different.

Yes because it's not the action that matters, but whether or not rights were violated. If you kill someone who breaks into your house and threatens you, you didn't violate their rights. If it's you who broken into their house, then their threats are justified. It's pretty black and white to me.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Kill does not equal threaten

In action, no. In promise, yes.

If you kill someone who breaks into your house and threatens you, you didn't violate their rights.

Yes you did, you killed them. Is society prepared to accept your defence of your action as justifiable? It's very likely they will. I would.

Let's stick with the Trolley problem here. Since it's not impossible (laws are made badly), go ahead and answer all of the questions I posed (in the quote with the trolley picture). In which scenarios do you pull the lever, and what objective reasoning could you use to determine when to do so?

Is there any point in following through with that scenario? It illustrates different methods of thinking in different philosophies - whatever answer one gives can be counteracted by a valid answer from a differing standpoint. It isn't meant to be answered "correctly" as it can not be.

 

[Famine]

Imagine if the law was applied black and white in every crime? Someone stealing a piece of candy getting the same sentence as someone stealing a million dollars. Or someone killing someone when attacked receiving the same sentence as someone who just felt threatened?

You're talking about justifications, consequences, punishments, law, and good old-fashioned utilitarianism. They're not relevant to morality. They're certainly part of another discussion, but not this one.

This is where a lot of people fail the trolley problem. It's not about the outcome, it's about the morality of your actions. If you act in any way in the trolley problem, you will have killed someone - you'll have taken a conscious choice to perform an act knowing that it will result in someone's death. If you don't act, you will simply have not saved anyone. Those are not equivalent actions.

 

[Exorcet]

In action, no. In promise, yes.

My understanding of the post at the time was that the threat was feeling of the victim, not necessarily the action of the person deemed a threat. But if someone makes a threat indistinguishable from aggressive action, then yes I agree that they can't be treated any differently.

Yes you did, you killed them. Is society prepared to accept your defence of your action as justifiable? It's very likely they will. I would.

How are you determining that their rights were violated?

Is there any point in following through with that scenario? It illustrates different methods of thinking in different philosophies - whatever answer one gives can be counteracted by a valid answer from a differing standpoint. It isn't meant to be answered "correctly" as it can not be.

I know this wasn't aimed at me, but my take away from the trolley problem is that if you pull to lever having made an evaluation on who is better to kill, you're guilty of having forcefully taken someone's life. Society can stand by your decision for any number of reasons but there is no disputing the objective fact that you've killed someone in operating the lever. I think rights only make sense based on facts like this and not the will of society and that's why I'll likely disagree with your response to my question above (although I'm waiting to see what that response is). Practically there are reasons to consider what wider society will and won't respect, but that's not any kind of objective criteria.

 

[PocketZeven]

You're talking about justifications, consequences, punishments, law, and good old-fashioned utilitarianism. They're not relevant to morality. They're certainly part of another discussion, but not this one.

This is where a lot of people fail the trolley problem. It's not about the outcome, it's about the morality of your actions. If you act in any way in the trolley problem, you will have killed someone - you'll have taken a conscious choice to perform an act knowing that it will result in someone's death. If you don't act, you will simply have not saved anyone. Those are not equivalent actions.

Morality is not objective. there is no right or wrong answer in the trolly example. How can one fail? Inaction in itself could be justified equally if one chooses any other option.

Yes because it's not the action that matters, but whether or not rights were violated. If you kill someone who breaks into your house and threatens you, you didn't violate their rights. If it's you who broken into their house, then their threats are justified. It's pretty black and white to me.

Who decides that one is in his rights if someone can kill someone else when rights are violated. If I stole 10.000 dollars are you in your right to kill me? What if I only stole a piece of candy?

edit: correction

 

[TenEightyOne]

How are you determining that their rights were violated?

They were killed. You can not forfeit your right to remain alive. Force was used to halt a life. The right to life was violated.

I know this wasn't aimed at me, but my take away from the trolley problem is that if you pull to lever having made an evaluation on who is better to kill, you're guilty of having forcefully taken someone's life. Society can stand by your decision for any number of reasons but there is no disputing the objective fact that you've killed someone in operating the lever. I think rights only make sense based on facts like this and not the will of society and that's why I'll likely disagree with your response to my question above (although I'm waiting to see what that response is). Practically there are reasons to consider what wider society will and won't respect, but that's not any kind of objective criteria.

Not pulling the lever holds the same responsibility as pulling the lever, either case represents an exercise of choice. If you don't pull the lever then somebody dies.

 

[Exorcet]

Who decides that if someone can kill someone when rights are violated.

Since rights are objective, no one can decide if something is a rights violation or not. They are or aren't regardless of anyone's opinion. This comes out of the fact that there are innate laws or rules in the universe for handling disagreements. If two disagree on something, each of the views is equally valid and they need to resolve it finding a situation that they each accept. If someone decides not to do that and tries to force their opinion on someone else, their action is unjustified because their opinion has the same objective validity as the other person's (zero).

If I stole 10.000 dollars are you in your right to kill me? What if I only stole a piece of candy?

If you steal something and refuse any attempts at returning it, then yes I'm justified in killing you for it even if it's candy. However I will say that I like having something like a court system to make hasty or violent action unnecessary, or at least less necessary. Rights don't prevent people from coming together to agree on how to handle disputes, they only make it clear that forcing your method of dispute resolution on someone else can't be justified.

They were killed. You can not forfeit your right to remain alive. Force was used to halt a life. The right to life was violated.

The ability to acknowledge rights is a necessary part of having rights. If you fail to realize that the person you're threatening has a right to life, then you lack that right. This is why self defense works and isn't unjustified killing. As I explained in my reply to PocketZeven there is no innate law in the universe. You can only respect that fact by not initiating the use of force against others.

Not pulling the lever holds the same responsibility as pulling the lever, either case represents an exercise of choice. If you don't pull the lever then somebody dies.

Yes a choice is made. In pulling the lever you choose to kill. In not pulling the lever, you choose not to interfere. In either case someone dies, but in only one case do you make a value judgement which you can't justify.

 

[PocketZeven]

Since rights are objective,

Rights are not objective. Rights were invented by people. And people are always subjective.

 

[Exorcet]

Rights are not objective. Rights were invented by people. And people are always subjective.

I addressed this. Right exist without people, they can't be created. My reasoning is in my post to be disputed, I'm willing to listen to a rebuke.

 

[PocketZeven]

I addressed this. Right exist without people, they can't be created. My reasoning is in my post to be disputed, I'm willing to listen to a rebuke.

If there were no people, there wouldnt be rights.

edit: How do you think modern rights have come to be? In the animal kingdom there is no such thing.

 

[Famine]

Morality is not objective.

You're cutting right through the discussion - right after demonstrating just how badly you've misunderstood the concept - by stating that, huh?

there is no right or wrong answer in the trolly example. How can one fail?

Literally explained the whole thing to you in the post you quoted.

Inaction in itself could be justified equally if one chooses any other option.

Again you're on justification. It's not relevant. All that's relevant is the action.

If you act you have killed someone. You have. If you do not, you have not. You cannot claim that not acting to not kill someone is equivalent to acting to kill someone unless you also accept that every time you have not acted to not kill someone, you have killed them. I've got some bad news for you on that front - there were a lot of murders today that you didn't stop, thus you committed...

Rights are not objective.

Rights are objective, and so is morality.

Rights were invented by people.

Rights are understood by people, not invented by them. I suspect you're thinking of "laws" - which are not rights - again.

 

[PocketZeven]

Rights are understood by people, not invented by them. I suspect you're thinking of "laws" - which are not rights - again.

No I am speaking about rights. Principles of norms and morals. Norms are subjective and so are morals.
How did rights come to be? Right at the creation of life?

 

[BobK]

I agree. That is context which changes the weight of such an action. If I steal from you 10.000 dollars , but give it all to child needing exactly 10.000 dollars to pay the medical bill. Would you punish me the same if i used it for myself to buy a rolex?

Absolutely. The decision of what to do with my ten thousand dollars is not YOUR decision to make. Plain and simple.

 

[UKMikey]

If killing someone for stealing candy is objectively morally justified as @Exorcet suggests above then I'm surprised Taleb Rebhi Ali Jawhe's legal team didn't appeal when he was sentenced earlier this year for shooting somebody he thought had stole some but was in fact innocent. If there was a clear and present threat to his candy stock perhaps he felt morally justified in pulling the trigger.

Since most articles to do with the case seem to be blocked in Europe, though, I'm unable to determine if the federal gun crime with which he was charged is due to the victim's innocence or the clerk's disproportionately violent response to his imagined crime.

 

[ryzno]

I'm not sure if this qualifies for this thread but, I have an interesting real life scenario I witnessed and got involved in. But I'll keep the intro to the scenario simple just to see the initial reactions.

You and a friend are sitting on your porch, a little girl and her brother are walking by after getting off the school bus, you see a man from the neighborhood you and your friend vaguely know walking behind said kids, you think nothing of it and continue to do what y'all were doing, a minute or so later you her the little girl screaming "stop, leave me alone!", you two look and see the neighbor trying to grab the little girl, you and your friend know he has no kids or any relationship to the girl and her brother.
What do YOU do?
-Mind your business and do nothing?
-Call the police, hope they get there in time and let them deal with it?
-Jump in and help the little girl and hold him till police arrive?
-Or jump in, help the little girl, apply some "hood justice" and wait for the police to arrive?

I'll tell y'all what we did but I want to see some responses and how y'all would handle that scenario first.

 

[Famine]

No I am speaking about rights. Principles of norms and morals.

"Principles of norms"? That's literally an argument that the status quo defines rights... but that's what laws are.

Morals are objective because they are emergent from rights which are also objective. Whenever you speak of rights you're actually speaking of laws, and your arguments about morality keep bringing justification into the picture, which is irrelevant to morality - but pretty relevant to laws (breaking the law is usually pretty black and white; justification is what determines whether the justice system determines you were acting lawfully, unlawfully, or illegally).

You are not responsible - and that's an important word when talking about rights - for the consequences of not acting (some jurisdictions have made laws that deny this; Germany and China spring to mind), only the consequences of acting. By making any interaction with the lever, you have taken responsibility for the outcome. If you do not, you have not; the outcome is solely determined by, and responsibility lies with those who, set up the conditions in the first place. People who count and weigh lives get the trolley problem wrong because it is not a choice of killing one or five, or killing one to save five, but of killing one or none.

How did rights come to be? Right at the creation of life?

Creation? Interesting choice of word...

No. The emergence of intelligence. There's an entire Human Rights thread on this topic you should read through.

We may need to codify rights for artificial intelligence soon too.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The ability to acknowledge rights is a necessary part of having rights. If you fail to realize that the person you're threatening has a right to life, then you lack that right. This is why self defense works and isn't unjustified killing. As I explained in my reply to PocketZeven there is no innate law in the universe. You can only respect that fact by not initiating the use of force against others.

You don't lack that right and nor do you lack the right to defend your own life. All rights are not all compatible with all other rights. Respect went out of the window as the attacker came in. The rights did not. Threatening somebody else's life put the attacker in a position where their own life was in danger. Who was justified in threatening the other's right the most? Clearly we feel it's the person being threatened by the instigator, but it's for the society to decide through law.

 

[Imari]

Yes a choice is made. In pulling the lever you choose to kill. In not pulling the lever, you choose not to interfere. In either case someone dies, but in only one case do you make a value judgement which you can't justify.

You can justify it, you just can't justify it objectively. In such a case, I might well choose whatever I thought would have the least emotional and psychological impact on myself; essentially whatever allowed me to live with myself afterwards. That answer would be different from person to person, but I think would seem like a reasonable application of a value judgement to the situation.

 

[PocketZeven]

Absolutely. The decision of what to do with my ten thousand dollars is not YOUR decision to make. Plain and simple.

I guess we will leave it at a difference in opinion.

Creation? Interesting choice of word...

No. The emergence of intelligence. There's an entire Human Rights thread on this topic you should read through.

We may need to codify rights for artificial intelligence soon too.

There is no right or wrong answer in the trolly problem. You can have your opinion, but there is no right answer. It all depends on the eye of the beholder.

Wrong word choice (I am not a creationist).

I just find it interesting how much black and white thinking people seem to apply on this forum. I genuinly try to understand why one would think that theft= theft and there is no way justifying it. I guess it is definately a difference in cultural background upbringing.