right and wrong

[Cavernio]

I figure this is off-topic enough to start another thread.

Quote from RubiedCross:
"Saying something is "Right" or "Wrong" is a completely SUBJECTIVE and OPINIONATED statement."

I disagree with this statement. Happiness is good. Hurt is bad. It is right to make people happy. It is wrong to hurt people. Every moral question should revolve around this, and therefore all subjectiveness revolving around right and wrong should come from differences in opinion regarding creating more happiness and less hurt.
People who measure morality in a different way than this are wrong unless someone convinces me otherwise.

[ScylaX]

Morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) is totally universal, any sane person will tell you making people feel bad is bad for obvious reasons. RubiedCross just mixes up the morality and the doxa, which is very unique to each culture. If you look at the most "atomic" ideas of the morality in general, you'll see everything is universal. It's only when the problems get more molecular that people will begin to have divergent opinions, because it's all a matter of some ways to see the world (and there goes the subjectivity), the connexions between the "moral atoms" of the question is too ambivalent in these moral questions.
Death penalty is the best instance : does willingly killing someone is repressive enough to apply the same treat to the murder ?
Anybody will say "killing somebody is bad", sure. And then the arguments offer different views of the problem, and how to considerate it. And there are many elements in the death penalty question : political, moral, philosophical, legislative etc. And it's also a matter of circumstances and how to treat these : "he killed that guy and he knew what he was doing, killing somebody is bad, does that mean I have to kill the people that makes bad things ? wouldn't it make me a murder too ? If I make malevolent actions for morally good ends, does it make these actions bad or good ?" see ? When things get complex like that, the problem doesn't get as much atomic as "is killing wrong ?", it's all a matter of some conditions that have their very influence on how you can perceive these things ; Each of them getting interlaced at some points : it's the complexity of the problem that makes the whole opinions on the question not so unanimous. I'm not enough of a logician to make an accurate "atomic" analysis of that topic but I guess I'm clear enough to make my point understandable.

And same goes for doxic judgements as the ones in the Bible, the Koran, the american tradition, the european bourgeoisie, whatever that conditions some subjectivities ! Of course, it's subjective at some points, because most of the time, these opinions are communicated without being questioned or whatever, the experience can also changes your statements on the subject ; but as long as the thing you say isn't on a "moral atomic scale", I can assert that you'll always get a consensus.
"Is being gay right or wrong ?" isn't a moral question, it's a doxic one : it carries many moral questions (ones that are more obvious than others, ones that get obvious only when you begin to make your arguments, etc).

Of course, there were some groups of influence in the history of humanity that tried to inculcate to people that killing could be good for whatever reason (once again, it's just an example), but these values aren't, I think, actually natural : there is always an ideologist behind these things ; nobody would get to "naturally" think that killing can be good, except if that person has some serious mental issues. Such a judgement is in itself pretty unusual.

[Kibblre]

You're wrong.

On topic now, do you believe in any absolute ethics? I believe it would be safe to call certain actions such as rape wrong under any circumstance. Is this subjective and opinionated?

[ScylaX]

Kibblre, if you're talking about my post, I beg you to read it carefully and then counter-argument it with valuable statements.

[devonin]

Happiness is good. Hurt is bad. It is right to make people happy. It is wrong to hurt people. Source? Beyond your -opinion- that this is so? From where are you deriving your objective morality?

People who measure morality in a different way than this are wrong unless someone convinces me otherwise. This is basically a derivation of the statement "This is my opinion"

Morality is totally universal, any sane person will tell you making people feel bad is bad for obvious reasons. Which obvious reasons are those? I think you'll find that the primary motivators for "not making others feel bad" are 1) Fear of consequences and 2) Desire that others follow the same thinking and not make you feel bad.

Neither of those are proof of universal objective moral law. Both are 100% proof of entirely subjective, localised societal mores encouraging the formation and following of social contracts. In places where certain segments of the population can act with impunity, those people make other people "feel bad" all the time. Through the institutions of slavery, class structure, caste systems, people who don't actually need to fear the consequences of their actions act outside these lines all the time.

When things get complex like that, the problem doesn't get as much atomic as "is killing wrong ?", it's all a matter of some conditions that have their very influence on how you can perceive these things ; Each of them getting interlaced at some points : it's the complexity of the problem that makes the whole opinions on the question not so unanimous. So basically your answer to "Is killing wrong" is "It depends, sometimes it's wrong, sometimes its less wrong, and possibly sometimes it's right"? That sounds...well...very subjective to me.

but these values aren't, I think, actually natural : there is always an ideologist behind these things ; nobody would get to "naturally" think that killing can be good, except if that person has some serious mental issues. Except that these things occur in nature all over the place, whether it be predator/prey relationships, whether it be murder and rape as a function of the courtship and reproduction cycle, or culling the weak, and old from your pack, animals kill for reasons other than food all the time.

Human culture spend more of its history thinking it was perfectly okay to kill rivals to your power than it has trying to apply laws against such things to everybody.

Something to consider about morality as universal law: Consider all of the things you'd probably classify as "Just wrong, no matter what" I'm sure the list includes murder, rape, theft, assault, mostly violent crimes, mostly crimes that infringe on people's personal rights, and take away their agency. Now consider the idea that it's always in the best interests of the weak to try and convince everybody that taking advantage of the weak is a bad thing. Our major western religious traditions have made a virtue of being oppressed. We've built a system that sets out to basically say "For those people who can act without consequence in this world, we're actually going to invent an entire system of belief built pretty much around the promise that even though you can act without consequence, we're going to believe that there will be consequences for you later, in a place none of us has ever seen, or even knows exists, where you'll be punished for offending us and we'll be rewarded for our inability to stop you."

Virtually every act that you'd find support for the "Always wrong" camp finds the reason for feeling so to be either "Because I don't want it to happen to me" or "Because it just is...I mean...come on."

In niether case has any kind of actual pre-existing moral law, one existing outside humanity's arbitrary constructs, been shown to exist at all.

[ScylaX]

So basically your answer to "Is killing wrong" is "It depends, sometimes it's wrong, sometimes its less wrong, and possibly sometimes it's right"? That sounds...well...very subjective to me.
No no no no no. I was just putting that question to show the necessity of reducting that to more abstract elements involved in it, since the answer you pretended to give is perfectly subjective. Other people will come with the answer "killing is always wrong no matter what" or "killing can be good" and all.

About the rest, the "pre-existing morality" is a pretty much nebulous concept in which I didn't put enough mind to be more accurate on the point at the moment I posted, it doesn't exist in an objective absolute but there is at least one human universal subjectivity that'd be what Morality actually is (universal, but not temporally ubiquist, it's probably just something positive), not just an individual subjectivity. I don't think I said morals always had the same standards since the beginning of the humanity, however, I just consider morals to be atomic, and whatever isn't atomic is doxic to me : killing an innocent, for instance, in the whole subjectivity system always have been disregarded. There, I think it's less susceptible to create ambiguities by saying it that way.

I'll just quit the debate for now, if I was to say the totality of my opinions now, it would be catastrophic because it's still at a hazy state, somehow, and I'd probably end up contradicting myself.

[~kitty~]

You sound a bit full of yourself if you say someone else's sense of morality is wrong. I don't know a lot of people or a lot about ethic codes in other areas, but I have heard that a kid had seen abusive behavior growing up and became abusive himself because he didn't know it was "wrong." If there was objective morality, the kid would have known it was wrong and tried to get away from it. Does that make sense?

[Kibblre]

Kibblre, if you're talking about my post, I beg you to read it carefully and then counter-argument it with valuable statements.

I was referring to Cavernio's post.

[fido123]

Morality is simply a man made concept. We're simply brains inside of bodies that take in sensory input from out eyes, ears, and other receptors. The only laws that exist are physical laws of the universe. Society on the other hand has a set of common morals because we all have to live together. I don't steal your stuff if you don't steal mine. That's fair enough however as forign as it sounds it is possible that there are entities that experiance life in a totally different way who enjoy having their property taken if that makes any sense. Stealing is only bad for us because we find it displeasent and it's illogical in our way of life. Sorry, having a really hard time putting this one into words.

[devonin]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20111211.gif

[fido123]

/thread

[Cavernio]

Kiddlre: My first post are my only 'absolute ethics'. Murder and rape could potentially be for the best.

Yes, it is my opinion. It is also my opinion that atoms exist...everything I say is my opinion. But despite that, and to address Fido and Kitty, I didn't mean to imply I think there is a 'universal' morality of sorts like some sort of physical law. It requires a certain degree of intelligence that the vast majority of people have. It also only applies to the human situation as it exists now; other universes and unknown beings are not included being unknown as they are.

"Morality is totally universal, any sane person will tell you making people feel bad is bad for obvious reasons." "Which obvious reasons are those? I think you'll find that the primary motivators for "not making others feel bad" are 1) Fear of consequences and 2) Desire that others follow the same thinking and not make you feel bad."

People are by necessary design, selfish, yes. However both 1 and 2 presume that it is not possible for anyone to even partially view the world from an unselfish viewpoint, or perhaps more notably, that they can logically believe in the existence of something besides themselves. While if we don't have emotions there's no reason to have morality at all, fairly 'emotionless' people still make moral and immoral decisions and can understand them logically. Psychopaths for instance, or any moral decision anyone makes when they're not emotionally invested whatsoever in the decision themselves.
My statement about morality is that events can be viewed logically.
I mean, humans clearly have the capacity to think purely logically, (eg math), or at the very least apply pure logic. I don't know why when interactions with people get involved we suddenly become oddities that are purely subjective, even and especially when we are trying to be objective.

All that said though, most people as infants and children get upset when someone else is upset. It certainly seems ingrained in us to feel bad for someone else who feels bad.

As to things like slavery and someone not feeling bad about it, or having it even be accepted, the morality that I see and that scylax sees (or saw), that doesn't make the actual act less or more wrong.

The complete flip side to my idea of a static morality, which was the impetus for my post, implies that I shouldn't get upset if someone does something that I find immoral because hey, if it's moral to them, it must be right.

"Happiness is good. Hurt is bad. It is right to make people happy. It is wrong to hurt people." "Source? Beyond your -opinion- that this is so? From where are you deriving your objective morality?"

But do you disagree with this opinion?

[Magicturbo]

tl;dr the rest of the thread x.x;;;

I'll just point out something simple-minded to me, that may have already been noticed or something.

You disagree with the original quote about "right" and "wrong" being subjective and opinionated.


People who measure morality in a different way than this are wrong unless someone convinces me otherwise.

If this is the case then why are you open to being convinced? If you disagree with it being opinionated then you'd be supporting that it's factual. Since the possibility of being convinced exists, according to your statement, your statement flaws the definition of a fact, and contradicts itself. I'm not reading all the tl;dr in this thread if the original statement is flawed.

[devonin]

All that said though, most people as infants and children get upset when someone else is upset. It certainly seems ingrained in us to feel bad for someone else who feels bad. And identifying with other people to create a sense of togetherness and community by empathizing when they are upset is a terrible survival trait for the young...oh wait. The young also come with a built-in conception that adults are superheroes who can do anything and are solely responsible for their survival. You don't think seeing such a person upset or afraid is innately worrying for that reason alone?

As to things like slavery and someone not feeling bad about it, or having it even be accepted, the morality that I see and that scylax sees (or saw), that doesn't make the actual act less or more wrong. To you, subjectively in your own opinion. So what you're saying is "If it's my opinion that something is wrong, if it's your opinion that it isn't wrong, I'm correct, you're incorrect, and my opinion is the factual reflection of universal law" to which I say, again, source? Where is your evidence that you are right and they aren't? The fact that the idea of owning a slave makes you feel icky inside? That's not objective morality.

But do you disagree with this opinion? What does my agreement or disagreement with your opinion have to do with my asking you for the source of your opinion, and your evidence that your opinion is grounded in something besides subjectivity?

[Cavernio]

But if everyone thinks the same subjective thing, is it still subjective?

I suppose I did not explicitly state the source for it, but rather talked about it as if I had stated it explicitly.
1. I know what hurt and happiness is on a personal level. Hurt is bad for me personally, happiness good. For myself, happiness becomes right, hurt becomes wrong.
2. I believe there exist billions of other humans who also have the capacity for hurt and happiness; these people exist, they are real, and I think they also have the same capacities as I do in terms of experiencing pain and pleasure. Irrelevant of whether I care for an individual or not, their hurt and pleasure is real, and it is right and wrong to them individually.
3. Since whatever I say as is the definition of moral will be seen as subjective, it seems that I cannot simply end at 2. However, it is quite a bit easier to define what is not moral. Anything that anyone does that any individual experiences as hurtful is wrong to that individual, or anything that an individual thinks is immoral, and considering 1 and 2, it therefore can't be moral. That it seems impossible to please everyone is irrelevant because we can try. The only way to minimize the immoralness (amoralness?) is to minmize everyone's own hurt (and it seems that conversely, maximize happiness should work using this argument also, although I have not thought about that.) Which is then the definition of moral, it making the immoral/amoralness minimal.

That argument isn't really the source of my opinion, but I think it supports it quite well. The source of my opinion was only 1 and 2.

"To you, subjectively in your own opinion. So what you're saying is "If it's my opinion that something is wrong, if it's your opinion that it isn't wrong, I'm correct, you're incorrect, and my opinion is the factual reflection of universal law" to which I say, again, source? Where is your evidence that you are right and they aren't? The fact that the idea of owning a slave makes you feel icky inside? That's not objective morality."

Right, that's not objective morality, but that's not what I'm saying. Firstly, I went to great lengths that basically say that my own feeling of ickiness is not the crux of the ideology. It's in the rambling paragraph in the middle. I merely pointed out that the icky feeling exists. Secondly, the ideology itself does not say that I know what is best for everyone, but rather that what's best for everyone is what's best for everyone. If my morals butt against someone else's morals, my morals (if I would be thinking about/applying them correctly), would be right only if the other's are blatantly not thinking about what's best for everyone. (Now and future everyone's might I add also, so long as the future is relatively accurately predictable regarding the moral issue in question.) However, I have also said "all subjectiveness revolving around right and wrong should come from differences in opinion regarding creating more happiness and less hurt", which still leaves vast room for individual differences and for a moral person to have a different idea of what is right from me.

[~kitty~]

But if everyone thinks the same subjective thing, is it still subjective?

I suppose I did not explicitly state the source for it, but rather talked about it as if I had stated it explicitly.
1. I know what hurt and happiness is on a personal level. Hurt is bad for me personally, happiness good. For myself, happiness becomes right, hurt becomes wrong.
2. I believe there exist billions of other humans who also have the capacity for hurt and happiness; these people exist, they are real, and I think they also have the same capacities as I do in terms of experiencing pain and pleasure. Irrelevant of whether I care for an individual or not, their hurt and pleasure is real, and it is right and wrong to them individually.
3. Since whatever I say as is the definition of moral will be seen as subjective, it seems that I cannot simply end at 2. However, it is quite a bit easier to define what is not moral. Anything that anyone does that any individual experiences as hurtful is wrong to that individual, or anything that an individual thinks is immoral, and considering 1 and 2, it therefore can't be moral. That it seems impossible to please everyone is irrelevant because we can try. The only way to minimize the immoralness (amoralness?) is to minmize everyone's own hurt (and it seems that conversely, maximize happiness should work using this argument also, although I have not thought about that.) Which is then the definition of moral, it making the immoral/amoralness minimal.

That argument isn't really the source of my opinion, but I think it supports it quite well. The source of my opinion was only 1 and 2.

"To you, subjectively in your own opinion. So what you're saying is "If it's my opinion that something is wrong, if it's your opinion that it isn't wrong, I'm correct, you're incorrect, and my opinion is the factual reflection of universal law" to which I say, again, source? Where is your evidence that you are right and they aren't? The fact that the idea of owning a slave makes you feel icky inside? That's not objective morality."

Right, that's not objective morality, but that's not what I'm saying. Firstly, I went to great lengths that basically say that my own feeling of ickiness is not the crux of the ideology. It's in the rambling paragraph in the middle. I merely pointed out that the icky feeling exists. Secondly, the ideology itself does not say that I know what is best for everyone, but rather that what's best for everyone is what's best for everyone. If my morals butt against someone else's morals, my morals (if I would be thinking about/applying them correctly), would be right only if the other's are blatantly not thinking about what's best for everyone. (Now and future everyone's might I add also, so long as the future is relatively accurately predictable regarding the moral issue in question.) However, I have also said "all subjectiveness revolving around right and wrong should come from differences in opinion regarding creating more happiness and less hurt", which still leaves vast room for individual differences and for a moral person to have a different idea of what is right from me.


I think what's "right" and "wrong" to a person usually is about themselves. Hurting others isn't "wrong," hurting ME is wrong. The reason people think that hurting others is wrong is because it is somehow reflected unto themselves. Sometimes it's because of social issues.

Also, lots of cliche statements can show that I'm right. Something like "don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself." It's about yourself, that statement makes it seem like what you do to others may be done to you by those others.

Some people think it's right to take revenge, so what's best for everyone can't really exist when we have ideas like that. Sometimes people do something to someone without realizing they've crossed some sort of barrier or done something wrong to the person, and the person would feel happy by taking revenge.

Revenge is cliched to not do anything, and even make someone feel worse. Honestly, I can't say that most people who take revenge feel that way.

[UserNameGoesHere]

My understanding of this thread is that it's something like "Is there an objective basis to the concepts of right and wrong, or are they entirely subjective?" My answer is that I just don't know. I can't say that it is objectively measurable or at least I can't think of an objective measure for it but that doesn't mean such a measure doesn't or cannot exist.

Certainly it is easy to come up with examples of what you would consider right or wrong, but are these entirely subjective (certainly many of them are), or are some of them rooted in a more universal, objective law? If they are rooted in an objective law, how would you go about proving it?

[Cavernio]

Kitty: "I think what's "right" and "wrong" to a person usually is about themselves. Hurting others isn't "wrong," hurting ME is wrong"

One's actions are usually about themselves, yes, which is a separate thing. It is an aside to what I'm trying to show, and doesn't negate anything I've said. In fact, if you remove the motivator behind the individual's actions, what you said perfectly reflects what I've suggested as proof: If I believe you exist, and I believe it is wrong to hurt myself, then it is wrong to hurt you.

As to the revenge thing, I have never said there is a knowable right and wrong, and specifically said it is impossible to please everybody. Reasons like that are part of the impetus for me defining morality as the opposite of immoral acts.

magic: I'm damned if I don't and thanks to you apparently I'm damned if I do too :-p

[ledwix]

But if everyone thinks the same subjective thing, is it still subjective?

Yes. If all 7 billion people thought the earth was flat, would that make it an objective truth about the universe? It is possible for biological organisms to be deluded. Agreement does not necessarily equal fact.


1. I know what hurt and happiness is on a personal level. Hurt is bad for me personally, happiness good. For myself, happiness becomes right, hurt becomes wrong.


How do you know that your experiences and your judgments of those experiences are derived from an objective source? You are just yourself, a human being, with certain reactions to certain stimuli, and a definite evolutionary bias toward your own kind. Have you ever eaten meat? I eat it several times a week. Those meats are slaughtered. Slaughtering is not happiness; it is hurt. So where do you stand now? Life is a competition. Things have to eat other things to survive. Being eaten is torture. But starving is also torture. Either way, someone has to suffer. Your bias toward your own being is an evolutionary urge, not an objective truth. Our brains just trick ourselves into believing that our opinions are absolute dogma so that we will not sway from them.


2. I believe there exist billions of other humans who also have the capacity for hurt and happiness; these people exist, they are real, and I think they also have the same capacities as I do in terms of experiencing pain and pleasure. Irrelevant of whether I care for an individual or not, their hurt and pleasure is real, and it is right and wrong to them individually.


We evolved as a social species, so naturally the Venn Diagram of personal morality vs population morality is going to have a lot of shared space. Otherwise we would have died out from not being coherent enough in our social endeavors and killing ourselves. Civilization is a bunch of collective intrapersonal biases, not a body of people being subjected to a universal standard.

...it is quite a bit easier to define what is not moral. Anything that anyone does that any individual experiences as hurtful is wrong to that individual, or anything that an individual thinks is immoral, and considering 1 and 2, it therefore can't be moral. That it seems impossible to please everyone is irrelevant because we can try. The only way to minimize the immoralness (amoralness?) is to minmize everyone's own hurt (and it seems that conversely, maximize happiness should work using this argument also, although I have not thought about that.) Which is then the definition of moral, it making the immoral/amoralness minimal.


Immoral actions are "wrong," while amoral actions are simply actions, with no judgment value imposed upon them.

But anyway, all judgment values are inherently subjective. The judgment is always being made by an individual, not by some aether that penetrates the entire universe or anything like that. And individuals are programmed organisms, with programming biased toward the survival of their own kind. Eating other animals IS hurtful and considered "wrong" to the animal who wants to survive but is instead being slaughtered. Now I'm no vegetarian, but just saying: you either eat, or starve. Both scenarios include suffering, which renders the whole objective morality stance bogus. It would mean that BOTH actions, eating and starving, would be immoral. And so nothing is moral.

The more rational way to think of it is that slaughtering an animal to feed your family is subjectively perceived as wrong by the livestock, but subjectively perceived as right by the family. There is no absolute source of the judgment; only different vantage points guided by innate urges.

[ddrxero64]

Quote from RubiedCross:
"Saying something is "Right" or "Wrong" is a completely SUBJECTIVE and OPINIONATED statement."

RubiedCross is completely correct. What we see as right or wrong is what we evolved to think is right or wrong.

Thousands of years ago people thought rape was perfectly ok.

Hundreds of years ago interracial marriage was seen as horribly wrong.

Dozens of years from now abortion and stem cell research could be seen as the best option to reducing human population due to high volume.

We might not like certain things, that remains fact, but something being "right" or "wrong" is an opinion, not fact. Only numbers and certain sciences are completely factual in life.

[Cavernio]

Ledwix: Really? It's like you read the intial post, then took my most recent post and just added paragraphs at breaking points in my argument, while reading none of the discussion inbetween, even though I suspect you didn't.

"If all 7 billion people thought the earth was flat, would that make it an objective truth about the universe? It is possible for biological organisms to be deluded. Agreement does not necessarily equal fact."
is not really relevant to my intended statement. If I say 'the sky is blue', it is completely mired in individual experience, such that if every human being thought the sky is blue, then so be it. And the number of people who think the sky is blue changes whether or not the sky is actually blue. To have the capacity to see blue is subjective, and yet there is an objective truth that extends from that subjectivity, namely that the sky is blue.

"you either eat, or starve. Both scenarios include suffering, which renders the whole objective morality stance bogus. It would mean that BOTH actions, eating and starving, would be immoral. And so nothing is moral."
...
Hence a reason why I defined moral as the opposite of immoral, and moral is minimizing immoralness. Furthermore, the fact that I do eat meat despite not having to do so means that I am being immoral when I eat it. I also specifically said that what people do is not necessarily moral and that what drives people doesn't have to be moral.

Using your meat example even more, to show how my ideas of morality can still be objective, regardless of whether or not I carefully weigh and consider what is moral or not when I eat, the fact remains that an animal dies when I eat it, and the animal probably does not want that. That is why in the vegan thread I was so against people who are like 'Being vegan's a choice, don't get pissy at me when I support torturing animals, its my choice, and it's a perfectly moral one.' But that animal is still tortured, whether or not I or you really care if it is, whether or not you think you are justified in eating it. Now...if you're too dumb to know that you are eating what once was an animal, that is different.

ddrxero: We evolved a brain and the ability to be logical. Seeing as our brains create factual, objective things like science and numbers, I don't know why something like morality should be any different. It's just a hell of a lot harder to be moral, and way more things to know and think of. Also, Examples of how people fail at being moral don't show anything. Examples of how people think they are moral even though, given more information, we find they are not, still does not counter anything I've said.


Aside: Also in regards to eating meat, if an animal is given a happy existence so that people can eat it, I don't see it as immoral. Rather, we have the control over whether it exists at all, and existence is better than no existence. Of course, if there were to be woods in that farmland instead, it might be more moral to not raise animals.

[ddrxero64]

Numbers and sciences have always existed, we created the symbols, words, and language to label them but they've always been there. We didn't create factual, objective things, we discovered them. When you touch something hot, you discover it's hot. You didn't make it hot, it already was.

Morals are what we created to be wrong or right, and everyone will see that differently. Society is just run by the majority who take one side.

Mind you, I have things I find immoral, but I acknowledge they're just opinion and something I cannot control. Similar to phobias, you accept it's a phobia but you can't alter the feeling it gives you, at least not easily (hence why people find it difficult to go against their own morals).

[stargroup100]

There's a very simple reason why I don't like participating in these kinds of discussions anymore.

There are some concepts that are very simple and can be agreed upon to be true for virtually all cases, such as the fact that morals vary between cultures, or that "right" and "wrong" are concepts created by mankind. These should not be points of discussion. In order to really think critically, you have to understand and discuss the nature of these concepts and how they shape our perception of morality, such as that SMBC comic devonin posted.

For the large majority of people, however, this is a topic that, regardless of how you discuss it, you should treat it as simply as possible in real life (and most people will do this anyways, thank god). The more you try to rationalize it, the more it doesn't make sense. Some things in the universe can be rationalized and should be rationalized, but other things are either not worth rationalizing or too complex to rationalize, or both. Thinking too much on this subject will either get you nowhere, or in more extreme cases, deteriorate your mental health.

For most people, the practical real life summary of this discussion is as follows:
- The golden rule: treat others how you want to be treated.
- Happiness is good, pain and suffering is usually bad. Should the latter happen, at least try to avoid it in the future.

[ddrxero64]

- Happiness is good, pain and suffering is usually bad. Should the latter happen, at least try to avoid it in the future.

I agreed until I read this. Now I agree every human lives in the pursuit of happiness, every decision you make is to pursue something that you want or like. I'm glad you used the word usually though, but pain and suffering is needed in order to know and enjoy happiness.

I think this would be derailing if I discussed it though. I can agree with most of your post and agree to disagree.

[Cavernio]

"Mind you, I have things I find immoral, but I acknowledge they're just opinion and something I cannot control. Similar to phobias, you accept it's a phobia but you can't alter the feeling it gives you, at least not easily (hence why people find it difficult to go against their own morals)."
Accepting loss of self-control is called self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can't control your opinion, then you definitely can't control your actions, and humans definitely wouldn't have any ideas of morality because it would all be beyond our control anyways...

Keep in mind that the impetus for the post was someone saying in the 'is it wrong to be gay?' from someone who likely feels that it is wrong to be gay. They're defense? 'Morals are individual things, you don't have the right to get upset at someone who feels that being gay is wrong because that person's morals are their own.' Oh really? So, it's acceptable for them to dislike gays because their morals tell them it is so, and yet it is unacceptable for my morals to say that a gay-hater is wrong? Whose morals are higher? A gay hater, or a person who hates the gay hater? Is that a dumb question? Is such a thing as a 'higher' moral possible? Why or why not? Why is it that when we start to question individual morals that clash, or discuss any moral question, in order to resolve anything we must take a step back to examine them from a more logical perspective?
And if you don't, then how can you call them morals if they are so clearly only self-serving?

Sure, we can say that people developed moral standards because ultimately they want to be treated well, but what about when someone's actions don't follow that? What if I don't eat meat not because I feel bad for imaginary pigs in my head, but because I logically think it's wrong to eat pigs? Surely it's not me being subconsciously worried that someone might kill and eat ME so therefore I shouldn't eat a pig.

Also, hot doesn't exist without a person. Heat does. Although I'm having a hard time seeing how this discussion has anything to do with applying logic to morality, which is what this whole damned thing was supposed to be about.

off-track: So...stargroup's clumping all 'macro' discussions for any number of topics into a subtype that he feels shouldn't be talked about in no way, shape or form uses the same sort of meta-thinking that the comic itself was against, while it is somehow valid to be so meta when invalidating metaness. Macroness/metaness is how the human mind synthesizes all the fiddly bits of information. Without it we wouldn't have intelligence, we wouldn't have any understanding of a whole of any type. We wouldn't even see ourselves as individuals.
(I'm also pretty sure I'm not a very mentally healthy person.)

[ddrxero64]

"Mind you, I have things I find immoral, but I acknowledge they're just opinion and something I cannot control. Similar to phobias, you accept it's a phobia but you can't alter the feeling it gives you, at least not easily (hence why people find it difficult to go against their own morals)." Accepting loss of self-control is called self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can't control your opinion, then you definitely can't control your actions, and humans definitely wouldn't have any ideas of morality because it would all be beyond our control anyways...

Keep in mind that the impetus for the post was someone saying in the 'is it wrong to be gay?' from someone who likely feels that it is wrong to be gay. They're defense? 'Morals are individual things, you don't have the right to get upset at someone who feels that being gay is wrong because that person's morals are their own.' Oh really? So, it's acceptable for them to dislike gays because their morals tell them it is so, and yet it is unacceptable for my morals to say that a gay-hater is wrong?

I will rephrase for you. It is something I can control, but I accept it is difficult for me to change something I've been raised to believe my whole life. If you grow up and your entire life you're led to believe murder is wrong, it's very hard for you to ever consider it being ok. Yet in other countries young teenage soldiers could never accept someone escaping the death penality for a crime, they feel it is their duty to enforce the law they've lived with their whole life.

No one is saying it is unacceptable for you to say a gay hater is wrong. This is where your argument just starts to spiral out of control. Nowhere in this thread has anyone said your morals were wrong. I've been saying there's no such thing as right or wrong not attacking your morals, whatever they may be.

HERE'S THE PART THAT MATTERS.

Cavernio, you make a lot of fallacies in your argument. So I'm going to provide you with the two you've brought up most.

Argumentum ad consequentiam or Appeal to consequences - This fallacy is where you conclude that a premise must be right/wrong because the consequences of it being right/wrong are desireable/undesireable. Example: If God didn't exist, life would be meaningless. I desire life to have meaning, therefore God exists.

Murder is wrong because it would cause a lot of trauma to the family being affected, and because it is unpleasant to see death. It is possible murdering this one person may save dozens maybe thousands of lives because the man was a terrorist. It is possible if he was jailed he may have escaped due to connections. We don't know if it's right or wrong for this man to be murdered (because it's neither), we're looking at the possibilities of consequences of him being murdered or kept alive and jailed.

Argumentum ad Baculum or Appeal to force - This fallacy is where you conclude that a premise is right/wrong because there is a threat of punishment to do otherwise. Example: Believe in God or you will go to hell.

An 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old girlfriend is wrong because he will go to jail if he does. The law is created by man, not fact, and he may move to Canada and have intercourse with this girlfriend without going to jail. It is unlawful in some countries, but it is only right or wrong because you think it is and because it would cause negative consequences due to the laws set forth by the country.

Cavernio, you're full of fallacies. You should look over devonin's fallacy thread before putting out arguments that are full of them.

Edit:

Also, hot doesn't exist without a person. Heat does.

I hope you're not serious.

...just in case you are here's a quick lesson.

"It is hot."

"It is heat."

"Heat is hot."

"Heat" is the noun. "It" is the pronoun being described by the adjective "hot," and "it" is referring to "heat." Hot exists if heat exists. It can exist without being discovered by a person. Hot is what we call the feeling heat gives us, but if another lifeform had evolved to create their own language they may describe it as something else. Even then what we are referring to when we say "hot" will still exist even if we don't.

[devonin]

I hope you're not serious.

...just in case you are here's a quick lesson.

"It is hot."

"It is heat."

"Heat is hot."

"Heat" is the noun. "It" is the pronoun being described by the adjective "hot," and "it" is referring to "heat." Hot exists if heat exists. It can exist without being discovered by a person. Hot is what we call the feeling heat gives us, but if another lifeform had evolved to create their own language they may describe it as something else. Even then what we are referring to when we say "hot" will still exist even if we don't.


Well actually, the point he raises is correct. Heat exists independent of humans. We can measure it in places we aren't, we know things that generate it that would generate it whether we were here or not. But 'Hot' is a term we've coined to describe the sensation we feel when exposed to heat.

While it's true that another species developing independently from ours would almost certainly -also- have a term for the sensation they feel when exposed to heat, the statement "Hot doesn't exist without a person" is exactly as true and relevant to his point as "Slurm doesn't exist without a bocatlzian"

The point is "Things exist on their own, and then we interact with them, and apply terms and names to the consequences of those interactions."

There is a scientific definition of "heat" we know what heat is in a vacuum. There are things which are objectively "generating heat" or not, but it is a subjective decision on the part of an individual to choose what to define as "hot" or not. My girlfriend runs the shower -dramatically- hotter than I do. What I consider to be "hot" water, she considers to be "lukewarm" water. And what she calls "hot" I call "Scalding" but in both cases, the water is objectively an instance of -heat-

Edit: Also, when you get right down to it, given the actual scientific definition of "heat" even things we consider to be freezing cold are actually generating heat. Compare the contents of your freezer to Absolute Zero and see how cold they are. We call all kinds of things "not hot" that are properly quite hot indeed.

[ddrxero64]

When you put it that way you're completely right, I didn't consider that temperatures to us could feel or just be drastically different to another species or in general. Well, in general hot is an opinion. Aat the same time I doubt that's what he was trying to argue, at least you provided more comprehensible and less faulty logic. I fudged up on that one. Off the side that's probably the point in his post I started to throw all logic out the window.

What I should say is the cause of the sensation can exist even if we're not here. But in those terms the sensation cannot exist if there is nothing to sense it. damn..

To be honest I'm pretty happy you pointed that out, it's not often I see completely sensible and logical arguments without bias in this forum. Thx devonin~

Edit: devonin what is this..

http://oi43.tinypic.com/2iitkwi.jpg

[devonin]

Edit: devonin what is this..

You said that hot would exist with another lifeform besides humans having evolved. I pointed out that the point was identical whether it was humans or some random other life form. I made the word up.

[ddrxero64]

ok, thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't sure if you were referring to a legitimate term, but I see the reason you used a made up word. Probably a reference to slurm being used before as a pretend word too. I wasn't too sure.

[Cavernio]

godamnit, I lost a mammoth post....

Sigh, here's the basics. Human derived concepts are by necessity unfactual, nor are they the opposite. You cannot prove that just because something is a concept from our head that it means it is false.

If people didn't believe their own version of morality were factual, or at least close to factual, then morality wouln't exist and everything would be like the comic suggests.
So, my morality is wrong if you say something that contradicts it is wrong. You have said my morality is wrong ddrxero.

My concept of morality is not refuted by you saying that there is disagreement between individual concepts of what is right or wrong when they are applied; I went over that already.

If everyone can agree that some acts are always wrong or always right, for example, randomly stabbing someone is wrong, there's an implication that there indeed exists a factual morality. No, this is not proof, but it certainly doesn't support the idea that morality is purely individual. It clearly has the capacity for universality.

Also, thanks for crediting and praising devonin for the concept I brought up, because you're too focussed on thinking me dumb to bother thinking about things I say, but are perfectly fine to think about it when he says it.

And once more, I am a she.

[devonin]

Also, thanks for crediting and praising devonin for the concept I brought up, because you're too focussed on thinking me dumb to bother thinking about things I say, but are perfectly fine to think about it when he says it.



Or what you were driving at was unclear to him, I restated it in a way that he understood, and he thanked me for making it so he understood what you were saying. I don't see why you need to take that personally or treat it like some sort of dismissal or judgement of you.

[Cavernio]

He thanked you for being unbiased, not just for giving a good explanation, while meanwhile critisizing me for being biased the previous post. Anyways...

The only thing that we have to measure how factual an idea that is, at least on the surface, derived within people, is how much agreement there is among everyone. eg: If I were to think that a person in a vegetative state is intelligent (intelligence being the human derived idea), then I would be false. Why? Because they're the opposite of intelligent. As defined by individuals. It is not a universal law, but it can still be wrong even though we only have other humans to tell us it is wrong.
Do you agree ddrxero?
Assuming you do, and considering that you think morality just doesn't have truths and falsities, (I'm struggling for the right word there), why does the concept of morality have a different standard than the concept of intelligence?

The only way morality can come to an agreement is by considering everyone's views and all the facts and then logically churning out an answer as to how moral the action was. If you are not doing this, then there's all sorts of opportunity to specifically be going against someone's morals, which is specifically immoral. I could say that anything is immoral simply because I feel like it is.

[devonin]

Assuming you do, and considering that you think morality just doesn't have truths and falsities, (I'm struggling for the right word there), why does the concept of morality have a different standard than the concept of intelligence?

It doesn't. There's actually just as much disagreement over a definition of intelligent and how to apply it to people as there is over a definition of moral and how to apply it to actions.

You think someone in a vegetative state is not intelligent. People who feel that same way and want to end the life of someone in that state have had to contend with the Supreme Court of the United States in legal battles with doctors, family members etc who absolutely do NOT agree with your opinion as stated above.

Agreement among people is how you generate a social contract, a specific form of moral code built around subjugating your own personal desires and feelings to devise a system as agreeable as possible to as many people as possible. That doesn't establish objective rightness or wrongness, it actually generally tends to assume no such thing is possible.

Going against someone else's morals is only "immoral" to me if my own moral code says going against the morals of someone else is immoral. If my own moral code says going against the morals of someone else is -moral- then by your logic, aren't you just as much at fault for disagreeing with my morals as you think I am for disagreeing with yours?

[ddrxero64]

So, my morality is wrong if you say something that contradicts it is wrong. You have said my morality is wrong ddrxero.

Your morality is neither right nor wrong. Focus on the topic you brought forward, not your morality.

And I can't agree with that because I'd prefer you define what about this person (in their vegetative state) is intelligent. Intelligence is measured in a subjective way, but the fact is their body isn't functioning properly. If braindead is part of being vegetative, I'm assuming, then they can't actually think or produce thoughts and therefore are incapable of being intelligent, unless someone thinks intelligence isn't measured by what you're capable of doing using your brain.

I could say that anything is immoral simply because I feel like it is.

Yes, yes you could. And it would be your opinion that you are entitled to.

Edit: Apologies Ms.Cavernio, nowhere was it specified you were a woman, and I'm generally more used to seeing guys in this forum and in stepmania communities. Now I know.

Edit 2: I actually want to point out that you're taking the word bias in a negative connotation. I can be biased without being negative. I could say DDR is the best game out there, but only because I never played much of any other rhythm game and I had lots of fun with DDR in the past. That's being biased, but I'm not being negative toward any other specific game.

So I can say you're biased and criticize you for it, but criticism isn't a mean thing. Criticism is usually used in a negative context so I'm going to guess that's the way you're taking it, but think of my posts as constructive criticism, not unproductive criticism. That's the way I intend it when I make them.

[Cavernio]

I didn't mean intelligent as in 'has some intelligence' devonin, but intelligent as in 'hey, that person's smart!' for the vegetative state example, not to be confused with an argument that you seem to be implying that 'intelligence=consciousness', which is another thing. Like, society's not going to be giving any 'intelligence' prizes to the person in a vegetative state.

Also, the acknowledgment of the inability to appease everyone, again, doesn't go against what I've said. To say that it is unknown what is best or worst doesn't mean that the idea that 'I know what is good/bad for me, bad is wrong good is right, therefore I have knowledge of what is good/bad for you, therefore bad for you is wrong and good for you is right' is invalid.

ddrxero: "Intelligence is measured in a subjective way, but the fact is their body isn't functioning properly. If braindead is part of being vegetative, I'm assuming, then they can't actually think or produce thoughts and therefore are incapable of being intelligent, unless someone thinks intelligence isn't measured by what you're capable of doing using your brain."

The fact that intelligence is subjective yet seems to have some sort of measurable outside force is in fact key to my argument. I agree, a vegetative person is not intelligent because they don't have bain activity (assuming they don't have any that is, which may notbe the case for some vegetative individuals given the most recent studies, but anyways...) The fact is, a person can be happy or sad, and that can be something measurable either through hard science like measuring pleasure centers in the brain. One's happiness or sadness or pain or pleasure is as close to a physically measurable entitiy as heat. Morality is based on how we treat others, and we have hard measures of those people's pleasure. If we treat morality as logically as intelligence, then we end up trying to please everyone as best we can. So again, I ask you, how is this different from our totally subjective, yet agreed upon, definition of intelligence?
If I go out and randomly kill someone on the street right now, the fact that no one would could possibly see that as right, that it will be viewed as wrong by anyone who possesses morality, means something about morality and human-made concepts in general too.
The fact that if 2 people whose morals disagree, yet a 3rd party can come in and mediate, like a judge, strongly implies that there is some sort of tacit societal agreement about what is right and wrong which is beyond what any 1 individual thinks. The only logical step for someone who's trying to be as moral as possible is, therefore, to be as close to that 3rd party as possible. And the only agreement that we can all possibly have about morals IS in regards to measures of hurt/happy or pain/pleasure (whatever you want to call them), because they ARE the only measurable things. My version, THE version of morality we all share, is very intentionally defined by what is measurable and known.

Unless you think morality is actually disconnected from how an individual treats others, in which case my argument is totally invalid.

Again, the reality that we may never know what is best or worst is irrelevant. I am arguing against people who are taking the idea of 'it's unknown what is bad or good' to mean that it is therefore valid to make up right and wrong. For instance, arguments like 'it is unnatural' to imply that something is wrong is NOT moral because it is not based off of 'good' and 'bad' which people experience.

me: "So, my morality is wrong if you say something that contradicts it is wrong. You have said my morality is wrong ddrxero. "
ddrexo: "Your morality is neither right nor wrong. Focus on the topic you brought forward, not your morality."

Ahhahha, but that IS the topic, is it not? Rather, the topic is that there exists a 'factual' morality, and that if your morals aren't attemping to coincide with that 'factual' morality, then your morals are not only wrong, they are false. (I'm not perfect enough to know what is factually right or wrong, even if I were to spend my entire life trying to learn what is or isn't.) Besides which, you took my sentence as a separate entity from the sentences before. The point I was trying to make is that if I believe in something as moral, then by definition, I must think it is not only right but 'factually right' or 'true', or else it is not really a moral, it's just a thing I think. Which means that if anyone's morals disagree with anyone else's, they can't both be right. But people do still try and resolve moral disagreements, and the only way you can DO that is by tapping into yet another morality, one which takes into consideration what I think is right and the other party thinks is right, as well as the moral/immoral actions and who they affect, etc. That is the morality that is common, and that is the morality that stems from the most basic moral values of hurt/helping others, which are in turn based on the facts that people experience desirable and undesirable things.

"Going against someone else's morals is only "immoral" to me if my own moral code says going against the morals of someone else is immoral. If my own moral code says going against the morals of someone else is -moral- then by your logic, aren't you just as much at fault for disagreeing with my morals as you think I am for disagreeing with yours?"
No, because we both agree that everyone's fundamental morals are the same, that hurting yourself and others is wrong and 'happying' them is right. 'Respecting your opinion' is defintitely involved in this, but only because not acknowledging your opinion causes hurt. (Well, to make it more complicated we can't know what is going to be best for everyone you must have as much knowledge as possible so it is also steeped in the fact that I must think about and consider your opinion.) Your argument is valid only if there is no such thing for social agreement for morals, which isn't the case.

And idc about you not knowing that I wasn't female ddrxero, but tsk tsk to devonin because I'm 99% sure he's posted in threads that I've said it in before. That said, you should try and not assume everyone you are talking to of unknown gender is male, regardless of the site's propensity for males. The view to consider people as males who are not talking about something outside the realm of a female-viewed activity is far-reaching in our society and is annoying. How would you like to be considered a woman by default?

[fido123]

Yes, yes you could. And it would be your opinion that you are entitled to.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion but some opinions are shit. If an opinion is uneducated and not based off of anything rational or factual that opinion is nothing but garbage for both the person holding it and everybody else. Nothing urks me more when I'm having a civil debate with somebody and they get all defensive and pull that line when their opinion is based on faith, wishful thinking, or more times than not stubborness.

[Squares, the Cube]

I can't quite see where the debate is anymore.

It isn't "right" to make people happy. It's optional. The world isn't some big wall of white and black. There's this huge gray area in which most people live. The statement that all moral answers should be the summation of opinions does not defend your position. You are basically stating that moral boundaries exist due to opinions, which means it's opinionated.

Edit: And what I mean about optional is-

If I were to make someone feel completely indifferent, is that right or wrong? Are those the only two options? Things are either directed towards making people happier or hurting them? Of course not! That's a false dichotomy.

[Cavernio]

The statement that all moral answers should be the summation of opinions does not defend your position. You are basically stating that moral boundaries exist due to opinions, which means it's opinionated.

But I never said that moral answers are the summation of 'opinions', but of experience. (Not experience as in 'I have experience playing games', but rather the experience OF playing games.) My personal experience is not an opinion, it can exist outside of what I think, as are other's experiences. That should be clear from the very first post. Opinion is also an experience (I think something, therefore I experience it), but opinion is not static, it can be changed, and yes, it should be considered as experience for the purposes of determining what is right and wrong, along with the knowledge that opinion isn't static, and that changing someone's opinion may in fact be the most moral solution to something, rather than ruling 'in favor' of one person or another. However, there exists some experience that cannot be changed, and by saying 'morality is totally an individual opinion', does not account for that experience.

It seems that some people are having a hard time separating these two ideas. I'm not sure why.



If I were to make someone feel completely indifferent, is that right or wrong? Are those the only two options? Things are either directed towards making people happier or hurting them? Of course not! That's a false dichotomy.

If you make someone feel completely indifferent it is more right than hurting them and less right than making them feel happy...Must I really spell that out to you? Must it be assumed that since I did not use that specific example, that I have not considered it? For instance, must it be assumed that I have not considered the vast array of human emotions and experiences, which may be considered both good and bad at the same time by an individual, simply because I have not added that particular caveat to an argument of mine??? Well let me spell it out for you; the individual experiencing both of these is the judge. If they are unsure about themselves, then it is neither wrong nor right, and lies exactly between the two.

[Squares, the Cube]

I'm understanding things a bit more than I did yesterday.

You disagree with the statement:

"Saying something is "Right" or "Wrong" is a completely SUBJECTIVE and OPINIONATED statement."

I disagree with this too. And I think the statement is very much wrong. Many things can be deemed right and wrong without being subjective or opinionated. I'd agree with this statement:

Saying something is "Right" or "Wrong" can be a SUBJECTIVE and OPINIONATED statement."

Though to my knowledge, only what's considered factual is the exception. I can't say killing someone is morally wrong because in some cases, I can see why killing someone could be right. As opinions are taken in, subjectivity becomes more apparent.

Going back to the logical side of things. Facts! I wouldn't say that in my opinion, atoms exist. Regardless my opinion, atoms exist. When it comes to facts, opinions are irrelevant. Some people treat science as if it's a religion. They choose not to believe in science due to personal experiences and the word of mouth of others. In their opinion, science is wrong and evil. We know science is not a religion, but a self-correcting process that explains the natural world. Some people believe the earth is 6,000 years old, even though mountains of evidence easily disputes it. If you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, you are WRONG, and that is neither subjective or opinionated. The earth IS about 4.5 billion years old.

On Morality (Google search definition. Seems about right though)

1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
2. Behavior as it is affected by the observation of these principles.

I find morality to be subjective. Easiest example is murder. It's definitely not objective. If a woman is being raped and she somehow manages to kill her attacker, I don't see anything wrong here. But that's just my opinion and only reflects on its subjectivity.

[devonin]

I disagree with this too. And I think the statement is very much wrong.

The use of "right" and "wrong" in that example is in the context of morality, not the context of "Correct" and "Incorrect" so since that removes your "Facts are right" thing...do you still disagree with that statement?

Which things do you think -are- "right" or "wrong" then where it is NOT subjective?

[Squares, the Cube]

I said morality was subjective. It's definitely not objective and there is no in between. The moment something isn't ALWAYS objective, then it's subjective. I can see an infinite amount of scenarios in my head where murder and theft can be justified. I believe that as conditions change, so should the rules.

[stargroup100]

off-track: So...stargroup's clumping all 'macro' discussions for any number of topics into a subtype that he feels shouldn't be talked about in no way, shape or form uses the same sort of meta-thinking that the comic itself was against, while it is somehow valid to be so meta when invalidating metaness. Macroness/metaness is how the human mind synthesizes all the fiddly bits of information. Without it we wouldn't have intelligence, we wouldn't have any understanding of a whole of any type. We wouldn't even see ourselves as individuals.
(I'm also pretty sure I'm not a very mentally healthy person.)

Can someone explain this better? I'm not following.

[Reincarnate]

I figure this is off-topic enough to start another thread.

Quote from RubiedCross:
"Saying something is "Right" or "Wrong" is a completely SUBJECTIVE and OPINIONATED statement."

I disagree with this statement. Happiness is good. Hurt is bad. It is right to make people happy. It is wrong to hurt people. Every moral question should revolve around this, and therefore all subjectiveness revolving around right and wrong should come from differences in opinion regarding creating more happiness and less hurt.
People who measure morality in a different way than this are wrong unless someone convinces me otherwise.


Right and wrong ARE subjective and opinionated. Most will agree that hurt is bad and happiness is good, but only because this is typically defined by definition. The question is what's considered bad vs. what's considered good.

Not everyone will hold the same opinions. However, morality comes from societal optima. If we, for instance, didn't think killing was a big deal, we wouldn't be here. The societies that survive are the ones that adopt morals conducive to their existence and stability. In other words, natural selection.

It's not so easy as "what will create the most happiness and less hurt." This is like saying "It's easy to run a company -- just raise your revenues and lower your costs!"

[RubiedCross]

Opinion
This is where you make a statement that is not - I repeat, IS NOT - based on fact or reason. Opinions are subjective. They CAN NOT be proved or dispproven, because there is no definitive evidence. The example fido used is NOT an opinion; he made a statement that can be proven or dispproven. I will give an example of a statement.

Ex. "I find the color blue a very beautiful color"

Because I find the color blue beautiful does not mean you'll find it beautiful; that does not mean, however, that you can prove that it is not beautiful. This is an example of subjectivity. Now, this leads to my next point...

RIGHT or WRONG
Saying something is "Right" or "Wrong" is a completely SUBJECTIVE and OPINIONATED statement. Therefore, you can not prove that something is right or wrong. You just can't. You can get every single person in the world to agree that something is "right", but that does not make it right. It's subjective no matter how you look at it. Remember, I'm just defining this, not stating that you cannot state something is right or wrong. You just have to realize that you cannot prove it. You can, however, give reasons and try to persuade someone to agree with you.



This is a bigger portion of what I was talking about when I was being quoted in the OP. I was talking about morality versus fact. I was talking about right and wrong based on morality, as opposed to correct and incorrect based on science/fact. Those are the definitions I was trying to make clear in what we were discussing.

I read through this entire thread, and find myself unconvinced because a lot of it seems to hop all over the place and is unclear or not completed stated at times. I admit, I skimmed over some parts, but I think I have enough of a grasp to talk to Cavernio and ask some questions.

Cavernio: You are attempting to persuade us that there is a universal, factual moral code. Your reason for saying this is that people, in order to have morals, must believe they are factually correct (e.g. Christians would believe that the factual moral code that is universally correct would be the Bible and what it contains). I find this, even though it may be a fallacy-like argument, to seem to make sense. People wouldn't hold themselves to morals unless they believed they were true. However, it just seems that society it what shapes this more than you think. If a person were brought up in a society where survival of the fittest was the only way to survive, wouldn't people believe it's morally correct to kill those who are weaker than you? They would believe this. To them, they would be approaching what is truly moral. So, would society be a confounding variable? Because of this, I'd like to bring up a clarification that seems to make sense to me.

What does "fact" mean?
Facts are something known to be true. How do we know that they are true, though? This may or may not be wrong, but I would consider facts to be observations that are true outside of observation. Gravity would still be present if there was absolutely no life to observe it (sorry if this leads into the "If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear..." situation, it's a different topic and may or may no be discussed at a different time. I am assuming, knowing nothing about the logic behind that questions argument, it would still make a noise, since noise is just the vibration of waves in the air. Even though we can't perceive it, the waves would still be changed).

Now, let's look at what you are trying to prove, or approach.

There is a factual moral standing.
You are trying to say there is a factual, objective truth to morality that we try to approach by forming our own, similar morals. However, you made a statement about your stance that seems to contradict how I understand facts

"Unless you think morality is actually disconnected from how an individual treats others, in which case my argument is totally invalid."

If a fact is something that occurs outside of observation, how could a potentially "factual" morality exist if you don't consider morality as disconnected from how individuals treat others?

Please approach and correct my argument with any fallacies you may see, but that is how I understand it after reading through this thread, and why I would stand by my statement that "Right" and "Wrong" are subjective no matter what (However, I do believe there is a "truthful, factual morality". I cannot prove it, though, because I understand that it's impossible. That is the beauty of it, though. I can't prove it. While I would hope people approach it through learning, I believe the capacity to prove it is outside of our grasp, while the capacity to approach it and find truth [i.e. revelation, if you look at the original meaning of the word, as opposed to "truth" meaning "fact"] is definitely present. I attempt to use logic in most of my arguments, understanding that sometimes what I may try to describe is different from what I want to describe. While I may want to prove to people that I'm right about something, I understand that being right is subjective. Therefore, I change my approach and make my argument within the realms of logic. Of course I'll make mistakes, as I'm sure there are some in here, so I guess you could take this long post script as a sort of disclaimer to what I state in this post. I have an annoying habit of doing this. I'll stop now. Maybe)

[Cavernio]

"If a fact is something that occurs outside of observation, how could a potentially "factual" morality exist if you don't consider morality as disconnected from how individuals treat others?"

I'm not on the ball with what I was thinking right now, but I should answer anyways. You're right, you've got me here; somewhat. Morality is a thought, an idea, a feeling that people hold to themselves. Morality is an idea made by humans (maybe even somethin animals have), and by those grounds, it can be seen as subjective.

What I don't see how this disproves the existence of a factual shared reality. Afterall, math and all logic is also created by humanity, and therefore could be seen as subjective, but yet those concepts are factual. Why is that? It seems to me the largest difference between math and morality is that math is defined such that it works and can predict. Morality is much more complicated and has umpteen more variables involved than math, such that a set moral pathway is unclear. However I don't think the complexity of a moral situation, or any situation or question, must therefore mean it's subjective. (I could actually see this being the crux of someone's argument, that it DOES mean it's subjective, but for the sake of my argument, I won't get into that unless someone else does. Well, I suppose squares kinda said that, but they also seemed to disagree with their own statements by saying it can't both be subjective and objective while also saying morality can't possibly be totally subjective and that it is not objective either, so I'm just confused about them...) Just as I can say and define numbers in my own way such that 1+1 = 3, I can say also say that punching a random person on the street is right. In neither the math case or the punching case does my saying or believing those statements make them factually correct.

(For the record, the purpose of the statement we're discussing was much more...open than how I feel you took it. I'm kinda surprised that no one has decided to outright define morality as something totally/very different from what I'm using in my arguments. Regardless, IMO, morality only exists because of emotions, and to reiterate, I don't believe this makes nor proves morality subjective.)

"It's not so easy as "what will create the most happiness and less hurt." This is like saying "It's easy to run a company -- just raise your revenues and lower your costs!""

Yes, however, it is very clear that "raising costs and lowering revenues" is not the best way to run a company, and following the analogy, to say that morality is subjective implies that my statement should be as valid as "lowering costs and raising revenues".
Which again brings me to the idea of defining morality as the opposite of immoral...

[Cavernio]

stargroup, yeah, I can only understand what I wrote there because I remember what I was thinking when I wrote it.

I was talking about the idea that you don't like to take part in discussions like these, and instead we should look at things on a case by case basis because that's the only way anything ever makes any sense. (At least, I think that's what you were getting at.)

However, the very idea of clumping 'discussions like these' into their own category shows that you are not only capable of distancing yourself from specifics of situtations into a more meta view of a topic (even farther from a mere topic, but of the entire thought process itself), but you also paradoxically use that very same 'meta' thought process to tell yourself that meta-analyzing a topic is bad.

But I don't think you want to get into this...:-p

[Reincarnate]

This entire topic has a really obvious answer, and I gave it to you a few posts up. The sooner you'll understand why that's the right way to look at it, the more consistent your stance will be. Morality is born from societal optima. End thread.

[stargroup100]

stargroup, yeah, I can only understand what I wrote there because I remember what I was thinking when I wrote it.

I was talking about the idea that you don't like to take part in discussions like these, and instead we should look at things on a case by case basis because that's the only way anything ever makes any sense. (At least, I think that's what you were getting at.)

However, the very idea of clumping 'discussions like these' into their own category shows that you are not only capable of distancing yourself from specifics of situtations into a more meta view of a topic (even farther from a mere topic, but of the entire thought process itself), but you also paradoxically use that very same 'meta' thought process to tell yourself that meta-analyzing a topic is bad.

But I don't think you want to get into this...:-p

I simply said that for the majority of people, this discussion doesn't get very far because of two main reasons: the fact that most people can't really understand this kind of topic on a deeper level, and the fact that trying too hard to understand may end up hurting the person.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't discuss it, it simply means that the discussion won't be as rich or focused as it should be.

[fido123]

@cavaniro:

Making the comparison to math doesn't stand up. Math and logic are how humans perceive factual physical things. If one apple is on the ground, and another on le falls of the tree, 2 apples are on the ground (1+1=2). Humans didn't create this math, only the perception and notation for it.

[Cavernio]

Fido, that's exactly the point.
Every action has an effect on someone, and every experience a being feels can be contextualized along a good/bad scale. The experience is not subjective, therefore any thinking regarding the factual experience (like any thinking regarding the fact that 2 apples are there), means that the morality of any given action is not subjective, (just like the math of 1+1=2 is not subjective.)

Reincarnate, your stance doesn't explicitly address the statement above this one. You could believe that it's wrong, you may not have thought about it, you may think it's moot because we don't have enough data to figure out what the optimal overall thing is, or that it's moot because by realizing that experiences merely exist doesn't really help on a practical level. If you think the whole discussion's moot, I don't know why you're posting; at least stargroup and devonin have said why the discussion is bad/poor/not useful, instead of saying 'This thread is dumb, there's no discussion' because you're disinterested.
Or is it simply because you don't have a good answer as to how you can call something that creates an 'optima' be subjective, and so when the question gets fuzzy, you just say '**** it, it's moot anyways'?

In any case, I feel that the discussion has moved from if morality is subjective or objective, to more of a question of what is subjective and what is objective.

[Reincarnate]

I already explained why it's a silly discussion.

We already understand how morality operates and where it comes from. You're trying to invoke an overlay where it doesn't necessarily carry any meaningful contribution.

What always bothers me about philosophical discussions is that 99% of the time, they're nothing more than postulations of "what ifs" instead of simply LOOKING at the damn subject in terms of what we know and understand and coming to the best, consistent conclusion. There's a good reason why science and philosophy have long since parted ways.

Maybe I'll write a longer post to explain what I mean, one moment.

[Spenner]

"Right" and "wrong" are made up of so many complex factors that it really must be entirely subjective with how detailed it is. To provide a basis for "correct" morality I don't we can view it as a black and white thing, because there are so many conditions involved.

If we were single celled organisms with rather linear motives then right and wrong might be easier to perceive. However many millions of years ago life might have had a fathomable right and wrong to view, based on having specific instincts that in order to survive were deemed as "right" or things that went against it which could be said as wrong I guess. But since we're so complex and able to have a difference in perception it may be all consciously subjective. That is, picking out individual things and deciding if they are right or wrong.

I guess it depends relative to what you're thinking of. If you're thinking of terms and conditions for the human species surviving, right and wrong is a bit easier to discern. If you don't pinpoint it and think in general about it then there's never going to be anything but individual opinion on it.

[Reincarnate]

What do we define as right and wrong to begin with?

Typically, we see things as wrong when they are generally self-serving or harmful to others and place selfish desires over that of the society. We see things as good when they do the opposite of this -- provide utility, happiness, pleasure, and benefit.

Certain forms of morality are not sustainable. For instance, if we had 100 communities with different sets of morals in each one, what do you expect would happen? Many of those communities would die off if their moral compasses were not geared in the right direction. If you're the kind of community that says it's OK to kill others, your community will kill itself off until it figures out a better alternative. The ones that don't figure it out perish. The ones that do live on. This is just natural selection at work.

Generally speaking, we find that in terms of evolution, cooperation has a synergy effect that leverages economics to scale and makes it optimal over the loner. It's why we, for instance, see huge swarms of pirahnas gang up on a single prey or why we see leopards gang up on larger mammals, but not each other. When animals learn to work together, they can take down larger gains than they would be able to individually. It's also why we don't eat our young just because nobody's looking and we happen to be hungry -- we wouldn't survive or propagate if this were the case.

So what's "right" and "wrong" are largely weighted in certain areas.

What's "objective" about morality is that we seek utility and avoid disutility for the most part (if we seek disutility, this is because of neurological disorders that are atypical but an unfortunate result of genetic natural selection, which isn't too avoidable with respect to evolution). However, what we'll agree upon as being the "right" choice depends on our utility profiles, and everyone's profile is going to be slightly different. Some choices will be easier to answer than others due to the relative frequency of their importance with respect to our survival/stability. Others will be towards the middle of the bell curve and have multiple valid answers.

Anyways, this is the right way to look at it.

[fido123]

@Cavernio: The morality of an action is completely subjective. We all perceive this universe differently. There's could be some alien civilization where according to how they perceive and think of the universe theft and murder are honourable acts. That's an example silly as it is but the only laws that exist are the laws of the universe. Everything else is fabricated by ourselves.

[Cavernio]

Fido: So because, as a kid, I didn't know that the world was made up of atoms which are then made up of electrons, neutrons and protons, and because now I don't know what those things are made up of, and because the majority of people have no idea either, so we can clearly perceive things about the world differently, what you're saying means that what atoms are made up of is, in fact, subjective.
But you don't think that, you would say atoms and their constituents are objective, just like math is.
And I agree; atoms are objective. And in regards to morality, I don't think that just because I might have a different view of the morality than someone else, doesn't mean that morality is subjective.
Like, pretend we're all fish or dogs or something who have a very limited intelligence, some animal that clearly cannot grasp the simple idea that 1+1=2. That doesn't mean that 1+1=2 isn't true.
And those aliens of that civilization, when being murdered, would still have their lives ended. (Thievery is much less clearly wrong, so not going to go there.)

Rubix: So using the evolutionary definition of morality you have, I agree up until "However, what we'll agree upon as being the "right" choice depends on our utility profiles, and everyone's profile is going to be slightly different."...which is arguably when you switch from morality being objective to it becoming subjective.
For the sake of argument, what if what I perceive as the best choice for me/my situation/even the world!, in fact leads to the total destruction of the earth, putting back evolution in our little part of the universe by billions of years? How is that choice of mine still subjectively the best thing? Clearly there was an objectively wrong choice that I had made, even if I thought it was right, and even if I think that the choice is subjective.

Enh, whatever I said above, this is the only point that really matters: Maximizing the utility profile of everyone and everything that exists and may exist, whose existence is such that it can experience bad and good, is being moral. And it is objective.

[Reincarnate]

Fido: So because, as a kid, I didn't know that the world was made up of atoms which are then made up of electrons, neutrons and protons, and because now I don't know what those things are made up of, and because the majority of people have no idea either, so we can clearly perceive things about the world differently, what you're saying means that what atoms are made up of is, in fact, subjective.
But you don't think that, you would say atoms and their constituents are objective, just like math is.
And I agree; atoms are objective. And in regards to morality, I don't think that just because I might have a different view of the morality than someone else, doesn't mean that morality is subjective.
Like, pretend we're all fish or dogs or something who have a very limited intelligence, some animal that clearly cannot grasp the simple idea that 1+1=2. That doesn't mean that 1+1=2 isn't true.
And those aliens of that civilization, when being murdered, would still have their lives ended. (Thievery is much less clearly wrong, so not going to go there.)

Rubix: So using the evolutionary definition of morality you have, I agree up until "However, what we'll agree upon as being the "right" choice depends on our utility profiles, and everyone's profile is going to be slightly different."...which is arguably when you switch from morality being objective to it becoming subjective.
For the sake of argument, what if what I perceive as the best choice for me/my situation/even the world!, in fact leads to the total destruction of the earth, putting back evolution in our little part of the universe by billions of years? How is that choice of mine still subjectively the best thing? Clearly there was an objectively wrong choice that I had made, even if I thought it was right, and even if I think that the choice is subjective.

Enh, whatever I said above, this is the only point that really matters: Maximizing the utility profile of everyone and everything that exists and may exist, whose existence is such that it can experience bad and good, is being moral. And it is objective.


We know atoms exist because we can detect and measure them. They act according to various laws (which we can measure) and are consistent/predictable. Science is the same for everyone -- therefore it's something we call universal or "objective" because it's true regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.

"I don't think that just because I might have a different view of the morality than someone else, doesn't mean that morality is subjective."

Actually, that is the very essence of subjectivity. If we have a differing opinion on something, we're coming to two different conclusions about the same thing, which means it is subjective. 1+1=2 is true regardless of who knows about it because it describes something that's true for everyone. The same can't be said for morality.

Your point about making a moral decision that leads to a devastating outcome for EVERYONE is a completely unrelated tangent. I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove there. I am guessing that you're trying to make this logical linkage:

1. Subjective moral call leads to
2. Objectively bad scenario such as the destruction of Earth
3. Therefore morality isn't really subjective because it results in objectively bad consequences

Which is mistaken because:

1. The destruction of the Earth is not objectively bad. It's subjectively bad, but largely agreed upon by most people.
2. Morality is still subjective at any rate.

Besides, moral calls often involve scenarios that aren't so extreme and retarded, anyway.

"Maximizing the utility profile of everyone and everything that exists and may exist, whose existence is such that it can experience bad and good, is being moral. And it is objective."

The problem with morality is that we can't always raise the utility of everyone and everything at the same time. There are countless cases where you'll have to weigh and balance decisions because you can't please everyone. We don't have the resources or ability to maximize everyone's happiness. We have to pick and choose when and who we benefit and who we ignore/screw over/etc. They're all judgment calls, and judgment calls aren't objective because judgment isn't objective. They're based on how the context of the situation is parsed.

[Reincarnate]

Watch this (I won't reply to this thread anymore until you do -- it's hilarious and very relevant to this thread):

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? (Harvard University)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY

Hopefully by the time you finish watching this you will see why morality is hardly objective.

[Cavernio]

"1+1=2 is true regardless of who knows about it because it describes something that's true for everyone. The same can't be said for morality."

But you're not saying why it can't be same for morality, you're simply saying that it isn't. Neither are you saying how 1+1=2 is true in such a way that morality could not apply the same principles.

Also, implausible situations are no less valid in this discussion, and they are incredibly useful for illustrating my point.

"1. The destruction of the Earth is not objectively bad. It's subjectively bad, but largely agreed upon by most people."

But 1+1 != 2 because I say so. Therefore it's subjective, even though it's largely agreed upon by most people. (Although, tbh, I'm not sure you'd find a single person who will say that total destruction of the world is good.)

That's the summation of your argument against morality, except I'm using it for a mathematical statement. This is why you are not convincing.

"The problem with morality is that we can't always raise the utility of everyone and everything at the same time. There are countless cases where you'll have to weigh and balance decisions because you can't please everyone. We don't have the resources or ability to maximize everyone's happiness. We have to pick and choose when and who we benefit and who we ignore/screw over/etc. They're all judgment calls, and judgment calls aren't objective because judgment isn't objective. They're based on how the context of the situation is parsed."

Which is why I've asked why complexity/lack of knowledge implies subjectivity.

If I hold an opinion about whether an action is moral or not, that is subjective. Whether or not the action is in fact moral or not, whether or not it will result in the best possible outcome for all living, experiencing things, is not subjective. The fact that I might think someone else is more or less hurt than they actually are is not the issue either; their actual state of being is the issue.The fact that reaching this moral perfection is impossible is not the issue. It is a practical issue, however this thread is clearly not talking about whether situation x is moral, but rather arguing against the idea that an individual they can think whatever they want is moral because they see morality as subjective. You may think this thread is pointless then, however it is not, because the fact that someone can think 'morality is totally subjective', means that there can be no better or worse answer to a situation because it doesn't exist, which totally invalidates the whole idea of morality in the first place.


I can't watch the video atm, not at home, no headphones, although I suspect it's just what your last paragraph says.

[gnr61]

Defining 'moral behavior' as optimizing utility/happiness and minimizing or neutralizing disutility/harm seems like it would provide an objective framework for morality, but the more I think about it the finickier it gets.

This framework would necessarily be spectrum-like rather than binary, and exact placement of any given behavior on said spectrum would be nigh impossible to calculate, therefore essentially meaningless (consider the plethora of variables that may affect the perceived morality of a simple judgment between two individuals who have generally comparable morals -- like emotional proximity to those affected by a given decision).

Inevitably we move past 'complexity' (which doesn't necessarily imply subjectivity), to genuinely opinion-based hierarchies of morality; if my friend considers shoplifting a more severe moral offence than driving 15 mph over the speed limit, and I disagree, it's not a matter of who's right based on the formula -- it's a matter of apples and oranges and I say oranges are worse.

As for your point in your last paragraph, that to introduce subjectivity is to invalidate entirely the very idea of morality, I disagree; 'morality' exists -- it simply varies from person to person which is fine and typical of abstract concepts. You might get away with calling it a blend of objective/subjective, beginning with the macro scale of max utility/min disutility and factoring in personal moral preferences in along the way, but that seems a bit like overthinking it.

Just because you can't think of anyone who thinks the earth's destruction would be bad doesn't mean that such an idea exists nowhere nor that it's 'wrong' in any falsifiable way. My own dad has expressed that very sentiment on several occasions and I think you'll find it typical of defeatists/nihilists :P

[Reincarnate]

Let's talk examples instead so you may be able to better explain yourself. I'll use one from the video.

You are a doctor. You've got five patients about to die if they don't get organ transplants immediately. In the next room, you see Chuck, a man who is perfectly healthy. You could let the five patients die, or you could kill Chuck and use his organs to save the five patients.

What would you do, and why is this moral call right/wrong, and why is it objective?

[TheSaxRunner05]

Ask Chuck if he would give up his life to save five people. If he says no, it's wrong. The people with failing organs do not have a right to his healthy ones unless by that man's (chuck's) will. Your rights (in this case, right to survival) end when they infringe upon another's rights.

It is objective because the 'correctness' of a given action is often determined by the average disposition of the masses. While not always best for society, what is morally acceptable depends on your culture.

[Reincarnate]

Ask Chuck if he would give up his life to save five people. If he says no, it's wrong. The people with failing organs do not have a right to his healthy ones unless by that man's (chuck's) will. Your rights (in this case, right to survival) end when they infringe upon another's rights.

It is objective because the 'correctness' of a given action is often determined by the average disposition of the masses. While not always best for society, what is morally acceptable depends on your culture.

Let's say he's still asleep from his surgery and is still under anesthesia. By the time he wakes up, the five other patients will be dead. The only way to save the five is to kill Chuck without his consent.


Also, that isn't the definition of "objective."

[TheSaxRunner05]

Still no, for the same reason

And oops, that was subjective, not objective

[Reincarnate]

The point though is that there's no "objective" answer to these kinds of questions. Morality isn't objective.