right and wrong

[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]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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