Morals

Last time i checked the 10 commandments are a prime source of morals and they happen to be etched in a stone slab thus making them a concrete source of morals.

(Just kidding)

Its quite Obvious morals are subjective but the real question is are certain moral standards innate or are they programmed?Do people have any sort of inner moral obligation or are morals purely adopted through experience?

As a society Morals act as the greatest set of rules to ensure the survival of the human race.Throughout history Laws and whats considered to be "objectively moral" have seen a series of evolution through adaptation ( slavery for instance)

Morals are a belief because its a set of guidelines one uses to motivate his or her actions.You believe these guidelines.Their nothing to contradict the idea that morals are a belief is their is no omnipotent set of true morals.

Isn't this the type of thing you mods tell us to "take it to PM's"?


(haha just kidding, I know what you were getting at :p)

I've gotta say, I agree with Norrin. There is no better good or worse evil, it all depends on how you feel.

Which is exactly why I can sympathize with a murderer (some of the time), and yet, animal abusers make me want to vomit (every single time). Its just my own personal set of morals.

There is no right and wrong for all but there is a right an wrong for each individual.

Once you set up your own goals/objectives then you base your morality around it.

And morality usually changes throughout an individual's life.

I'd so like to rep you Ronin(and Norrin for making a worthwhile thread), but I have to spread around...

To me, this debate, begin and ends with language, definition and likelyhood. Nothing less, nothing more. If you're going to start arguing for objective morality, it becomes contradictive by definition.

Moral statements argue what is right and wrong with human behavior.
For any moral statement to carry any meaning at all, you must first define right and wrong, and however you do this, you're still going to choose and an arbitrary definition that sits well with you - Which makes it subjective.
Secondly, morality is predicated upon the presence of subjects, namely conscious beings. Without them to feel good or bad about eachothers actions, it becomes completely redundant and nonsensical to speak "right or wrong behavior".

How would you argue general objectiveness for any value statement regarding a concept of human behavior regardless of context? If this cannot be demonstrated, there is no reason to accept on faith, the idea of objective morality, since we would then have to accept all other faith based claims to retain logical consistancy.

Ex:
1. "Murder is wrong because God says so and God is the essence of truth."
2. "Murder is wrong because it causes unecessary suffering"

Both these statements begs a continuation of questions like "how and why is God the standard of morality?", or "why does unecessary suffering dictate the definition of morality" - And in the end, regardless of what arbitrary excuse you choose, the so called "morality" makes no provable true distinction or have any true objective influence on us as humans.

Let's go with the mathematical example:
2 + 2 = 4, and no matter how hard you try to change this rule, or ignore it, you will always get this result granting those exact variables.
If you put two and two apples together, you get four apples even if you don't believe in it.
If I kill someone, I don't "become wrong" however.
What does that even mean? It's completely nonsensical. If there's nobody there to qualify it as wrong, then how is it wrong? Wrong compared to what?

Which finally brings me to negative effect:
Any act, or concept that qualifies as wrong in an objective sens(like in maths), have definate, objective "negative"(perhaps "counter-intuitive" is a better word) effects.
If you ignore mathematical formulas, you will get wrong answers.
If you press the wrong button in a qick-time event, you will get killed.
If you step in the wrong place, you'll hurt your toes.
Etc etc.
So, what happens when we act "morally wrong"? Is there any consistancy in what happens? Or is it just, again, at the mercy of arbitrary rules set by subjective feelings on the topic?

If morals are objective then how so? Do morals exist outside humans then, like set of rules created by magic, so that we go against the universe itself by breaking them?
If that is so, where is our punishment? How does the universe reflect on our errors?
There is nothing to suggest that it does.

If morals are a product of DNA, then are they objective? If they are biological imperatives, does this make them logical?
Although, the most likely explanation for harmonious human group behavior, is biological, this is not a true argument for moral objectivity.
Moral standards still change from human to human, so it cannot be an overly strong genetical imperative. And, if you argue from genetical imperative, you're arguing from an evolutionairy angle, which in sum means that morality is judged by what is feasible for our species survival, but as we cannot derive consistant moral paradigms based on this(due to the changing nature of what our species can do and still survive), it does not contribute to the objective view.

Appart from human biology, physics, and/or transcient beings, I'm at loss at what other ways anyone would try to reason out objective morality.

In short, the subjectivity of human morals is easily explainable and observable, and it is also logically consistent within the definition of the terms applied to explain the concept.

Objective morality is not easily explainable, nor observable. You cannot point to any falsifiable source for its value statements, consistant consequences for failing to comply with said statements, nor can you reason why any such statement is definately preferable to the alternatives. It is also not consistant with the definitions of the terms applied to explain the concept, so it needs to either re-define or change the standards of the argument to make sense at all(which is why most moral objectivists are religious people).

Given the above, it should be completely apparent to anyone why morality is more likely to be of subjective nature than objective - Furthermore, why it would be completely unreasonable to work from the assumption that it is, rather than that it isn't.

Good luck.

Again, for anyone who thinks objective morals are possible, all you have to do, is demonstrate how a value statement is objective, what makes it objective, and the physical effects of attempts to ignore or breaching said statement.

If this cannot be done, there is not logical reason whatsoever, to work from the assumption that morals are objective.

Also, you cannot derive ought from is.

Any attempt at making a normative statement objective, is flawed.
It can only be made objective by preference through adding a qualifiying clause that the target subject agrees with -
"If you do not want to make people sad, you should not kill a persons loved one".

So in order to establish so-called "objective morality", you'd have to be able to create qualifying clauses for all moral dilemmas that were universally true for all conscious beings that is and will ever be.

Good luck with that. In fact, I dare anyone to point out a single qualifiying value or clause, that even such a limited group as the Onrpg members can universally agree on.
If nobody is able to do even that, it would require extreme suspention of disbelief to accept any notion of objective morality as possibly true.

Subjective. Story's over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hian

Also, you cannot derive ought from is.

Any attempt at making a normative statement objective, is flawed.
It can only be made objective by preference through adding a qualifiying clause that the target subject agrees with -
"If you do not want to make people sad, you should not kill a persons loved one".

So in order to establish so-called "objective morality", you'd have to be able to create qualifying clauses for all moral dilemmas that were universally true for all conscious beings that is and will ever be.

Good luck with that. In fact, I dare anyone to point out a single qualifiying value or clause, that even such a limited group as the Onrpg members can universally agree on.
If nobody is able to do even that, it would require extreme suspention of disbelief to accept any notion of objective morality as possibly true.

---

I don't think you understsand what moral objectivity is. It doesn't argue that everyone on the planet agrees on a value, it argues that normative principles exist regardless of one's own personal beliefs. Trying to disprove philosophy with logic is like trying to disprove evolution with intelligent design.

If universal agreement is a requirement for any objective notion, then there would be no such thing as objectivity, because there is never any universal agreement. Is the earth's shape subjective because one person thinks its spherical and the other thinks its oblong? No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paladuck

I don't think you understsand what moral objectivity is. It doesn't argue that everyone on the planet agrees on a value, it argues that normative principles exist regardless of one's own personal beliefs. Trying to disprove philosophy with logic is like trying to disprove evolution with intelligent design.

If universal agreement is a requirement for any objective notion, then there would be no such thing as objectivity, because there is never any universal agreement. Is the earth's shape subjective because one person thinks its spherical and the other thinks its oblong? No.

---

Uhh...no. YOU don't get what objectivity is.

You can prove in terms outside of personal opinion whether the Earth is round, who a technically gifted musician is and who is a faster runner than someone else. Those are objectives. You can't prefer who is provably better at something.

Objectives are things that exist outside of human involvement. The world was always round, even when people thought it round. That's an objective truth and disagreeing means you're stupid.

Morals are determined person-to-person, so there is never any objectivity. If I say I won't drown if I stay underwater, I'm clearly wrong. That isn't determined personally, it's a law of nature. You need oxygen to breathe, hence the lack of it = drowning.

If I say that murder is good, you can disagree, but I'm not wrong, and you can't prove I am...nor can anyone.

So it's you and Eriond who clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paladuck

I don't think you understsand what moral objectivity is. It doesn't argue that everyone on the planet agrees on a value, it argues that normative principles exist regardless of one's own personal beliefs. Trying to disprove philosophy with logic is like trying to disprove evolution with intelligent design.

If universal agreement is a requirement for any objective notion, then there would be no such thing as objectivity, because there is never any universal agreement. Is the earth's shape subjective because one person thinks its spherical and the other thinks its oblong? No.

---

Or it might be you who fail at reading comprehension?

My point is that a moral statement, is by necessity a logical fallacy, because it will always derive ought from is, which is impossible(by the rules of logic).
The only thing which can qualify an "ought from is" statement as logically consistant, is a conditional clause - I.E "If you want X, it is best to do Y".
Now, for this kind of logical to be objectively true for everyone, everyone must objectively want result X. This is not the case, and as such, any moral statement is bound by subjectivity.

I'm not arguing that everyone agreeing on something makes it objective.
I'm arguing that for a conditional clause value to be objective, it must necessarily be shared by everyone.

EX:
"If you hold truth as the ultimate value, you ought not lie"
This is a true statement because you would be contradicting yourself if you lied given you agree with the above statement. It is objectively so.
If everyone agreed to this, it would be an objective fact that it would be contradictive for all humans to lie.
We could say "you ought not lie", because the ultimate value of truth was a given to everyone.
However, everyone does not agree on said value, thus it cannot be said that "everyone ought not lie".

In summary:
1.
A non-conditional moral statement(such as "you ought not kill") is a logical fallacy.
2.
A conditional moral statement(such as "you ought to do X, if you want Y) is subjective by nature.

Given 1. and 2.
Moral statements are either fallacious or subjective.

Conclusion:
Moral statements are not objective.

lol. okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paladuck

lol. okay.

---

How to lose a debate gracefully

Me gots confused when he started talking about conditional clause values and other big words that make no sense to Paladuck.

It still sounds like he's saying a moral must be shared by everyone to be objective. But what do I know, I have no logic background, only a common sense one XD

You all should come together and write a book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paladuck

Me gots confused when he started talking about conditional clause values and other big words that make no sense to Paladuck.

It still sounds like he's saying a moral must be shared by everyone to be objective. But what do I know, I have no logic background, only a common sense one XD

---

I hope it made more sense, when you looked at my clarification.

I'm not saying that morals become objective if everyone share them. I'm saying that if everyone shared a certain value, then acting against that value would be objectively illogical and hypocritical.

You can't say, "I hold truth to be the ultimate value", and then lie. That would mean that your initial statement is false. If however, everyone held this value, it would be objectively true that humans ought not lie.

I'm just using this as one way of demonstrating how a moral statement could be true for all humans - However, we know this is not the case, which means that any argument for objective morality usually boils down to "magical rules that exist outside of the individual", which is even harder(if not impossible) to prove - Hence morals are subjective by necessity.

I.E If a guy tells me "you ought not lie", I can ask "why?", and he will be obligated to provide me a reason. If I don't agree with his reason, I have no obligation to not lie. Unless he can provide a reason that objectively necessitates me not lying, we have no reason to believe in objective morals.

To be specific, subjective morals do not really need justification, because it is based purely in individual values(I do not need to justify me liking ice-cream for instance).
Moral objectivism however, makes a normative statement about the order or the universe, so in fact, the burden of proof lies with the people who claim morals to be objective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paladuck

I don't think you understsand what moral objectivity is. It doesn't argue that everyone on the planet agrees on a value, it argues that normative principles exist regardless of one's own personal beliefs. Trying to disprove philosophy with logic is like trying to disprove evolution with intelligent design.

If universal agreement is a requirement for any objective notion, then there would be no such thing as objectivity, because there is never any universal agreement. Is the earth's shape subjective because one person thinks its spherical and the other thinks its oblong? No.

---

objectivity cant change. provide a fact why slavery is morally wrong. example: i think slavery is fine. PROVE me wrong.

Your only given what your able to obtain. You only get your 'liberties' because your allowed them. Its not a given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hizumi

You all should come together

---

YOU NASSTYY xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V-Opolis

objectivity cant change. provide a fact why murder is morally wrong.

---

provide a fact why murder is morally right and we'll talk.

Oops, you can't.

doesn't that pretty much say this whole debate is completely and utterly pointless?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arri

provide a fact why murder is morally right and we'll talk.

Oops, you can't.

doesn't that pretty much say this whole debate is completely and utterly pointless?

---

thats Norrin and most peoples, and my point. you cant. You will always be able to loophole morals. you cant loophole math or fact.

everyone sets their OWN morals. In western culture its cool to eat cows. In India(one of my friends from India told me this) cows are sacred and they dont eat beef. How can you objectify something that cant be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

See, this is where you're making the huge and logical mistake.

You factor in someone's LITERAL ability to hold, or cling to, a belief. That's the one point that overrides everything you've said above. Literally, people can believe the Earth is flat, but they're wrong, so it's pointless to even highlight the fact that they can believe it.

Moral objectivism isn't a belief, at all. Anyone believing anything that is factually wrong is stupid.

---

How does this exactly override everything I've said above? Moral objectivism is a position about the nature of morality. However, people can believe that this is the case, or they can believe that morals are subjective. No contradiction, and no one is factually wrong for believing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arri

provide a fact why murder is morally right and we'll talk.

Oops, you can't.

doesn't that pretty much say this whole debate is completely and utterly pointless?

---

Why should he? You're the one implying it's morally wrong to kill, so you're the one with the burden of proof. You're shifting the burden of proof.

I don't need to justify myself if I kill someone. I could just do so. It's the ones who claim I'm wrong to do so, who has to justify it because they are the ones labeling the act. I don't mindlessly label acts as good or bad, so I don't need to justify them in any way at all. To me actions are just actions. Void of context, they are also void of value to me as a person.

In any case, I could easily justify it within the parameters of my subjective morality.
Let's say my highest value is the life of my loved ones.
Now individual A, is a real threat to the lives of my loved ones, and so I kill him. How is this wrong?
In reverse, it would be wrong for me not to kill him, as it would contradict my values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eriond

And sorry, hian, and everyone else, I'm just trying to do this with Norrin; didn't really respond to any of your posts, sorry.

EDIT: Hian, just read your last post, and I agree 100% completely. Burden of proof is on the objective moralists to tell us why they believe the way they do, because morals are subjective out of necessity.

---

Don't worry about it. Just airing idea in an open debate.

I never once used circular logic, I've proven this by fact. You are the one with the flaw, Eriond.

I've proven why it's not circular logic, why you think it is and various other things. You are the one with the flaw here. If I reply to your above post, I'm literally going to repeat everything I've said in the post prior.

You keep harping on that universally objective morality cannot be disproven, but it can. It has been, by myself and others.

What do I stand to gain? Your initial point was to not "let" me sidestep, I haven't. I've proven why this isn't circular logic, and you're doing the literal thing. You're saying the world is flat despite every piece of fact proving otherwise, by saying it's circular reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V-Opolis

everyone sets their OWN morals. In western culture its cool to eat cows. In India(one of my friends from India told me this) cows are sacred and they dont eat beef. How can you objectify something that cant be?

---

Those aren't morals. Those are a culture's religious customs and beliefs.

A moral is an individual's sense of right and wrong. To some people, stealing is wrong, no matter the situation while to others stealing is perfectly acceptable.

Morals end up being partly inherited from your family and the people close to you, and partly from the person themselves. If morals came completely 100% from the family and nearby environment, then how could you possibly have children of drug addicts rising above that and becoming very successful people in the world?


@Hian: Why should he not? You're the one implying that it's morally right to kill if you're trying to go against me by saying that. It's also not a matter of morals or not. In most societies it is against the law to kill someone and you DO need to try and justify yourself if you do so. If you kill someone and in your defense you only say "I don't need to justify myself, to me it's morally acceptable to kill someone" what do you think will happen? They're let you go because those are your morals? No. You'll be locked up and judged psychologically unstable.

See, there are good arguments and bad arguments. Yours was a very bad argument. Try something that isn't a very sensitive issue for pretty much everyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

I never once used circular logic, I've proven this by fact. You are the one with the flaw, Eriond.

I've proven why it's not circular logic, why you think it is and various other things. You are the one with the flaw here. If I reply to your above post, I'm literally going to repeat everything I've said in the post prior.

You keep harping on that universally objective morality cannot be disproven, but it can. It has been, by myself and others.

What do I stand to gain? Your initial point was to not "let" me sidestep, I haven't. I've proven why this isn't circular logic, and you're doing the literal thing. You're saying the world is flat despite every piece of fact proving otherwise, by saying it's circular reasoning.

---

Okay. I guess we're done here then. Just one point, which I really don't want to sneak in, but I kinda have to. I never said the world was flat; that morals were objective, and you haven't disproven objective morality. I wasn't disagreeing with your point, and trying to prove otherwise, merely your method of argumentation.

I disagree with you that I haven't proved you used circular logic, but because I can't seem to convince you, I guess I'm going to have to let it lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eriond

Okay. I guess we're done here then. Just one point, which I really don't want to sneak in, but I kinda have to. I never said the world was flat; that morals were objective, and you haven't disproven objective morality. I wasn't disagreeing with your point, and trying to prove otherwise, merely your method of argumentation.

I disagree with you that I haven't proved you used circular logic, but because I can't seem to convince you, I guess I'm going to have to let it lie.

---

All of that's wrong, sorry.

I agree that it is circular logic. And that's not Norrin's fault, it's the best that anyone can do because:

1) You can't prove philosophy because it's philosophy, not science.
2) There is no burden of proof to prove anything because it's philosophy.
3) Did I mention that it's philosophy, and that none of it can be proven?
4) For Christ's sake, it's philosophy.