NationStates Jolt Archive

please note that this is talking about right and wrong in a moral sence and not as an opinion as to how 'good' something looks/works etc.

are the moral concepts of right and wrong objective or subjective?

by objective i mean that right/wrong depend on the circumstances, not the individuals opinions. (not that ones opinions should be universalised)
by subjective, i mean that right/wrong depends on the opinions of the individual. there is no universal right.

my argument is that good/bad right/wrong are objective. following one of Immanuel Kant's premises supporting his categorical imperative.
in the same circumstances all beings that reason with "what should i do here" will come to the same conclusion.
thus showing that in all circumstances there is one right which depends on the circumstances of the scenario

determinism also supports this. by saying everything has a cause and every event eventually becomes a cause for future events (the law of causality), it is logically conclusive (from the law of causality) that all scenarios are necesary scenarios arising from the events that preceded it. because all events are necesary, arising from the causes, the event of a moral dielemma, and the conclusion arising from that are both nesesary causes and events that were destined to happen, it is always an objective 'right' arising from the idea of subjectivity. just like the event of ball1 running into ball2 makes ball 2 move.

thus concluding that the rights/wrongs of moral dielemmas are objective and are consistent, given the same circumstances are repeated.

i hope thats not too hard to understand ;)
what are your thoughts

It is a practice of futility to try and understand morality. Because of humanity's fickle nature, what is moral and immoral constantly changes from person and through the ages.

Right and wrong are subjective, they are individual desicions rather than correct behaviour.

To reach a desicion that is "right" for one individual, he/she will take into account personal experiences, knowledge (which not only varies from person to person, but from culture to culture and from age to age as well) and emotions. All these elements will lead the individual to a subjective "right" conclusion and desicion, a conclusion that may be "wrong" for another individual.

If there was an objective "right" and an objective "wrong", all human beings would agree upon that. In reality, I've yet to see this miracle...

My friends,
How can any of you who voted for 'Subjective' believe that you are right? I mean, if we actually *accept* the proposition, then morally, we are just as right as you. How could anyone possibly say that their opponents are just as right as they are? Surely there must be some difference! Now, I do have a point of agreement *ETHICS* are subjective. But morals are what motivate Ethics. Besides, if there is no absolute standard, then Hitler might have been doing what was right. Was he? Are all morals relative to the person who controls them? Do we have command over morals?
Regards,
Anna Karenina

my friend, although i do agree with your conclusion, i can see flaws in your reasoning.
How can any of you who voted for 'Subjective' believe that you are right? I mean, if we actually *accept* the proposition, then morally, we are just as right as you. How could anyone possibly say that their opponents are just as right as they are?
. what you are saying is that the whole thought process is subjective, we are talking about rights and wrongs, not argumets.
Now, I do have a point of agreement *ETHICS* are subjective.
i agree, but ethics and morals are someones opinion on what is 'right' and what isnt. this is about weather there is or isnt an underlying 'truth' about the 'rightness' of a moral dielemma. (this is exactly why i avoided the words 'ethics' and 'morals' in my original post. they are opinions, if there is a universal ethical 'truth' for a situation, they are not nesesarily 'right')
and i have no problem with hitler being morally 'right', so long as he (or someone else) has reasonable and relevant evidence to support his actions. so far, no-one has, so i believe that he was wrong ;)

Morality is objective. What is right, is good and what is wrong is bad. The entire base of society is that some beliefs are right while others are wrong.(killing is bad, getting really rich is good) Unless this world can only be defined by the philosophy of nihilism, then there is most likely objective moral truth.

Hitler seemed reasonable to himself. Hitler believed that the Jews were part of some evil conspiracy to destroy his race. If everything is subjective then how can he be wrong? Most of humanity has its illogical beliefs, most of humanity has superstitions, most of humanity believes that it is logical and rational in its choices to some extent. Hitler could not be correct(or at least no decent person would ever say he was).

Pretty much morality is objective because what is objectively good creates good things while what is objectively bad causes bad things. The Immanuel Kant thing makes sense.

please note that this is talking about right and wrong in a moral sence and not as an opinion as to how 'good' something looks/works etc.

are the moral concepts of right and wrong objective or subjective?

by objective i mean that right/wrong depend on the circumstances, not the individuals opinions. (not that ones opinions should be universalised)
by subjective, i mean that right/wrong depends on the opinions of the individual. there is no universal right.

my argument is that good/bad right/wrong are objective. following one of Immanuel Kant's premises supporting his categorical imperative.
in the same circumstances all beings that reason with "what should i do here" will come to the same conclusion.
thus showing that in all circumstances there is one right which depends on the circumstances of the scenario.
But on what is this suggestion based? I don't see any justification presented for why all humans would come to the same conclusion, except that it is "the right one"; which means that using it as a justification for the existence of this objective right is entirely circular reasoning.

determinism also supports this. by saying everything has a cause and every event eventually becomes a cause for future events (the law of causality), it is logically conclusive (from the law of causality) that all scenarios are necesary scenarios arising from the events that preceded it. because all events are necesary, arising from the causes, the event of a moral dielemma, and the conclusion arising from that are both nesesary causes and events that were destined to happen, it is always an objective 'right' arising from the idea of subjectivity. just like the event of ball1 running into ball2 makes ball 2 move.
Consciousness, with its subjective perspective and its will-power, defies "the law" of causality. For instance, we can breath without thinking. But we can also consciously control our breathing. In the latter case, we, rather than another event, are the cause of a new event.

thus concluding that the rights/wrongs of moral dielemmas are objective and are consistent, given the same circumstances are repeated.

i hope thats not too hard to understand ;)
what are your thoughts
The same circumstances can never be repeated due to the linear nature of "time."

But on what is this suggestion based? I don't see any justification presented for why all humans would come to the same conclusion, except that it is "the right one"; which means that using it as a justification for the existence of this objective right is entirely circular reasoning.

Consciousness, with its subjective perspective and its will-power, defies "the law" of causality. For instance, we can breath without thinking. But we can also consciously control our breathing. In the latter case, we, rather than another event, are the cause of a new event.

The same circumstances can never be repeated due to the linear nature of "time."
Consciousness does not necessarily defy causality. An argument can be made that under any circumstance we will come to a decision that seems absolutely right at that time even if the event was redone through some time travel, cloning or whatever required to create the exact moment again.

Certain actions we take have effects, under the idea of moral objectivism the only logical thing to do is to would be to work for a communal good. I do not see the world as one ambiguous moral gray area, there is right, there is wrong but grayness is a quality of not seeing the picture well enough to pick out the black and white and why they exist.

What's right and wrong is purely subjective. Proof? The fact that the definitions of right and wrong have changed substantially over the years, and indeed remain different in the various cultures of the world today. In ancient Rome, it was morally okay for men to have sex with boys, but not with other grown men, for example.

And if you're going to use the philosophical causality, I would like to point out that according to chaos theory all things affect all other things, and unless you know the exact status of everything at a given moment, predicting all possible outcomes of a specific action is impossible. By doing A, B would probably happen, but also C, D, and E that no one thought about. As the saying goes, the path to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Thus, there can be no absolute, objective right or wrong. What's right and wrong is always dependent on a combination of the person, society, and the present situation.

The objectivity or subjectivity of a thing, any thing, depends only on the perspective a person chooses to adopt. It is not an either-or situation, as humans, being individuals, can adopt both perspectives at once (though we can only talk about one at a time).

To quote you: by objective i mean that right/wrong depend on the circumstances, not the individuals opinions. (not that ones opinions should be universalised)
by subjective, i mean that right/wrong depends on the opinions of the individual. there is no universal right.

You are using terms in a specific context (one I am not familiar with). Right and wrong, as concepts, are products of the human mind. There are things (physical or mental, usually physical) and circumstances are happening to these things, and a viewer who is viewing this stuff happening. Now, the philosophical question of "right" and "wrong" is, are right and wrong properties of the circumstance (similar to the way physical and mental things can have properties), or value judgements? This is the objectivity or subjectivity of them (the latter inherently uses opinion).

If the circumstances are subjectively right/wrong, then the right/wrong requires an agent for the "rightness" and "wrongness" to apply; someone to say, "that's right!"; someone to be "wronged". Right and wrong then are their opinion. Therefore, the "rightness" or "wrongness" does not reside in the circumstance, and certainly not in the object experiencing the circumstances, but in the awareness of the viewer.

If the right/wrong of circumstances are objective, they must reside in the object itself, the circumstance, as a property of the circumstance. I'm not even sure that is a valid philosophical idea, but it probably is; it's the only way "objective right/wrong" can make sense, and obviously people, like this Kant, spent a lot of time and energy on it in their lives. So, if right/wrong are properties of the circumstances, no one can ever be held accountable for them, since they did not come from us in any way.

(must get to work, may post later)

If you see everything from a completely neutral "perspective", (ie. no perspective) nothing has any value. And using logic, you cannot fully justify any perspective. In order to get moral values, you therefore need atleast a little irrationality. Once you have something irrational, you can build upon it using logic, by treating it as a fact. You can then "justify" the resulting perspective by your "rational" thinking.

Depending on what piece(s) of irrationality you build upon, the resulting perspective will be different.

Pretty much morality is objective because what is objectively good creates good things while what is objectively bad causes bad things. The Immanuel Kant thing makes sense.Good? Bad? From what point of view? Why is something good, or bad? Ultimately, you cannot justifty why anything is "good" or "bad" with pure logic and nothing else. The logical conclusion of that is that such values are irrational.

Morality is objective. What is right, is good and what is wrong is bad. The entire base of society is that some beliefs are right while others are wrong.(killing is bad, getting really rich is good)

An awful lot of people throughout history would disagree with you about whether getting really rich is good, especially in the context of moral good. "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" and all that...

The fact that what a particular society or individual changes the definition of what is "right" or "wrong" over time does not mean that there is no rational, objective measure for morality. A morality which makes no reference to religious belief, but rather relies on reason and logic is not only possible, but has in fact been done.

No, right and wrong are relative terms. Objectivity is an abstract concept, unattainable by any means.

Both, in a way.

I think that there is a universal right and wrong. Objectively, good and evil can be determined.

However, human beings are not infallible. Thus, we will have differing opinions on what those objective principles. None of us can know if we are correct, we can only hope that we are and try to reason it out with those who disagree with us. Thus, in this way, morals seem subjective to human beings - as we are fallible creatures.

My friends,
How can any of you who voted for 'Subjective' believe that you are right? I mean, if we actually *accept* the proposition, then morally, we are just as right as you. How could anyone possibly say that their opponents are just as right as they are? Surely there must be some difference! Now, I do have a point of agreement *ETHICS* are subjective. But morals are what motivate Ethics. Besides, if there is no absolute standard, then Hitler might have been doing what was right. Was he? Are all morals relative to the person who controls them? Do we have command over morals?
Regards,
Anna Karenina
Hi, Anna, loved your book.

Yes, Hitler was doing what he thought was right. For him, waging war against everybody and killing the Jews was the morally right thing to do.

For the majority of the people, those actions and ideals are wrong.

For the Universe at large, it doesn't matter. It is only people who can say "this is right" or "this is wrong" and whether to follow one path or the other.

i would say while theoreticaly right and wrong may be possibly objective in any practical sense they are subjective as you can never have enough information to evaluate them in any other way.

you could possible define good and evil as objective in there extrem cases

good being completly selfless
evil being completely for ones own benifit

but neither extreem could realy ever exist just shades of the two mixed together

and those are intentions rather than actions

and as to cause and effect if you draw that principle fully through to its conclusion

as every event has a preceding cause preceded by another event etc.
then the concept of right or wrong becomes irelevent as you would never have any control over your actions anyway, as every action you do is determined by a web of preceding events stretching back though history to the dawn of the universe with the only possible element of free will coming from random events which may or may not exist.

edit: by may or may not exist i mean that there causes may be so convoluted and mixed together that while they are not random it is impossible to determine any cause

every event that has ever happend or ever will happen is directly or indirectly determined by every event that preceded it.

I would say objective, though I'm not sure. Why would one part of reality be subjective unless the rest is also subjective?

since you limite "subjective" to the individual, i say that right and wrong are objective. they are set by society, family, and religion. parents and schools spend many years teaching children the mores of the society that they live in. by the time you are 18 ( and for most people way younger) you know right from wrong.

sure you may choose to believe differently but your family, church or society will still judge you as wrong when you break their rules.... dont go to the family reunion because you have a date with the hot chick? you are the bad son. living with your beloved without being married? you are a vile sinner (and in some sects they will excommunicate you for it) shoot the neighbors dog that barks all night every night and you are going to jail.

Consciousness does not necessarily defy causality. An argument can be made that under any circumstance we will come to a decision that seems absolutely right at that time even if the event was redone through some time travel, cloning or whatever required to create the exact moment again.
Consciousness exists at a singularity of time we call "now." Any thought of redoing events by time travel is entirely a thought experiment; but regardless, we do things now, so every event is new. With that in mind, every conclusion we come to at any given time is a unique decision, even if it is imagined to be "redone" the same.

As for clones, their decisions would be unique also, their having led a unique existence as an individual from the time they came into being. The decision of my clone would not necessarily be the same as mine, nor would I expect it to be.
Certain actions we take have effects, under the idea of moral objectivism the only logical thing to do is to would be to work for a communal good. I do not see the world as one ambiguous moral gray area, there is right, there is wrong but grayness is a quality of not seeing the picture well enough to pick out the black and white and why they exist.
Moral objectivism, as you describe it, is giving away responsibility for actions to circumstance. "Certain actions we take..." If we make them happen, then we are the cause of them. If we are only following a flow of causation, where the cause of events is elsewhere, then we cannot be responsible for actions "we take," as we enact them, but we do not cause them; events do.

I would say objective, though I'm not sure. Why would one part of reality be subjective unless the rest is also subjective?Morality is a part of reality in the same way any other beliefs that are impossible to prove using logic are. Morality cannot be justified by pure logic in itself; it requires atleast a bit of irrational belief, and you can make up anything you want and believe in it. Morality is subjective because it is not based on any objective truth; it is, in the end, based on something irrational that differs from person to person just like religious beliefs do.

Things can be subjective to an individual, or to a group of individuals or things. What it means to that individual or group subjectively is what it means from its perspective. Subjective is "from the inside, looking out"; objective is "out there," apart from the subject. Objective is what it means to everyone, equally, removing the subjective view from consideration.

The important point is that, as concepts, right and wrong are products of consciousness, and so the individual or group to whom they are the subject must be living, conscious. This is the agent: the person watching something right or wrong happen, or the person it's happening to.

We do learn "right and wrong" from interaction with other people as we grow; but we compare what we learn with something internal, that we know inherently. It is that "knowing" that may be objective. Our internal "barometer" of what is good and right, that causes feelings of repulsion or anger when something is "wrong," without knowing why.

If this barometer, although internal and unique to each of us, is something we are born with, something of the physical, of the body, then it is objective. Subjectivity --that perspective that I mentioned above --belongs to a consciousness, to the mind. The body is objective to the mind.

EDIT: (I'm half asleep, so you can take this as rambling, I won't mind.)

Consciousness exists at a singularity of time we call "now." Any thought of redoing events by time travel is entirely a thought experiment; but regardless, we do things now, so every event is new. With that in mind, every conclusion we come to at any given time is a unique decision, even if it is imagined to be "redone" the same.

As for clones, their decisions would be unique also, their having led a unique existence as an individual from the time they came into being. The decision of my clone would not necessarily be the same as mine, nor would I expect it to be.

Moral objectivism, as you describe it, is giving away responsibility for actions to circumstance. "Certain actions we take..." If we make them happen, then we are the cause of them. If we are only following a flow of causation, where the cause of events is elsewhere, then we cannot be responsible for actions "we take," as we enact them, but we do not cause them; events do.
You seem to be avoiding the premise that we are promoting. The idea is that the chain of causality causes people to make a certain decision at a certain point based on various factors such as brain chemistry, memory of how this situation was dealt with in the past, and the nature of the persons logic. The idea is that a decision is not really a decision but instead the result of other factors. This idea is not illogical and your refutation seems to be either you do not get the point or that you are trying to avoid typing a flat out refutation to the idea of determinism.

Also, determinism does not point blame at anything because it says that everything is created from pre-existing factors. This does not mean that the philosophy is opposed to punishment or anything that is shown to modify the causal chain as to avoid the negative event from happening again.

Objective morality is from outside while subjective is from inside. I believe that morality is objective otherwise there would not be any support for a system of morality or of reason why we are here. An objective morality provides upper ground from the philosophical idea that there is no truth, the idea that there is no truth seems to deny a point to existence, without a point to existence then there is no reason to continue life, without reason to continue life I and perhaps others die. Our objective philosophy is in a way a response to the depressing ideas of nihilism and is in support of hope and order rather.

please note that this is talking about right and wrong in a moral sence and not as an opinion as to how 'good' something looks/works etc.

are the moral concepts of right and wrong objective or subjective?

by objective i mean that right/wrong depend on the circumstances, not the individuals opinions. (not that ones opinions should be universalised)
by subjective, i mean that right/wrong depends on the opinions of the individual. there is no universal right.

my argument is that good/bad right/wrong are objective. following one of Immanuel Kant's premises supporting his categorical imperative.
in the same circumstances all beings that reason with "what should i do here" will come to the same conclusion.
thus showing that in all circumstances there is one right which depends on the circumstances of the scenario

determinism also supports this. by saying everything has a cause and every event eventually becomes a cause for future events (the law of causality), it is logically conclusive (from the law of causality) that all scenarios are necesary scenarios arising from the events that preceded it. because all events are necesary, arising from the causes, the event of a moral dielemma, and the conclusion arising from that are both nesesary causes and events that were destined to happen, it is always an objective 'right' arising from the idea of subjectivity. just like the event of ball1 running into ball2 makes ball 2 move.

thus concluding that the rights/wrongs of moral dielemmas are objective and are consistent, given the same circumstances are repeated.

i hope thats not too hard to understand ;)
what are your thoughts

The problem is; by your and Kant's own wording; you loose the argument. As the case relies upon "subjective" criteria (that is, subjectmatter of the case before you in determination).

Objective criteria allow the a definitive result; apart from the criteria at hand. That is; regardless of the subject matter; the correctness (rightness/wrongness) is constant. If it varies by situation; then the criteria is subjective (based upon the subjectmatter before decision; as opposed to being an objective reality in itself).

So, to proove objectiveness; you need to be able to disconnect the circumstances; yet still come to the same result; or come to the same result under all circumstances.

For example: The speed of light; is objective. Regardless of your placement, velocity or direction; the speed is constant; and returns the same value. This is also called an "absolute" value. On the flip side; two people measuring the velocity of another; each in motion; come up with seperate results based upon their own circumstances/observations; the result is subjective to the placement and circumstance (also called relative) to one another.

Right/Wrong are subjective (relative) determinations based upon observed (circumstantial) views from the players in order.

Let's take this: Is war right?.... Well, it depends on circumstances (the subject of the war); and thus, dependant (relative) to that, can be either right or wrong. If it was an objective reality; then the answer would be definitive, and constant, apart from the circumstances. You would either answer "it is wrong" or "it is right" all the time; apart from the reliant subject.

The fact that you need subjectmatter/circumstances to define the criteria for the answer; prooves that it is subjective... And thus Kant, and you; defeat your own argument.

I believe there is a universal right and wrong out there, but there's no way of knowing it.
Other than that, right and wrong is completely subjective. It usually depends on what we ourselves are willing to accept and what we don't have negative feelings against. Culture tends to produce large groups of individuals with similar such ideals of right and wrong, providing the illusion that they have discovered the universal rules of right and wrong.

You seem to be avoiding the premise that we are promoting. The idea is that the chain of causality causes people to make a certain decision at a certain point based on various factors such as brain chemistry, memory of how this situation was dealt with in the past, and the nature of the persons logic. The idea is that a decision is not really a decision but instead the result of other factors. This idea is not illogical and your refutation seems to be either you do not get the point or that you are trying to avoid typing a flat out refutation to the idea of determinism.

Also, determinism does not point blame at anything because it says that everything is created from pre-existing factors. This does not mean that the philosophy is opposed to punishment or anything that is shown to modify the causal chain as to avoid the negative event from happening again.
If something causes us to make decisions, then we were not the cause of the decisions. Causality, determinism, fate --call it what you will --negates the whole concept of will, which says that we can be the cause of things. If we are not the cause of them, we are not responsible for any inethical actions or immoral things.

Determinism may not specifically point blame at anything, but that is a natural conclusion to having no will, and no ability to make our own decisions.
Objective morality is from outside while subjective is from inside. I believe that morality is objective otherwise there would not be any support for a system of morality or of reason why we are here. An objective morality provides upper ground from the philosophical idea that there is no truth, the idea that there is no truth seems to deny a point to existence, without a point to existence then there is no reason to continue life, without reason to continue life I and perhaps others die. Our objective philosophy is in a way a response to the depressing ideas of nihilism and is in support of hope and order rather.
Truth is absolute: yes, no, true, false. Even to relativists, this is so.

We believe in things that are true. That we each, individually, may believe in something different, may have a different idea of what is true, does not mean that there is no objective truth. It depends on how you look at it -literally. If you look from the perspective of the individual, you see what you see. If you abstract an objective perspective, you see the bigger "Truth". One is not lost for having the other.

Objectve, no question. By trying to declare morality as subjective, you're essentially subverting human morality by making it completely dependent on our mood, surroundings, or opinions. By telling me that society dictates morality, you're basically just taking religious dogma and replacing everyone's favorite diety with 'society.' I've often toyed with the idea of making my fortune by taking a bunch of Bibles and replacing the word 'Lord' with 'Society' and selling it to Socialists: "In the Begininning, Society made Heaven and Earth, and They saw that it was good." Genius.

Morality, like any other aspect of reality, is not dictated or controlled by the contents of the human psyche, nor is it moved by our opinions of it.

Suffice to say I'm seeing a lot of self- defeating and really disturbing things here, like 'we can never understand morality,' 'society defines morality' and 'morality can't be logically justified' and the like. Sounds like a damning endictment of your intellectual capacity if you ask me; I, for one, happen to beleive that my mind is capable of discerning the truth about reality. Try it sometime, it's pretty cool.

EDIT: And Kant was a mealy-mouthed son of a bitch.

They are objective. The problem is that human beings are subjective so our ability to perceive the objective is limited.