NationStates Jolt Archive

(Inspired by another thread.)

Is morality objective or subjective? If it's objective then what is the basis for determining what that morality is? If it's subjective then how do we determine what appropriate actions are? (Since actions are a result of morality.)

It's fully subjective, although we nowdays in western societies all share main moral ideas to the degree that they are treated as facts and thus thought about as objective.

Subjective, at least for me.
As far as "the right course of action", the answer is respect. Simple as that.

Objectivists exist, but according to my morality, they're very egotistical subjectvists. On the whole, without respect.

It's existential, it can only be measured by the result of action.

Totally subjective, all the ideas of right and wrong are mainly upbringing rather than innate in the human nature.

It's existential, it can only be measured by the result of action.
True. But, I wish this thread to continue, so we'll just speak from personal expierences. I hope.

Is morality objective or subjective?

It is possible that an objective morality exists, as many religions and popular works of fiction (see e.g. the Lord of the Rings) claim.
However, a look at the different cultures around the world as well as a look through history quickly teaches that if it exists it is not known: different people have different ideas about right and wrong.

I personally like a system of morals to be internally consistent and functional (meaning it does not lead to its own destruction). I do not know what else I can demand from it.

You can see that in the arab world it is of equal harshness to kill as to be a homosexual, and everyone thinks that way there. In Holland that's seen as totally acceptable but copulating with a goat is seen as unacceptable here which is ok in the arab world.

It's just upbrinding and culture what decides morals and values. Humans are slaves.

I think the question is moot.

Is there some sort of higher plane where things like universal good and evil exists? I don't think so, just as I don't think god exists. I simply see no evidence, and the case can't really be made with reason either. If it can, I haven't seen it.

That is not to say that it is impossible for good and evil to exist independently of human action and thinking. But even if it does, we can't tell, and thus every one of us has their own definition of what is right and what is wrong. And no one can tell who is actually correct, if anyone is.

That may be the death sentence of moral philosophy...but to be honest: So be it.
I deal with the real world. I get into my car, I drive to uni and back. I deliver Pizzas. I break the speed limit and get pulled over. I pay my taxes, and I try to rip off both the tax man and my employer. So how is moral philosophy helping me with any of this?

It doesn't.

(Inspired by another thread.)

Is morality objective or subjective? If it's objective then what is the basis for determining what that morality is? If it's subjective then how do we determine what appropriate actions are? (Since actions are a result of morality.)

I question whether actions are a result of morality. Isn't "morality" often an after-the-fact justification of action, as most justifications are?

both

I prefer honor to morality.

A code I follow but do not apply to others. Subjectively I believe it to be considered objective.

I deal with the real world. I get into my car, I drive to uni and back. I deliver Pizzas. I break the speed limit and get pulled over. I pay my taxes, and I try to rip off both the tax man and my employer. So how is moral philosophy helping me with any of this?
That's so depressing. Its not romantic or idealistic in the least. Its so bloody Darwinist.

If we are as different as the majority of humanity likes to think from the rest of the animal kingdom, we have to have something to distiguish us from it. Monkey's and other animals have already busted the arguements of tools and the ability to use and create languages. No one can deny that animals do not utilize tools or communicate. What's left?

Pretty much consistent behavoir, not in the interest of ourselves. Reading that bit of your post, it shows how you are subordinate to, for example, law enforcement and your employer. But, like an omega animal, you try to cheat them on the sly while at the same time appeasing them by doing they're bidding. Possibly, trying to elevate yourself using my metaphor by accumulating more wealth (cheating on taxes and not exactly working while being payed) and attempting to raise status while remaining as aloof as possible for free-time (attending university while speeding to and fro).

Now, I have to ask myself: Do I do the same?
Yes.

Dammit.

The subjective nature of morality is all around us for all to see. The fact that we are all members of a forum where people can debate such things should be evidence enough.

Subjective. Subjective. Subjective.

Morality is a cultural construct to solidify the things that we find acceptable or unacceptable, nothing more, nothing less.

True. But, I wish this thread to continue, so we'll just speak from personal expierences. I hope.
The strange thing is everything I say is right...

Morality stinks! :mad:

The strange thing is everything I say is right...
I wasn't feeding your existentialist-objective ego. :p

Subjective, at least for me.
As far as "the right course of action", the answer is respect. Simple as that.If you believe that everyone should base their actions and morality on respect, wouldn't that be objectifying morality?

I question whether actions are a result of morality. Isn't "morality" often an after-the-fact justification of action, as most justifications are?Then what do people base their actions on?

I wasn't feeding your existentialist-objective ego. :p
No. But my nihilist ego received a good phallic stroking... huh... that was significantly traumatic

That's so depressing. Its not romantic or idealistic in the least. Its so bloody Darwinist...
Hmm, I suppose it is.

But then, morality (I prefer to call them "ethics", because I like that word better) is important. But it's something the individual has to create for itself.
I just don't think that there is a universal version of this.

Seriously, talk to the people around you, and you will find as many different moralities as there are people. And the best way to get along is through some form of government which at least tries to get all these opinions down to a lowest common denominator, which we call "law".

Is morality objective or subjective?
Yes.

If you believe that everyone should base their actions and morality on respect, wouldn't that be objectifying morality?
No. Its more of a "live and let live" and "treat thy neighbor as you will treat thyself" sort of thing. You can take it either way, really.
... But then, [ethics] is important. But it's something the individual has to create for itself.
I just don't think that there is a universal version of this.

Seriously, talk to the people around you, and you will find as many different moralities as there are people.
I realize that there are many stances on ethics.
What I was doing was pretty much showing the hypocrisy within myself. First I say:
As far as "the right course of action", the answer is respect.
Then, when asked by myself a question in reference to your post if I break the law and try to cheat my employer:
Do I do the same?
Yes.
Which is pretty much admitting to, "I don't respect the law or my employeer, all of the time. Only when it is beneficial to myself."

There are many ethics, yes. Its amazing. Despite claims that people are just propoganda and indoctrination sponges, people do think for themselves. The world over.

I'd say that there are some objective rules, but how we view them is subjective.

For example, every culture has some rule against killing, but there are many shades of gray when it comes down to when is killing acceptable as vew few to none have an absolute rule on not killing. The same with theft, and so on and so forth.

I'd say that the subjective parts are so many and varried as to make the actual objective rules worthless.

Subjective. Subjective. Subjective.

Morality is a cultural construct to solidify the things that we find acceptable or unacceptable, nothing more, nothing less.

INCORRECT! I say this because no matter what social norms a society has (many of which may be superfluous and subjective) the root cause of any moral idea is feeling, that is human instinct, that is why it is universally evil to stomp on babies for fun. That was just an example.

*hmm.... am I suddenly back in TOK class?*

Totally subjective *please, don't make me back up my point with another long useless essay*

INCORRECT! I say this because no matter what social norms a society has (many of which may be superfluous and subjective) the root cause of any moral idea is feeling, that is human instinct, that is why it is universally evil to stomp on babies for fun. That was just an example.
Well, Hume said that we act on what feels right, and make up our rational explanations afterwards (sorta). I think he might have been right.

I think it's very subjective. A person who is Roman Catholic is going to consider many different things moral and immoral then somebody who is agnostic, or even Christian.

Subjective. The difference between morals and laws is that with morals, enforcement is imposed from within. People can jump up and down all they want telling you what you should believe, but unless one accepts it as true, then it isn't.

Well, Hume said that we act on what feels right, and make up our rational explanations afterwards (sorta). I think he might have been right.
*acts on feeling*

I doubt a lumber Baron would have said that.

*shys away*

Well, Hume said that we act on what feels right, and make up our rational explanations afterwards (sorta). I think he might have been right.

Ah! But why do we feel what we feel? Is feeling not an adaption to exist and survive in reality? Is then feeling not a rational response?

INCORRECT! I say this because no matter what social norms a society has (many of which may be superfluous and subjective) the root cause of any moral idea is feeling, that is human instinct, that is why it is universally evil to stomp on babies for fun. That was just an example.

I'm pretty certain that you will be able to find a culture in history that happily stomped on the babies of an enemy tribe for fun...
Morality is subjective to the core.

Ah! But why do we feel what we feel? Is feeling not an adaption to exist and survive in reality? Is then feeling not a rational response?
So you are thinking of a mathematical type of morality, one which by virtue of probability guarantees the most of our species to survive?

I suppose that's possible, but as I said, it's nothing that we can actually perceive as such. And as Cabra pointed out, there were cultures which did all sorts of things to babies (like sacrificing them).

Ah! But why do we feel what we feel? Is feeling not an adaption to exist and survive in reality? Is then feeling not a rational response?
If I didn't have feelings I would be much more inclined to do whatever I had to to survive.
On the flip side, feelings are good motivators and fuel for what we have to do to survive. Once we figure it out that is.
Feelings are then, both a hinderance and an advantage we have evolved.
My feelings are that emotional feelings are not rational. Far from math. I don't know how Leonstein got that out of the post.
About physical pain and whatnot, those feelings are necessary, and such feelings such as hunger are required to survive. The urge to procreate though, where does that fall?

My feelings are that emotional feelings are not rational. Far from math. I don't know how Leonstein got that out of the post.
Well, it would first require that at some point, either some sort of great planner (god?) or some sort of natural hivemind would have supplied our genes with the things that would be best to preserve our species.

And then (and here comes the math) it would be a Prisoner's Dilemma-type situation, where our emotions are the things that make us not spill the beans.

I'm pretty certain that you will be able to find a culture in history that happily stomped on the babies of an enemy tribe for fun...
Morality is subjective to the core.

Hmmm, I'm sure you could, but you would be harder pressed to get said tribesmen to say he did it because it was "the moral thing to do". If your reasoning was true, then nobody would ever experience regret.

Hmmm, I'm sure you could, but you would be harder pressed to get said tribesmen to say he did it because it was "the moral thing to do". If your reasoning was true, then nobody would ever experience regret.

Of course it would be the moral thing to do... these babies would otherwise grow up to be a danger and threat to the babies of tribesman's own children. It is the moral thing to do to go to any length to prevent that from happening.

Regret, much as any moral feeling, is not instictive but learned.

Is morality objective or subjective?
Objective morality makes no sense, since morality requires an agent. It's like trying to discuss "objective feelings"; the only context for discussing them objectively is that they are subjective to someone else. (Edit: Well, okay not the only context.) Otherwise, all you are left discussing is the chemical makeup of changes in the body that correspond with feelings, and that's not the same as discussing the feelings themselves. "Feelings" only make sense from the subjective perspective.

If it's objective then what is the basis for determining what that morality is? If it's subjective then how do we determine what appropriate actions are? (Since actions are a result of morality.)
Actions are a result of will; morality is simply one of many things that factor into the decision to act. Morality is what "should be", expresssed positively as "right" and negatively as "wrong".

We determine what is "appropriate" in terms of actions by comparing what we do to what others do, and what we think "should be" to what others have said "should be". I have heard people argue that we all have some inner "should be", and that we all have similar "should be's", similar for all thinking beings; and I have also heard good argument that suggests that those things are a result of individual being, rather than a necessary part of being. The former makes them subjective, in that it requires individual being (the subjective perspective) for them to exist; the latter is an attempt to make them objective.

If I didn't have feelings I would be much more inclined to do whatever I had to to survive.
On the flip side, feelings are good motivators and fuel for what we have to do to survive. Once we figure it out that is.
Feelings are then, both a hinderance and an advantage we have evolved.
My feelings are that emotional feelings are not rational. Far from math. I don't know how Leonstein got that out of the post.
About physical pain and whatnot, those feelings are necessary, and such feelings such as hunger are required to survive. The urge to procreate though, where does that fall?

I was refer to the social feelings, to the degree they do not benefit you (are hinderances) merely shows the break down of social groups we can associate with, the family, the tribe, etc. Altruism is a pro-surval trait in an inclusive society group, not so much in an arena of individuals. (not to get into the no selfless action thing, because for my purposes it doesn't matter what you believe regarding that.)

INCORRECT! I say this because no matter what social norms a society has (many of which may be superfluous and subjective) the root cause of any moral idea is feeling, that is human instinct, that is why it is universally evil to stomp on babies for fun. That was just an example.

And feeling and instinct are dependant upon the individual human and, therefore, subjective. While instinct may be subconscious (yet variable), emotion is definitely dependant on cultural factors.

No, morality is a cultural construct and that is all.

Well, it would first require that at some point, either some sort of ... [thing] ... would have supplied our genes with the things that would be best to preserve our species.
The only thing I got out of my High School biology course is: its the Mitochondria. Not some hivemind, despite how appealing that is.
And then (and here comes the math) it would be a Prisoner's Dilemma-type situation, where our emotions are the things that make us not spill the beans.
*ponders*
Interesting as that provides many pathways to get out of the situation, at least two if only party is involved. "Fight" or "flight". "Silience" or "squeal". I see it now.
I was refer to the social feelings ... .
Glad we got that cleared up.

Of course it would be the moral thing to do... these babies would otherwise grow up to be a danger and threat to the babies of tribesman's own children. It is the moral thing to do to go to any length to prevent that from happening.

Regret, much as any moral feeling, is not instictive but learned.

a learned emotion? I don't think any behaviourist would agree. I will agree that when and under what circumstance one should feel a given emotion can be learned.

Well as long as were going to over do the metaphore, babies of ones enemies can be raised as ones own, increasing the tribes strength, but like I said this is taking the metaphore too far. I was not trying to paint a particular situation. My point is that, before applying any extenuating circumstances, humans universally have the same emotional responses to simple cues, ie , killing babies is a negative, skip all the extenuating circumstances (OMG but what if its the anti-christ! LOL!!!!111). Anything can be justified through extenuating circumstance, and cultural rules, remember earlier I posted that morality is BOTH subjective (as in the specific cultural applications) and objective. I am simply tring to show that there is an objective aspect to moral feeling in instinct, in our natures as social animals. If there wasn't nobody would prefer any ethic, people when faced with an ethical choice don't stop and think "what has society decided is proper?" they usually just go with their gut decision, what feels right. While specific application may be learned, the feeling itself is inherent.

a learned emotion? I don't think any behaviourist would agree. I will agree that when and under what circumstance one should feel a given emotion can be learned.

Well as long as were going to over do the metaphore, babies of ones enemies can be raised as ones own, increasing the tribes strength, but like I said this is taking the metaphore too far. I was not trying to paint a particular situation. My point is that, before applying any extenuating circumstances, humans universally have the same emotional responses to simple cues, ie , killing babies is a negative, skip all the extenuating circumstances (OMG but what if its the anti-christ! LOL!!!!111). Anything can be justified through extenuating circumstance, and cultural rules, remember earlier I posted that morality is BOTH subjective (as in the specific cultural applications) and objective. I am simply tring to show that there is an objective aspect to moral feeling in instinct, in our natures as social animals. If there wasn't nobody would prefer any ethic, people when faced with an ethical choice don't stop and think "what has society decided is proper?" they usually just go with their gut decision, what feels right. While specific application may be learned, the feeling itself is inherent.

So, basically what you are saying is that humans are born with a capability of being having moral feelings, but have to learn when to feel them?
We can agree on that. Human society can't exist without a frame of morals, but the values themselves are entirely subjective.

I guess another way of putting it is that morality is not existential (a subjective philosophy), you can try and believe that being blue is all that is necesary to be upright and good, but you won't be able to convince youself. It will contradict all you have gahtered so far in your assessment of reality.

If morality were completely subjective, and imposed by society and learned, there would be no way to have cultural concepts of morality change over time, there would be no revolutionary new ideas regarding good conscience. Ie, no slave owner would ever suddenly think "slavery is bad"

Morality has to be objective, for the simple reason that there is no Darwinian justification for it.

If there was no 'right and wrong', what is to stop me from going around now killing as many people as possible? Under the Darwinian model, this would be the most rational thing for me to do, as it would remove potential competitors and ensure that my genetic offspring survived. Why am I faithful to a single partner? Again, without an objective form of morality, this is absurd; I should be trying to spread my genes as far and wide as possible.

You may claim that we have developed such morality because we prefer a stable society as oppossed to anarchy. However, the Darwinian model does not support such a government (tell me who the monkey President is, if it does). Survival of the fittest demands exactly that, not co-operation and respect for our competitors. An objective form of morality, and an innate sense of right and wrong, is the only thing that explains these inconsistencies, and is something that we should be proud of, not deny, as it is what seperates us from the animals.

I should just point out that I am not a Creationist, nor am I a very good Christian (although I try my best).

So, basically what you are saying is that humans are born with a capability of being having moral feelings, but have to learn when to feel them?
We can agree on that. Human society can't exist without a frame of morals, but the values themselves are entirely subjective.

I would say even the values are not entirely subjective, one can not hold a value that one does not believe has worth and purpose to accomplish something. Although the value may be possesed due to a mistake of judgement or lack of evidence (here its subjective) the possesor nonetheless has it because it is usefull in his/her scenario (objective).

Morality has to be objective, for the simple reason that there is no Darwinian justification for it.

If there was no 'right and wrong', what is to stop me from going around now killing as many people as possible? Under the Darwinian model, this would be the most rational thing for me to do, as it would remove potential competitors and ensure that my genetic offspring survived. Why am I faithful to a single partner? Again, without an objective form of morality, this is absurd; I should be trying to spread my genes as far and wide as possible.

You may claim that we have developed such morality because we prefer a stable society as oppossed to anarchy. However, the Darwinian model does not support such a government (tell me who the monkey President is, if it does). Survival of the fittest demands exactly that, not co-operation and respect for our competitors. An objective form of morality, and an innate sense of right and wrong, is the only thing that explains these inconsistencies, and is something that we should be proud of, not deny, as it is what seperates us from the animals.

I should just point out that I am not a Creationist, nor am I a very good Christian (although I try my best).
Who said there is no right and wrong?

If there was no 'right and wrong', what is to stop me from going around now killing as many people as possible?
The law obviously. But I think that sort of argument is called reductio ad absurdum.
I learned that today. :D

Under the Darwinian model, this would be the most rational thing for me to do, as it would remove potential competitors and ensure that my genetic offspring survived.
Not necessarily. It may well be better for you to cooperate than to compete. It's often the case in other situations as well.

Why am I faithful to a single partner? Again, without an objective form of morality, this is absurd; I should be trying to spread my genes as far and wide as possible.
Some cultures do have many partners. And besides, the fact that people stay in couples can very well have to do with increasing the chance of successfully raising offspring.

So, basically what you are saying is that humans are born with a capability of being having moral feelings, but have to learn when to feel them?
We can agree on that. Human society can't exist without a frame of morals, but the values themselves are entirely subjective.

I say CAN learn to feel them in particular situation (societal, cultural subjective situations), however initial emotional responses will happen with or without cultural input, toddlers do not have to be taught to be pissed when you take their toys away.

I would say even the values are not entirely subjective, one can not hold a value that one does not believe has worth and purpose to accomplish something. Although the value may be possesed due to a mistake of judgement or lack of evidence (here its subjective) the possesor nonetheless has it because it is usefull in his/her scenario (objective).

That's where culture kicks in. To stay with the example of babies : In today's Western society, harming a baby is regarded as the worst possible act morally.
In ancient Sparta, a baby that was undesired or regarded as not healthy enough would have been treated like refuse, it would have been killed and disposed of.
In Carthage, it might have been sacrificed to the gods.
All of that would have been regarded as completely moral behaviour, benefiting society on the whole and acting out the will of the gods.

People's beliefs are shaped by their culture and society, and so are there morals.

No, morality is a cultural construct and that is all.

Our cultural interpretation of morality is a cultural construct, not the objective morals which we are all basing our cultural interpretation of morality off of, one way or another.

Look at pi. Ancient cultures all knew that pi existed, but they all arrived at somewhat varied conclusions as to what pi is. But does that mean that no true value of pi existed? Not at all.

Therefore, one should at least acknowledge the possibility that some form of objective morality exists.

Of course we still come to different conclusions, but I think that we are all looking at the same basis from different viewpoints.

I say CAN learn to feel them in particular situation (societal, cultural subjective situations), however initial emotional responses will happen with or without cultural input, toddlers do not have to be taught to be pissed when you take their toys away.

Nothing moral about that, that's plain selfishnes. Toddlers do have to be taught not to hit their little brother with said toy, tough. That's moral.

Morality has to be objective, for the simple reason that there is no Darwinian justification for it.
-snip-


There is plenty of Darwininian explanation for morality in humans as social animals. That is however, precisely WHY there is an objective quality to morality.

Nothing moral about that, that's plain selfishnes. Toddlers do have to be taught not to hit their little brother with said toy, tough. That's moral.
But is 'moral' the lesson, or what they learn and apply of the lesson?

But is 'moral' the lesson, or what they learn and apply of the lesson?

The lesson is the abstract concept. What they learn and apply will be their personal set of morals.

Nothing moral about that, that's plain selfishnes. Toddlers do have to be taught not to hit their little brother with said toy, tough. That's moral.

your right, i just didn't want to seem like I was saying "the learned proper application of emotion precedes emotion". That was my point with the mini-post. Children don't even reach a chimps reasoning untill about 5-6 (that is to be able to generate an idea of not only how things are, but how they could be). Without being able to imagine alternative cause and effects to a given situation, moral judgement can't be manifested. So once again, your right on this but I was not trying to state any diffferently.

Our cultural interpretation of morality is a cultural construct, not the objective morals which we are all basing our cultural interpretation of morality off of, one way or another.

Look at pi. Ancient cultures all knew that pi existed, but they all arrived at somewhat varied conclusions as to what pi is. But does that mean that no true value of pi existed? Not at all.

Therefore, one should at least acknowledge the possibility that some form of objective morality exists.

Of course we still come to different conclusions, but I think that we are all looking at the same basis from different viewpoints.

bravo

I never do well in threads like this, because people use the words "objective" and "subjective" in contexts I can't even begin to fathom.

That's where culture kicks in. To stay with the example of babies : In today's Western society, harming a baby is regarded as the worst possible act morally.
In ancient Sparta, a baby that was undesired or regarded as not healthy enough would have been treated like refuse, it would have been killed and disposed of.
In Carthage, it might have been sacrificed to the gods.
All of that would have been regarded as completely moral behaviour, benefiting society on the whole and acting out the will of the gods.

People's beliefs are shaped by their culture and society, and so are there morals.

True, but those examples (as you agree) are learned. They were corses of action adopted due to cultural beliefs in other fields. The Spartans before the reforms, did no such practise, they followed the instinctual provision of protecting ones offspring. For claritys sake, I am not trying to say that subjective cultural norms are unable to overide an instinct, I am merely stating that there are universal human instincts (which emotion belong to) that exist. The existance of these instincts, that can govern a right vs wrong decision provide a basis for an objective quality to morality.

I never do well in threads like this, because people use the words "objective" and "subjective" in contexts I can't even begin to fathom.

Am I using them the wrong way around?

For claritys sake, I am not trying to say that subjective cultural norms are unable to overide an instinct, I am merely stating that there are universal human instincts (which emotion belong to) that exist. The existance of these instincts, that can govern a right vs wrong decision provide a basis for an objective quality to morality.

I am uncertain if those instincts truly are universal amongst humans (and other species for that matter). Can you back that claim up with evidence ?

I also am uncertain if our instincts can provide an internally consistent system of moral guidance. Then again, one could argue that it is survival that matters, not the aestetic beauty.

I am uncertain if those instincts truly are universal amongst humans (and other species for that matter). Can you back that claim up with evidence ?

I also am uncertain if our instincts can provide an internally consistent system of moral guidance. Then again, one could argue that it is survival that matters, not the aestetic beauty.

Are you asking for evidence humans have instincts? Or that all humans (healthy) have emotions? Please elaborate.

Are you asking for evidence humans have instincts? Or that all humans (healthy) have emotions? Please elaborate.

I would like to see evidence that humans share the same instincts.
In addition to my previous post I would also like to see some evidence that shows following those instincts is wise. I personally have certain instincts when I see a pretty girl that society would not like me to pursue without her permission for instance. Should society adapt ?

Our cultural interpretation of morality is a cultural construct, not the objective morals which we are all basing our cultural interpretation of morality off of, one way or another.

Look at pi. Ancient cultures all knew that pi existed, but they all arrived at somewhat varied conclusions as to what pi is. But does that mean that no true value of pi existed? Not at all.

Therefore, one should at least acknowledge the possibility that some form of objective morality exists.

Of course we still come to different conclusions, but I think that we are all looking at the same basis from different viewpoints.
Despite that the first sentence could use some rephrasing, this makes the most sense.

Despite that the first sentence could use some rephrasing, this makes the most sense.

Sorry about the confusing syntax. Much like Dilbert's boss, I may write in English, but I think in French.


This poem sums up part of my point rather nicely:

It was six men of Indostan to learning much inclined
Who went to see the elephant though all of them were blind,
That each by observation might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the elephant, and happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side, at once began to bawl:
'God bless me! But the elephant is very like a wall!'

The Second, feeling of the tusk, cried, 'Ho! What have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp? To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an elephant is very like a spear!'

The Third approached the animal, and happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands, thus blodly up and spake:
'I see,' quoth he, 'the Elephant is very like a snake!'

The Fourth reached out an eager hand, and felt about the knee,
'What most this wondrous beast is like is mighty plain,' quoth he;
' 'Tis clear enough the Elephant is very like a tree!'

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said: 'E'en the blindest man
can tell what this resembles most; deny the fact who can
This marvel of an elephant is very like a fan!'

The Sixth no sooner had begun about the beast to grope,
than, seizing on the swinging tail that fell within his scope,
'I see,' quoth he, 'the Elephant is very like a rope!'

And so these men of Indostan disputed loud and long,
each in his own opinion exceeding stiff and strong,
though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween,
rail on in utter ignorance of what each other mean,
and prate about an elephant; not one of them has seen!

-John Godfrey Saxe

"Nothing is true. Everything is permitted." Hassan i Sabbah.

So oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween,
rail on in utter ignorance of what each other mean,
and prate about an elephant; not one of them has seen!
-John Godfrey Saxe
Thanks for the poem! Poetry is always appreciated.

Thanks to this thread, I have to change the bearings on my moral compass. I can allow for some objectivity, but not too much. Gotta make everyone respect the subjectivity that is to come from "the elephant" that we like to grope about. Which, oddly enough, falls directly in line with some of my other beliefs.

I would like to see evidence that humans share the same instincts.
In addition to my previous post I would also like to see some evidence that shows following those instincts is wise. I personally have certain instincts when I see a pretty girl that society would not like me to pursue without her permission for instance. Should society adapt ?

Damn it I had a much better response for you, but I timed out and lost it.
No, following any particular instinct all the time is not wise.
As for your instinct regarding the ladies, is it your only instinct regarding them, or do you feel bad when you make girls cry? Is society the only thing hindering such a decision? The instinct you speak of might win out, but is it (at least) mitigated by nothing else but society? If you have no other glimer of conscience you and I are very different creatures.

Lets give you the benefit of the doubt. As for the universality of emotion, look up the anthro studies done on relationships of expressions to emotions in various peoples. While you can't actually absolutely know whats going on in someone elses head, these studies are highly suggestive of my point.

There are however, I will concede, rare exceptions that seem to be lacking certain emotional hardware, these are socio/psychopaths, and pretty much everyone is agreed something is wrong with them. It is unclear whether they are suppressing their emotions due to something traumatic or simply never possesed them. I personally think they are simply malfunctional, a non-social version of a human would do pretty crappy evolutionarily speaking.

Our cultural interpretation of morality is a cultural construct, not the objective morals which we are all basing our cultural interpretation of morality off of, one way or another.

Look at pi. Ancient cultures all knew that pi existed, but they all arrived at somewhat varied conclusions as to what pi is. But does that mean that no true value of pi existed? Not at all.

Therefore, one should at least acknowledge the possibility that some form of objective morality exists.

Of course we still come to different conclusions, but I think that we are all looking at the same basis from different viewpoints.

Please. Morality and mathematics are hardly comparable.

What I would like someone to tell me is.. where is this "objective morality" situated? Who defines it? How do we observe it? Can you describe it to me?

I'd say that some of it is objective, like that it's wrong to kill someone (excluding fetuses), since that's something that everyone can agree on. When it comes to something like abortion, it's completely subjective. Stealing can also be objective or subjective. Mostly everyone can agree that stealing is wrong, but what's subjective is how people classify stealing. My idiot friend pirates software because he doesn't think that he is stealing, only the people who upload it.
Conclusion: There is an objective base of morality that holds society together, but beyond that, it's all subjective.

(Inspired by another thread.)

Is morality objective or subjective? If it's objective then what is the basis for determining what that morality is? If it's subjective then how do we determine what appropriate actions are? (Since actions are a result of morality.)
Morality is based on consensus, so I suppose you could say it's subjective. Morality is what the preponderance of the people of the group in question say it is.

Morality is objective, and is defined by what I believe is right.

Everyone else is crazy if they don't share the same moral beliefs, and should be forced to agree with me.

Forcing other people to agree with my morality is moral.

Because I say so.

If there was no 'right and wrong', what is to stop me from going around now killing as many people as possible? Under the Darwinian model, this would be the most rational thing for me to do, as it would remove potential competitors and ensure that my genetic offspring survived.

no it wouldn't be. killing as many people as you can at random actually lessens your chances of passing on your genes, since you would then be rightfully viewed as a threat by others and they would kill you.

cooperation within a group beats unbounded competition in nearly every instance.

It is subjective, really. I haven't seen a real case made for it being objective or that anything is inherently good.

It is subjective, really. I haven't seen a real case made for it being objective or that anything is inherently good.
Well, I suppose you could make a good case for an objective morality based on not doing that which is anti-life, since life seems to be the only counter-entropic aspect of the universe. Or would that be so based on rationality that it couldn't actually be considered "objective." Hmm. Tending to confuse myself here. ;)

Whether morality is actually objective or not, from a secular perspective, is not the point. The fact is, everyone believes in some kind of morality. It may differ from person to person, but chances are, within that person's world, it is objective, and applies to everyone. So in a sense it retains both objective and subjective elements.

As I see it, the best way for a common morality to be achieved is through dialogue and free inquiry. Morality imposed by force or fear is not morality at all (ultimately that's why I am a libertarian). Of course, there is also the present problem of protecting the survival and furtherance of the human race by creating an environment of peace and stability, but within that, it is best if people are persuaded of the truth (whatever that truth is) rather than having it forced on them by external forces. As a Christian, I am going to have opinions that differ from an atheist, but I see us both as having the right to our opinions, as I would much rather confront a difference of opinion on morality in a non-threatening way, as equals, than as either the tyrant or the servant.

It is subjective, really. I haven't seen a real case made for it being objective or that anything is inherently good.
My previous post explained in clear, simple terms exactly why and how morality was subjective.

Now stop this craziness and admit the superiority of my morals!

the avoidance of causing harm is totaly objective and has nothing to do with any idiology or belief. if anyone wants to call anything else morality that is their problem and none of my concern.

=^^=
.../\...

Well, I suppose you could make a good case for an objective morality based on not doing that which is anti-life, since life seems to be the only counter-entropic aspect of the universe. Or would that be so based on rationality that it couldn't actually be considered "objective." Hmm. Tending to confuse myself here. ;)

I can think of several examples of where an anti-life attitude would be considered morally acceptable by many people. Examples: "Us or them/him or me" - for instance shooting the man that is trying to kill you, or the actions of a soldier in wartime.
"Kill a few so the rest survives" - for instance your average disaster movie; where not killing a few would result in everyone dying.
"The noble sacrifice" - the person who is willing to sacrifce himself for another or an ideal.
"Think of the child" - for instance the couple living in a warzone that decides not to have a child in those circumstances

Who said there is no right and wrong?
If you're suggesting that morals are "subjective," this is exactly what you're suggesting and you really ought to know it. There's a tendancy to either misunderstand the question ["Morality is subjective because different people have different opinions about it"], dodge it entirely ["Both" WTF?!], or throw a philosopher's name out there to sound intelligent ["Well, Hume said...."], just about all of which I've seen in this thread.

Proposition number one is ridiculous because while we all know that different people have different ideas about morality, that answer doesn't come within ten miles of the actual question, which is really more along the lines of "Can 15 million people still be wrong?" People thse days are very interested in sympathizing with other cultures [which is probably a good thing, at least to a reasonable degree] but it gets way out of hand when people try to suggest that one civilization or another "can't help it" because they were brought up that way. One acgain, I point the reader to the situation in the Arab world, and Europe's response to it. They're burning down Embassies and I can still hear some Europeans clamoring for some sort of justification or mitigation, admitting that they're "very religious" and "very devout," as if that makes a goddamn bit of difference in light of their actions. Of course its justified in the minds of these nutcase extremists, or else they wouldn't be hurling rocks and Molotovs into diplomatic missions. The question, "is morality objective or subjective," doesn't presume to suggest that it isn't, and it generally presupposes the fact that different cultures have differeent values. The question, once you examine it closely, is less about what people think about morality and more about what it actually is.

For example, I'll go so far as to say that every civilization that has ever existed [to my knowledge] has been more or less utterly immoral. The closest we've ever come to not being so was Ancient Greece, Renaissance Europe, and America from about 1865-1914. Every country on the planet right now has its head so far up their ass they're eating last night's dinner: America included.

Proposition number two is ridiculous because Objectivity and Subjectivity are by definition mutually exclusive. I hope whoever lodged this answer was just doing it to be cheeky.

Proposition number three is ridiculous because Hume was batshit crazy. Where the hell did he get the idea that humans act on feeling over logic? I'm sure we do it sometimes [especially when dealing with women, or renting videos] but when it comes to moral decision making, feeling is an inadequate barometer for our decisions for one big reason and a whole slew of smaller ones: we do not discern the nature of reality via emotions, therefore we can come to no conclusions about it using only our "feeling" or emotional faculties. To make a moral decision based on feeling is to throw any pretense of justice out the window. In order to make a moral decision, one must evaluate and interpret the data or object against a standard of values [be they legitimate or illegitimate ones]. Moral decisions are not made on feeling. Scratch that: they shouldn't be.

Basically, if morals are subjective, any basis for their discussion/interpretation/enforcement [or anything else] evaporates rather quickly. If morals are simply what society or the individual makes of them, then things like courts, prisons, and general personal security go out the window, since any suggestion that morals are "subjective" implies that there is [are you ready for this?] no benchmark by which to identify whether the actions of a certain individual were right or wrong. If you're going to tell me that this benchmark does exist, then you've just admitted that morality is Objective. Objectivity requires absolutes which is necessary if you're going to say something like "firebombing an Embassy over a cartoon is ridiculous," which every rational person should already know. Just because they think its right sure as shit doesn't make it so. Morality is not dictated to us by whatever the armed mob on Capitol Hill happens to think about it: it is a universal force from which no man can abstain.

I would be willing to bet that if I asked everyone on this forum [or even in this thread] which theory held the most water: the Primacy of Consciouness [the idea that reality is dictated to us either by our senses, God, or sixty million Frenchmen] or the Primacy of Existence [There is an independent reality that we're all perceiving right now, although perhaps in differing capacities] some of you might grudgingly admit that only the second is possible: since if I close my eyes my keyboard is still in front of me, and if there were sixty million less Frenchmen tomorrow, President Bush would still be a useless prat of a President.

However, the modern subjectivist movement is nothing more than people pretending to pay lip service to the Primacy of Existence, while suggesting that morality is a "social construct" and therefore anyone who follows an erroneous one [oh wait, there are no "erroneous" moralities except for Capitalism! Silly me...] is merely a helpless victim of his neighbors. In essence, the Subjecivist is suggesting that reality ["x is right, y is wrong"] is dictated to us by our government or some other agent rather than by our own senses and cognitive volition, which is tantamount to the advocacy of the Primacy of Consciousness.

Besides, even if you are going to say that "morality is subjective," that's an objective claim you're making about the nature of morality--it's an absolute whether you call it one or not, and the principle undermines itself on even the most basic level.

Basically, if morals are subjective, any basis for their discussion/interpretation/enforcement [or anything else] evaporates rather quickly. If morals are simply what society or the individual makes of them, then things like courts, prisons, and general personal security go out the window, since any suggestion that morals are "subjective" implies that there is [are you ready for this?] no benchmark by which to identify whether the actions of a certain individual were right or wrong. If you're going to tell me that this benchmark does exist, then you've just admitted that morality is Objective.

Or subjective, but determined by the legislator. That does not mean that the legislator is actually "right" in a cosmic or objective sense; just that he has the power to set benchmarks.

If morals are simply what society or the individual makes of them, then things like courts, prisons, and general personal security go out the window, since any suggestion that morals are "subjective" implies that there is [are you ready for this?] no benchmark by which to identify whether the actions of a certain individual were right or wrong.

that doesn't follow at all. what you meant to say was "no objective benchmark by which to identify..." the subjective benchmarks set by that society (as embodied in their courts and prisons and whatnot) or an individual (as embodied in our moral intuitions) still exist.

If you're going to tell me that this benchmark does exist, then you've just admitted that morality is Objective.

or that there is some benchmark that the speaker greatly perfers over others on some basis, regardless of whether there exists some set of ethics written into the fabric of the universe somehow.

Besides, even if you are going to say that "morality is subjective," that's an objective claim you're making about the nature of morality--it's an absolute whether you call it one or not, and the principle undermines itself on even the most basic level.

"morality is subjective" being an 'absolute' doesn't undermine anything. you are probably thinking of the statement "there are no absolutes", which is something else altogether.

(Inspired by another thread.)

Is morality objective or subjective?

Yes.

I would say that morality, in the long run, is objective. There is a right and wrong as a part of the universe, whether said right and wrong was placed there by a God or gods or is just a part of the way things are.

However, the question of how we are to determine it is the problem. We are human beings. We are not gods. We are not perfect. We are not all-knowing. Thus, while we may all be searching for that objective morality, we can never find it (or rather, would never know for sure if we had). Thus, to a point, we must treat it as if it is subjective. When someone says that sex should be reserved for marriage and another tells you that sex itself is beautiful and one should engage in it as often and with as many people as possible, how do you determine which is right? You don't, really, so it appears subjective, whether it really is or not.

Edit: I would also point out that I think, obviously with a backslide every now and then, the values of humanity are moving closer to that objective morality - that we are, albeit through limited means - finding much of it.

that doesn't follow at all. what you meant to say was "no objective benchmark by which to identify..." the subjective benchmarks set by that society (as embodied in their courts and prisons and whatnot) or an individual (as embodied in our moral intuitions) still exist.

From this viewpoint you must state that society as a whole is unquestionable in regards to morality. If there are no greater benchmarks than society, then we cannot judge the actions of a society, when societies can act in immoral ways.

What I would like someone to tell me is.. where is this "objective morality" situated?

Reality.

Who defines it?

No one has to "define" an objective truth. It just is. Who caused the universe to work the way it does? Does there have to be a who?

How do we observe it?

Through our own subjective viewpoints - same as everything else we observe.

Can you describe it to me?

Well, it's brown.

I'm pretty certain that you will be able to find a culture in history that happily stomped on the babies of an enemy tribe for fun...
Morality is subjective to the core.

Does the fact that they did, and possibly even thought it was moral make it actually moral?

Did those who thought the Earth was flat actually make the Earth flat?

Did those who thought the Earth was the center of the universe around which everything evolved make it correct?

If I think that it is perfectly moral for me to kill you, does that mean it really is?


Morality has to be objective, for the simple reason that there is no Darwinian justification for it.

This is hardly true. Many types of creatures have developed social structures through cooperating with other members of the same species.

An objective form of morality, and an innate sense of right and wrong, is the only thing that explains these inconsistencies, and is something that we should be proud of, not deny, as it is what seperates us from the animals.

Separates us from the animals? Then why do all social animals have a sort of "morality"? Even wolves have "morality", and social apes most certainly do - even to the point of having social taboos like we do.

How exactly are we "separated" from them when they do the same thing as us?

From this viewpoint you must state that society as a whole is unquestionable in regards to morality. If there are no greater benchmarks than society, then we cannot judge the actions of a society, when societies can act in immoral ways.

only if one holds that all ethical systems are equal. ethics lacking an objective existence in the universe doesn't prevent me from thinking that certain systems of ethics are 'better' than others for various reasons. nor does it prevent one from coherently holding that society x's ethical system is stupid and they ought adopt a different system.

but really i was just pointing out that melky's claim:

"If morals are simply what society or the individual makes of them, then... there is... no benchmark by which to identify whether the actions of a certain individual were right or wrong."

is trivially false. if morals are simply what society says they are, then it naturally follows that society gets to establish whatever benchmarks it wants.

I think it's very subjective. A person who is Roman Catholic is going to consider many different things moral and immoral then somebody who is agnostic, or even Christian.

Some people thought the world was flat while others thought it was round. Did that necessarily make it subjective? Or is there an objective truth to be found about the shape of the world?

Morality is objective at it's core, else it can't exist.

This does not mean that all people follow it, if morality exists, then quite obviously, some people are immoral.

We can subjectively layer additional "moral issues" over top of objective morality without negating the existence of objective morality.

Because of this, most moral issues we consider are experienced subjectively.

that doesn't follow at all. what you meant to say was "no objective benchmark by which to identify..." the subjective benchmarks set by that society (as embodied in their courts and prisons and whatnot) or an individual (as embodied in our moral intuitions) still exist.

or that there is some benchmark that the speaker greatly perfers over others on some basis, regardless of whether there exists some set of ethics written into the fabric of the universe somehow.
I'm not certain how the fact that society regularly passes laws is in any way detrimental to the point I was making. Yes, they're subjective benchmarks and yes, they vary from country to country, but that doesn't mean that morality itself actually is a "subjective benchmark." You're looking at how it's applied to civilization, and I'm looking at how its applied to reality.

Bottom line: if morality itself [and not just the laws that claim to base themselves on it] is actually subjective, judgement is impossible.

"morality is subjective" being an 'absolute' doesn't undermine anything. you are probably thinking of the statement "there are no absolutes", which is something else altogether.
No, it's not something else at all, the two concepts are identical and no breach can exist between them. If, for example, morality is absolute, it can't be subjective because it's there, you can point to it and say "x is wrong because of this."

Moral subjectivism cannot survive with absolutes, and moral Objectivism likewise cannot survive without them. The very basis of Subjectivism and Objectivism deals with moral absolutes or the lack thereof. Moral Subjectivism presupposes that moral values are not absolute, and moral Objectivism contends that they are.

Bottom line: if morality itself [and not just the laws that claim to base themselves on it] is actually subjective, judgement is impossible.

Judgement from some objective lens is impossible, yes.

But I can judge somebody according to my own subjective standards, and work to promote them as I see fit.

Judgement from some objective lens is impossible, yes.

But I can judge somebody according to my own subjective standards, and work to promote them as I see fit.
Feel free to stick with the subjective ones if you wish, but I vastly prefer basing my ethics, politics, and morals on facts rather than whims, on knowledge rather than feeling, and to the best of my ability rather than resigning myself as being "just a human" and therefore "unable" to grasp the true nature of reality.

When you say that [moral] Judgement is "impossible" through some objective lens, you're more or less admitting that true knowledge of the issue cannot be attained by humankind, which is just a boring retread of the same shit they try to shove down your throat in Catholic school. Sorry, but I don't buy that garbage when it's on either side of the aisle: either coming from religious fundamentalists or the "progressives" that profess to so vigorously oppose them.

I believe knowledge is possible. I believe I can [and have] come to legitimate conclusions about reality. I believe every person ought to be capable of the same feat. Just think.

Bottom line: if morality itself [and not just the laws that claim to base themselves on it] is actually subjective, judgement is impossible.
Bingo.

Ultimately, the only thing that matters to our lives is to reproduce. It's probably a good bet to say that we have some inherent feeling for what is right and what is wrong, based on trying to preserve the species. How that came about though, I don't know. That's the part where one might almost need some sort of creating intelligence.

But if such a pre-programmed morality exists, it does not show itself through reason. I can sit here for my entire life, and read philosophers again and again, and think and think, and I would still not be able to define what is right and what is wrong, universally and for everyone.

I'm not even saying that there can't be definitions of good and evil somewhere out there. There might be.
But the point is that we can't find them anymore than we can find god. The world we live in is amoral. There's gravity, and there's electromagnetism, but there is no good and evil.

Humans can deal with that, we have so far. Generally some sort of consensus has been reached through laws and traditions, which change over time as people's opinions change.

But unless you sit down in front of your PC and prove to me what is good and what is evil, and don't require me to follow various assumptions or your belief system to do it, you can't expect moral arguments to carry any real-world weight outside a philosophy class.

Not that any of this matters in real life, because if you see someone do something both your emotions, your experiences and your reasoning tell you to be wrong, you react accordingly. We don't require a universal moral code to be judgemental.

Feel free to stick with the subjective ones if you wish, but I vastly prefer basing my ethics, politics, and morals on facts rather than whims, on knowledge rather than feeling, and to the best of my ability rather than resigning myself as being "just a human" and therefore "unable" to grasp the true nature of reality.

When you say that [moral] Judgement is "impossible" through some objective lens, you're more or less admitting that true knowledge of the issue cannot be attained by humankind, which is just a boring retread of the same shit they try to shove down your throat in Catholic school. Sorry, but I don't buy that garbage when it's on either side of the aisle: either coming from religious fundamentalists or the "progressives" that profess to so vigorously oppose them.

On what basis can you conclude the truth of the moral "facts" by which you claim to abide?

Mostly, whatever the pontifications of certain philsosophers, it seems mostly "feeling" and "whims" to me, which is pretty much how human beings are, as far as moral values go.

Considering that logic has no real capability to deal with moral issues at all (except at pointing out inconsistencies), this fact does not trouble me much.

In a nutshell? Here it goes.

Presuppositions:


Value is impossible without life [since inanimate objects cannot value things].
Life, therefore, must be the root of all values.
Morality deals with whether these values are attained [through virtuous action] and upheld or not.

Good = That which acts to advance or further life.

Evil = That which acts to hinder or destroy it.

The reason for this is because no values can exist under Evil; in an environment where life is impossible, so is value and therefore morality. Conversely, where life is promoted and thought [which in most cases is hopefully a part of life] encouraged, values can be acheived.

On what basis can you conclude the truth of the moral "facts" by which you claim to abide?
I think I just did, but I hadn't seen this request when I was writing it; I was replying mostly to Leonstein but it seems apt for use here as well, I suppose.

Mostly, whatever the pontifications of certain philsosophers, it seems mostly "feeling" and "whims" to me, which is pretty much how human beings are, as far as moral values go.

Considering that logic has no real capability to deal with moral issues at all (except at pointing out inconsistencies), this fact does not trouble me much.
Wait a second, what? It "has no real capacity" to deal with moral issues at all? Oh wait, you reneged: except at pointing out inconsistencies.

Er... that's what Logic does. Swing and a miss.

In a nutshell? Here it goes.

Presuppositions:


Value is impossible without life [since inanimate objects cannot value things].
Life, therefore, must be the root of all values.
Morality deals with whether these values are attained [through virtuous action] and upheld or not.

Good = That which acts to advance or further life.

Evil = That which acts to hinder or destroy it.

The reason for this is because no values can exist under Evil; in an environment where life is impossible, so is value and therefore morality. Conversely, where life is promoted and thought [which in most cases is hopefully a part of life] encouraged, values can be acheived.

A highly flawed argument.

The fact that inanimate objects are incapable of valuing things does not mean that value is dependent on life. A blue ball cannot perceive that it (or anything else) is blue, but it is still blue.

Furthermore, life makes possible all values - not merely your approved ones. "Evil" values are just as dependent on life as "good" ones are. Nor is there any logical contradiction to values springing from a certain life opposing other instances of life. Firstly, the assumption that things have an obligation to their creator is a "moral fact" that you have not proven. Secondly, just because one person's values are dependent on that person's life does not mean that that person should not destroy other people's lives - especially if the values springing forth from those lives are opposed to the values springing forth from his.

You are essentially, like all proponents of logically-based universal moral standards, moving from a statement about "what is" - "Value is impossible without life" to what should be - "Good = That which acts to advance or further life" - through imposing your own assumptions about "right" and "wrong" to arrive to your conclusion.

This is going to be fun.

Proposition number one is ridiculous because while we all know that different people have different ideas about morality, that answer doesn't come within ten miles of the actual question, which is really more along the lines of "Can 15 million people still be wrong?" People thse days are very interested in sympathizing with other cultures [which is probably a good thing, at least to a reasonable degree] but it gets way out of hand when people try to suggest that one civilization or another "can't help it" because they were brought up that way. One acgain, I point the reader to the situation in the Arab world, and Europe's response to it. They're burning down Embassies and I can still hear some Europeans clamoring for some sort of justification or mitigation, admitting that they're "very religious" and "very devout," as if that makes a goddamn bit of difference in light of their actions. Of course its justified in the minds of these nutcase extremists, or else they wouldn't be hurling rocks and Molotovs into diplomatic missions. The question, "is morality objective or subjective," doesn't presume to suggest that it isn't, and it generally presupposes the fact that different cultures have differeent values. The question, once you examine it closely, is less about what people think about morality and more about what it actually is.
But as I pointed out, all of our societies have shades of grey where it becomes perfectly acceptable to attack those embassies.

9/11 killed over 3,000 people. The United States has killed far more, acidently in many cases I'm sure. Why is it that the orginal attack can be condemed whereas our attacks are brushed off?

Does that make the attacks on the embassies right? By our standards, no. By their standards, yes. Who is right?

Whoever is stronger.

You're right in that 15 million people can be wrong, but the prevaling morality is still comprised of who can project that force to make their morality right. And force does not just mean military might, but force of culture, of economics, of diplomacy. It still comes down to "We think we're right about this and what you're doing is wrong. You need to change that."

Proposition number two is ridiculous because Objectivity and Subjectivity are by definition mutually exclusive. I hope whoever lodged this answer was just doing it to be cheeky.
Not really. I do think that morality can be and is both at the same time.

Proposition number three is ridiculous because Hume was batshit crazy. Where the hell did he get the idea that humans act on feeling over logic? I'm sure we do it sometimes [especially when dealing with women, or renting videos] but when it comes to moral decision making, feeling is an inadequate barometer for our decisions for one big reason and a whole slew of smaller ones: we do not discern the nature of reality via emotions, therefore we can come to no conclusions about it using only our "feeling" or emotional faculties. To make a moral decision based on feeling is to throw any pretense of justice out the window. In order to make a moral decision, one must evaluate and interpret the data or object against a standard of values [be they legitimate or illegitimate ones]. Moral decisions are not made on feeling. Scratch that: they shouldn't be.
But humans do so anyway. People are dying, do we aid them? Well, morally we should. But if we happen to not like them... People make moral decisions all the time based upon their feelings, and their feelings about a subject or the person (people) color how they approch that moral decision. Try looking at the rates of blacks condemed to death (a very moral decision) vs whites for the same crimes. Did emotions color the choice of the jurists? Yes, of course. Hell, even in a regular trial, the lawyers try their best to invoke emotional responces in order to gain the desiered outcome. The victims are given a chance to cry and proclaim how the crime has dmanaged them. The defendant gives the "bad childhood" or his/her mother shows up and cries how they were so good as a child and couldn't the jury give them a chance?

No, emotions play a very important role in moral decisions, and they have to as sometimes the very humane decisions that we make are not logical at all.

The needs of the many and all that...

Basically, if morals are subjective, any basis for their discussion/interpretation/enforcement [or anything else] evaporates rather quickly. If morals are simply what society or the individual makes of them, then things like courts, prisons, and general personal security go out the window, since any suggestion that morals are "subjective" implies that there is [are you ready for this?] no benchmark by which to identify whether the actions of a certain individual were right or wrong. If you're going to tell me that this benchmark does exist, then you've just admitted that morality is Objective. Objectivity requires absolutes which is necessary if you're going to say something like "firebombing an Embassy over a cartoon is ridiculous," which every rational person should already know. Just because they think its right sure as shit doesn't make it so. Morality is not dictated to us by whatever the armed mob on Capitol Hill happens to think about it: it is a universal force from which no man can abstain.
Is it through? Does the universe punish those who are not moral? Chairman Mao killed millions, he died peacefully in bed (surounded by very cute Chinese girls I'm told). The Rev. Dr. Martian Luther King Jr. was killed by an assasin's bullet. Was this fair/moral?

SHOW me morality, Dark Lord. SHOW me that it actually exists. Yes, there is no such benchmark for "things like courts, prisons, and general personal security", beyond what we decide or set. And again, the deciding factor is what the majority of the people decide. If they have force of strength, they will be considered "right" or moral.

However, the modern subjectivist movement is nothing more than people pretending to pay lip service to the Primacy of Existence, while suggesting that morality is a "social construct" and therefore anyone who follows an erroneous one [oh wait, there are no "erroneous" moralities except for Capitalism! Silly me...] is merely a helpless victim of his neighbors. In essence, the Subjecivist is suggesting that reality ["x is right, y is wrong"] is dictated to us by our government or some other agent rather than by our own senses and cognitive volition, which is tantamount to the advocacy of the Primacy of Consciousness.
Addressing this idea, let's look at the famous moral test devised by Lawrence Kohlberg:

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. the drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from if." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

1. Should Heinz steal the drug?
1a. Why or why not?

2. Is it actually right or wrong for him to steal the drug?

2a. Why is it right or wrong?

3. Does Heinz have a duty or obligation to steal the drug?

3a. Why or why not?

4. If Heinz doesn't love his wife, should he steal the drug for her? Does it make a difference in what Heinz should do whether or not he loves his wife?

4a. Why or why not?

5. Suppose the person dying is not his wife but a stranger. Should Heinz steal the drug for the stranger?

5a. Why or why not?

6. Suppose it's a pet animal he loves. should Heinz steal to save the pet animal?

6a. Why or why not?

7. Is it important for people to do everything they can to save another's life?

7a. Why or why not?

8. It is against the law for Heinz to steal. Does that make it morally wrong?

8a. Why or why not?

9. In general, should people try to do everything they can to obey the law?

9a. Why or why not?

9b. How does this apply to what Heinz should do?

10. In thinking back over the dilemma, what would you say is the most responsible thing for Heinz to do?

10a. Why?
Now then, a moral answer is (depending on your point of view) that it is right for Heinz to steal the drug as the right to life should trump the right to make excessive profit. The drug maker being a miser and all. However, when the theft is discovered, the law states that Heinz should be arrested. He may be right, but the strength of the society that he lives in triumps over such moral considerations. Who is right here? Whomever is stronger.

Wait a second, what? It "has no real capacity" to deal with moral issues at all? Oh wait, you reneged: except at pointing out inconsistencies.

Er... that's what Logic does. Swing and a miss.

The point is that it cannot outline its own system.

Sure, you can point out that certain combinations of moral propositions - "all human beings are equal on a moral level" and "black human beings are morally superior to white human beings" - are contradictory.

But you can't prove either proposition, nor can you, independently of the other, prove either false.

Good = That which acts to advance or further life.

Evil = That which acts to hinder or destroy it.
That's pretty broad, isn't it?

In a nutshell? Here it goes.

Presuppositions:


Value is impossible without life [since inanimate objects cannot value things].
Life, therefore, must be the root of all values.
Morality deals with whether these values are attained [through virtuous action] and upheld or not.

Good = That which acts to advance or further life.

Evil = That which acts to hinder or destroy it.

The reason for this is because no values can exist under Evil; in an environment where life is impossible, so is value and therefore morality. Conversely, where life is promoted and thought [which in most cases is hopefully a part of life] encouraged, values can be acheived.
Then what happens if two lives are in the balance? Where is the good and where is the evil?

Example (From my philosophy class FYI), you're lost in the jungles of South America. After wandering for a bit, you end up in a small village that currently is being visited by the local military. They have rounded up, at random, some of the men from the village and are planning to kill them as an example to the local rebels.

The captain, however, is overjoyed to find a (Insert your nationality here) in the village. He's a big fan of your country, you see. He desides that in honor of your visit, he will let most of the people go. He hands you the rifle and asks you to shoot or point out one person from the men to die and the rest will be freed.

However, if you don't do so, he warns, Pedro here will give the order to kill them all.

Now the villagers have heard this and are muttering that you should pick one and shoot him. The victims are also nodding as well, but no one is steping up to die.

What is your choice? How do you advance life and how do you make a decision that is absolutly moral in this case?

Bottom line: if morality itself [and not just the laws that claim to base themselves on it] is actually subjective, judgement is impossible.

no, it isn't. we judge things by subjective standards all the time. objective judgement, yeah. but that isn't the judgement in question.

your original statement literally said that if society is what decides is moral, then society can't decide what is moral. and that's just silly.

No, it's not something else at all, the two concepts are identical and no breach can exist between them. If, for example, morality is absolute, it can't be subjective because it's there, you can point to it and say "x is wrong because of this."

Moral subjectivism cannot survive with absolutes, and moral Objectivism likewise cannot survive without them. The very basis of Subjectivism and Objectivism deals with moral absolutes or the lack thereof. Moral Subjectivism presupposes that moral values are not absolute, and moral Objectivism contends that they are.

you are confusing the statement "there are no absolutes" with the statement "there are no objective moral facts" or "moral statements lack truth values". you have confused moral absolutes for empirical or logical ones.

the ethical subjectivist can absolutely hold that there are absolutely no moral facts with absolutely no contradiction to their position.

no, it isn't. we judge things by subjective standards all the time. objective judgement, yeah. but that isn't the judgement in question.

to expand slightly - if musical taste is subjective, then your band still sucks.

Value is impossible without life [since inanimate objects cannot value things].

i'd probably agree, but that is actually a contentious position. after all, it might just be the case that living beings merely recognize value that already exists in the world whether they are around or not. and this position isn't too strange, considering your side is the one holding that there are moral facts the exist in some form out in the universe somewhere.

Personally, I think it is not life that should be valued, by the enjoyment derived from life. For this reason, I would have no qualms about killing an incurably depressive person who wants to die, or a terminally ill person, etc.

Then what happens if two lives are in the balance? Where is the good and where is the evil?

I'd pick the person who would least contribute to humanity to die.

Morality is a construct of humanity. Therefore, it is objective, but its objectivity lies in the subjective moral agreement of the human majorty

I'd pick the person who would least contribute to humanity to die.
And how do you judge that, being unable to see into the future?

Ultimately, the only thing that matters to our lives is to reproduce.
;)

And how do you judge that, being unable to see into the future?

I'd make the best guess possible. If I know one is a famous doctor, I'd pick him/her. If I don't know either, I pick the youngest. And if it was between two equally young men/women, I'd pick the man. If I absolutely couldn't differentiate, I'd flip a coin. :)

I'd make the best guess possible. If I know one is a famous doctor, I'd pick him/her. If I don't know either, I pick the youngest. And if it was between two equally young men/women, I'd pick the man. If I absolutely couldn't differentiate, I'd flip a coin. :)
For the situation here, there's about 10 men. They range from 18 and a bachlor to 40 and married with children. They are all farmers or simple craftsmen.

Now what?

For the situation here, there's about 10 men. They range from 18 and a bachlor to 40 and married with children. They are all farmers or simple craftsmen.

Now what?

Assuming that all craftsmen can become decent farmers, but not all farmers can become decent craftsmen, I'd pick the youngest craftsman.

Assuming that all craftsmen can become decent farmers, but not all farmers can become decent craftsmen, I'd pick the youngest craftsman.
Well, I know a few farmers who'd argue that with you, but... ;)

Any case, what is your reasoning behind your choice and why is it moral?

Well, I know a few farmers who'd argue that with you, but... ;)

Any case, what is your reasoning behind your choice and why is it moral?

Well, craftsmen are necessary for upholding a certain standard of life (chairs, tables, bowls, etc.) while farmers simply provide the food. If there is a lack of food, a craftsman could always take up the job of a farmer to support his community. But if a plague killed all the craftsmen, there would be no new chairs, tables, etc. But really, it depends on a lot of factors. For example, if there were more craftsmen than farmers, or if food was in short supply, or if there was a surplus of tables, if the craftsman was a pyschopath, etc., that could affect my decision.

Well, craftsmen are necessary for upholding a certain standard of life (chairs, tables, bowls, etc.) while farmers simply provide the food. If there is a lack of food, a craftsman could always take up the job of a farmer to support his community. But if a plague killed all the craftsmen, there would be no new chairs, tables, etc. But really, it depends on a lot of factors. For example, if there were more craftsmen than farmers, or if food was in short supply, or if there was a surplus of tables, if the craftsman was a pyschopath, etc., that could affect my decision.
Ok, and why can weighing one life against another baised upon age and if the village has enough tables and chairs be considered moral?

Ok, and why can weighing one life against another baised upon age and if the village has enough tables and chairs be considered moral?

Because you have nothing else to base it upon, and there isn't a more moral answer if you can't predict the future.

In a nutshell? Here it goes.

Presuppositions:


Value is impossible without life [since inanimate objects cannot value things].
Life, therefore, must be the root of all values.
Morality deals with whether these values are attained [through virtuous action] and upheld or not.

Good = That which acts to advance or further life.

Evil = That which acts to hinder or destroy it.

The reason for this is because no values can exist under Evil; in an environment where life is impossible, so is value and therefore morality. Conversely, where life is promoted and thought [which in most cases is hopefully a part of life] encouraged, values can be acheived.

Life is not a value, it is neccesary for valueing.
Saying that life is the root of value because it must be possesed first is like saying that wood is the first best fire simply because it is neccesary to cause fire (please don't expound on my metaphore with oil and shit). If life is the ultimate value, that all value is futile; all will die sometime. If this was true than so many cultures wouldn't value martyrdom, or the warrior spirit.

More bad logic:
IQ is the root of all value; without a certain intellect no valuing could occur.
Senses are the root of all valueing, without some knowledge of the universe around us no valueing could occur.

A prerequisite cause is destinct from its affect.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it Ayn Rand.

Bingo.

Ultimately, the only thing that matters to our lives is to reproduce. It's probably a good bet to say that we have some inherent feeling for what is right and what is wrong, based on trying to preserve the species. How that came about though, I don't know. That's the part where one might almost need some sort of creating intelligence.

But if such a pre-programmed morality exists, it does not show itself through reason. I can sit here for my entire life, and read philosophers again and again, and think and think, and I would still not be able to define what is right and what is wrong, universally and for everyone.

I'm not even saying that there can't be definitions of good and evil somewhere out there. There might be.
But the point is that we can't find them anymore than we can find god. The world we live in is amoral. There's gravity, and there's electromagnetism, but there is no good and evil.

Humans can deal with that, we have so far. Generally some sort of consensus has been reached through laws and traditions, which change over time as people's opinions change.

But unless you sit down in front of your PC and prove to me what is good and what is evil, and don't require me to follow various assumptions or your belief system to do it, you can't expect moral arguments to carry any real-world weight outside a philosophy class.

Not that any of this matters in real life, because if you see someone do something both your emotions, your experiences and your reasoning tell you to be wrong, you react accordingly. We don't require a universal moral code to be judgemental.

Well said. Remember that the reproduction is all that matters to our genes, and not to ourselves though, I think you know that though, I'm just clarifying.

Simply put, if morality is subjective then there can be no such thing as right or wrong. Why? Well because then, all morality would be is the product of your position in space and time. Which means that at the moment of the holocaust in 1940's it was "right" to kill all those Jews because the subjective morality of the German government believed it was right. Thus the other nations had no business ending it and there was no moral legitamacy in either its begining or its ending.

Feel free to stick with the subjective ones if you wish, but I vastly prefer basing my ethics, politics, and morals on facts rather than whims, on knowledge rather than feeling, and to the best of my ability rather than resigning myself as being "just a human" and therefore "unable" to grasp the true nature of reality.

When you say that [moral] Judgement is "impossible" through some objective lens, you're more or less admitting that true knowledge of the issue cannot be attained by humankind, which is just a boring retread of the same shit they try to shove down your throat in Catholic school. Sorry, but I don't buy that garbage when it's on either side of the aisle: either coming from religious fundamentalists or the "progressives" that profess to so vigorously oppose them.

I believe knowledge is possible. I believe I can [and have] come to legitimate conclusions about reality. I believe every person ought to be capable of the same feat. Just think.

Yay!

Morality is a construct of humanity. Therefore, it is objective, but its objectivity lies in the subjective moral agreement of the human majorty

Rediculous. The majority decision does not make it morally correct. The majority decision of the Germans in the 1940's up till the end of the second world war was that the Holocaust was right. Majority decision in morality counts for nothing. If many people believe a foolish thing, it is still foolish.

Simply put, if morality is subjective then there can be no such thing as right or wrong. Why? Well because then, all morality would be is the product of your position in space and time. Which means that at the moment of the holocaust in 1940's it was "right" to kill all those Jews because the subjective morality of the German government believed it was right. Thus the other nations had no business ending it and there was no moral legitamacy in either its begining or its ending.
But if Germany had won, would the majority still feel it was wrong?

It's subjectve because their morality said it was ok, we said it was not. Ours proved the stronger of the two, therefore we're right.

There's a great many things that have been one throughout history that is viewed as being right, just because they won.

But if Germany had won, would the majority still feel it was wrong?

It's subjectve because their morality said it was ok, we said it was not. Ours proved the stronger of the two, therefore we're right.

There's a great many things that have been one throughout history that is viewed as being right, just because they won.

So might makes right? Is that what your saying. So what if the Germans had won? Would that make killing/enslaving/experimenting on every non Aryan in the world right?

If morality is subjective then one person or nation has no right to interfere in anything another nation does, including genocide. Since it is obviously that nations morality to kill its own people in the way that it does. Our morality may say diffrent, but if morality is subjective, what right do we have to stop them?

Our morality may say diffrent, but if morality is subjective, what right do we have to stop them?
Why do we need a right? If we think it is wrong, and whoever is stronger gets to decide, then we can make it wrong by force, can't we?

Proposition number three is ridiculous because Hume was batshit crazy. Where the hell did he get the idea that humans act on feeling over logic? I'm sure we do it sometimes [especially when dealing with women, or renting videos] but when it comes to moral decision making, feeling is an inadequate barometer for our decisions for one big reason and a whole slew of smaller ones: we do not discern the nature of reality via emotions, therefore we can come to no conclusions about it using only our "feeling" or emotional faculties. To make a moral decision based on feeling is to throw any pretense of justice out the window. In order to make a moral decision, one must evaluate and interpret the data or object against a standard of values [be they legitimate or illegitimate ones]. Moral decisions are not made on feeling. Scratch that: they shouldn't be.


Hmm, Hume was not batshit crazy, your just misinterpreting what he was saying (and maybe the previous poster was too). Hume was not saying we always make moral decisions using emotions, but that we make reasoned decisions because of emotions. This is not because reason does not exist apart from feeling, but because were it not for some motivation (feeling) we would not care about reasoning or morality at all. In other words, its not that we make decisions on emotion and then try to rationalise them, its that we have emotion and then we reason to maximise our effectiveness in attaining what we care about, capiche?
Rouseu was the batshit crazy one, literally he was actually insane, Hume stayed with him a while, but Rouseu began to think Hume was out to get him and crazy stuff, so Hume took off in a hurry.

Why do we need a right? If we think it is wrong, and whoever is stronger gets to decide, then we can make it wrong by force, can't we?

So your saying might makes right. Ok, if someone is strong enough to overpower hospital guards and kill all the old people in a hospital and then escape the authorties and flee to northern cyprus from where extradition is impossible due to the UN not recognising the Turkish invasion, does that make that man "right" in killing those people. Because he was able to do it and avoid retrebution?

What your basicly saying here is that all human history could be re-written to allow completely opposite concepts to what we have now having power and it would be equally right. The soviets could have won the cold war and authoritarian communism would have spread throught the world and it would be as "right" a system as the current strengrt of Liberal democratic capitalism. What that then says is that there is no value of Liberal democratic capitalism above authoriatarian communism, if they both would be equally right had either of them come to power. Hence there is no value in either over the other. The same is true of the holocaust and Nazisim. If the Germans had somehow managed to win, then Nazisim would be "right" and its equally right a system as is what we have now. Hence neither one has any value over the other. Hence they are both equall. Hence neither has any true value, except force. So you are agreeing with Mao. Power extends from the barral of a gun, even if the person holding the gun is a very nice person and only wants to enforce nice things.

...does that make that man "right" in killing those people. Because he was able to do it and avoid retrebution?
Not in my opinion. But that's the point - it's my opinion.

I just don't think that there is some universal good or evil independently of me and my beliefs. And even if there was, we could never tell.

So might makes right? Is that what your saying. So what if the Germans had won? Would that make killing/enslaving/experimenting on every non Aryan in the world right?
Well, I wouldn't think so, but does it matter what I happen to think about it if I cannot back up my moral assumption?

Morals work because people agree with them or to them. If we didn't agree with them, then they wouldn't work at all. Some Nazi's thought it was moral and reasonable to kill Jews, most of the rest of the world disgreed with them. There was no divine provence that stoped them. The Hand of God did not part the clouds and zap Hitler. Germany was not swallowed up by an earthquake. So you cannot point out that there was some objective law that was broken and Germany was therefore punished for what it had done.

Yes, might makes right, for a given value of right, and unfortunately, humans chose the value of right.

If morality is subjective then one person or nation has no right to interfere in anything another nation does, including genocide. Since it is obviously that nations morality to kill its own people in the way that it does. Our morality may say diffrent, but if morality is subjective, what right do we have to stop them?
That's the problem, we don't. There is no right. However, if it offends our moral system, we may react according to our moral system. Should we prove the stronger in whatever it is we're using to wage war with, then our morals were 'right'.

It sucks, but I have yet to see anything, from acts of God to karmatic retrobution that shows those who are evil are punished without the direct intervention of mankind. Since man therefore has to choose, and never have we chosen consistantly, morals must be subjective.

Or to toss your example on its head, if killing the Jews was wrong as in an absolute objective law, why was it ok for the Allies to kill German children in bombing raids?

What your basicly saying here is that all human history could be re-written to allow completely opposite concepts to what we have now having power and it would be equally right.
Exactly.

So you are agreeing with Mao. Power extends from the barral of a gun, even if the person holding the gun is a very nice person and only wants to enforce nice things.
Ultimately, yes. That's the way nature works.

Usually these days we can be better than that, by defining a common set of rules for humans to follow, but it all comes down in the end to who has the power to punish.

Well, I wouldn't think so, but does it matter what I happen to think about it if I cannot back up my moral assumtion?

Morals work because people agree with them or to them. If we didn't agree with them, then they wouldn't work at all. Some Nazi's thought it was moral and reasonable to kill Jews, most of the rest of the world disgreed with them. There was no divine provence that stoped them. The Hand of God did not part the clouds and zap Hitler. Germany was not swallowed up by an earthquake. So you cannot point out that there was some objective law that was broken and Germany was therefore punished for what it had done.

I did not say that God would have stopped them. Nor did I say that the premise of an objective moral law means that evil will be stoped by God. But what I am saying is that the idea of no objective moral law is ludicrous. Read C.S.Lewis's "Mere Christianity" for further understanding.

Morals working because people agreeing with them does not make a set of morals "right". If people agree with a set of morals that means that one racial group should be subserviant to another, does that make it right?


Yes, might makes right, for a given value of right, and unfortunately, humans chose the value of right.

That's the problem, we don't. There is no right. However, if it offends our moral system, we may react according to our moral system. Should we prove the stronger in whatever it is we're using to wage war with, then our morals were 'right'.

So what if the opposite moral had proven stronger. What if the Cold war had been won by the soviets. Would that have meant that authoritarian communism was right. Or what about religion. For the sake of arguement, lets suppose Christianity is right, but it dies down with the breading rate of Muslims. Does that mean that Islam becomes "right".


It sucks, but I have yet to see anything, from acts of God to karmatic retrobution that shows those who are evil are punhished without the direct intervention of mankind. Since man therefore has to choose, and never have we chosen consistantly, morals must be subjective.

So you think that if morals are objective, God rewards the rightous and punishes the evil. Ok, let me just show you what kind of world that would be if it were true.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/natevl.html][/url]
- Almost no one could win the $3 million dollar state lottery.
- EVERY flip of a coin would have to go to the most 'virtuous' person(!)
- The good would NEVER die first (or young).
- Hospitals would only be full of 'evil' people (and so why fund them, eh?)
- A twin that died one day earlier than another twin, would have to have been 'less good'.
- Smashing your thumb with a hammer would be reserved for the more evil...(and accordingly, skill and talent would have been 'deserved')
- Earthquakes only hit the evil cities, and ALL 'evil cities' MUST get earthquakes...
- All MINOR illnesses would be 'intelligent'--chickenpox would only infect the 'bad students' and not 'the good students' in a schoolroom (for example)...
- Those doing 'evil' acts would never live long enough to 'change their ways' [and so most of us would have died in our adolescence-including ME! ]...
- Forgiveness can NEVER occur--the evil would die before that.

Thats just rediculous. The logic of objective morality does not require that God interviene every day in order to maintain the position of the good and the bad

There is another problem with your idea of desevedness in morality.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/natevl.html][/url]
We also don't really think about these events as being on a spectrum. For example, if a hurricane is undeserved, is a windstorm? If a windstorm, is a strong breeze that blows my papers out of my hand? If a strong breeze, is a weak breeze that doesn't cool me any (and so I am uncomfortably warm in the bus station)? If weak breeze, is no breeze, so my wind chimes don't make those sweet sounds that I like?

The point is--events scale. If one argues that hurricanes and earthquakes have to be 'deserved', then they are inconsistent if they do not extend that to ALL events--however mild. And this would be an VERY difficult position to defend

So what does objective morality require as a belief. Well not the intervention of God in events nessecarly. Well what then? Well the intervention of God in our minds. For more infomation, read "Mere Christianity" the opening chapter explains this best.


Or to toss your example on its head, if killing the Jews was wrong as in an absolute objective law, why was it ok for the Allies to kill German children in bombing raids?

At what point did I say that everything the Allies did was morally right? You said that when you said that might makes right

Furthermore, life makes possible all values - not merely your approved ones. "Evil" values are just as dependent on life as "good" ones are. Nor is there any logical contradiction to values springing from a certain life opposing other instances of life. Firstly, the assumption that things have an obligation to their creator is a "moral fact" that you have not proven. Secondly, just because one person's values are dependent on that person's life does not mean that that person should not destroy other people's lives - especially if the values springing forth from those lives are opposed to the values springing forth from his.
Read my post again. I acknowledge [quite clearly] in black-and-white letters on your screen--in English, the language we both seem to be speaking--that life is the root of all values. Determining which values are good ones and which aren't wasn't the purpose of that excersize.

Also, I don't know precisely what "things" have "obgligations" to their "creators," but its readily apparent to me that you're coming to some pretty ridciulous conclusions about what I wrote.

Exactly.


Right. So you have just thrown away your rights to believe in anything, at all, ever

After all everything has exactly equal value. Nothing has an arguement over the other. You cannot legitamately say that libereal democratic capitalism is any better than authoritarian communism. The only reason you think that (if you do think that) is that liberal democratic capitalism won the cold war. Just because it did that, it doesnt make it any better or worse than authoratrian communism. Nor can you say that the holocaust was evil. The only reason you would say that is that the allies ulitmately ended the holocaust. If the Germans had won the second world war, the holocaust would have continued and expanded, and you would believe that was right. The only reason you believe it is wrong is the way history played out. So you cannot say the holocaust was evil. Everything is exactly equal if you accept that had history played out diffrently, the values would have been equally right to ours.

Right. So you have just thrown away your rights to believe in anything, at all, ever
Why? Because I don't think things have a universal value, outside that which I personally put on them?

After all everything has exactly equal value.
Not to me it doesn't. I'm an individual, I can put a moral value on things. I can think something is wrong, and something else is right.

Nothing has an arguement over the other. You cannot legitamately say that libereal democratic capitalism is any better than authoritarian communism. The only reason you think that (if you do think that) is that liberal democratic capitalism won the cold war. Just because it did that, it doesnt make it any better or worse than authoratrian communism.
Sure I can. It's better at creating goods and services. It wasn't moral reasons that brought down the USSR, there were measurable economic reasons, as well as political ones.

Could you put the thread question into plain, simple English, please?

But if Germany had won, would the majority still feel it was wrong?

probably

Could you put the thread question into plain, simple English, please?

Does morality exist in and of itself, or is it determined by the individual and/or culture?

The second and third questions are basically asking the same thing: how do you know?

Edit: *invokes the easy "agnostic" copout*: I assume it exists in and of itself (being a believer in reason and empiricism), but I don't know for sure. Ultimately, I don't see how it really matters.

Could you put the thread question into plain, simple English, please?

the question is basically whether there is some universal set of moral rules that has an independent existence, or if moral rules only exist because individuals and cultures create them.

Read my post again. I acknowledge [quite clearly] in black-and-white letters on your screen--in English, the language we both seem to be speaking--that life is the root of all values. Determining which values are good ones and which aren't wasn't the purpose of that excersize.

Irrelevant.

If "Evil" is "evil" because it eliminates the possibility of "Good," then it must also be seen as "Good" because it eliminates the possibility of itself.

Also, I don't know precisely what "things" have "obgligations" to their "creators," but its readily apparent to me that you're coming to some pretty ridciulous conclusions about what I wrote.

Let's try this again.

You assume that because values spring from life, logical values must support life. There is no purely logical basis for this. It is, in fact, a moral assumption, one you are using to make the jump that logic itself cannot make - from what is real to what should be real.

You also are recklessly over-generalizing, something you try to get away with by being as vague in your terms as possible. Just because an individual human being has certain values, dependent on that individual human being having life, does not mean that that individual human being should not destroy other people's lives and other people's values.

Let's try this again.

You assume that because values spring from life, logical values must support life. There is no purely logical basis for this. It is, in fact, a moral assumption, one you are using to make the jump that logic itself cannot make - from what is real to what should be real.

it's ok, ayn rand fucked this up too, so he's in good company.

Why? Because I don't think things have a universal value, outside that which I personally put on them?

Yes. You see you accepted that liberal democarcy is the equivlent of authoriatian socialism by accepting that if history turned out diffrently and the soviets won the cold war you would think that authoritarian socialism was right. The only reason you put the values on those things that you do is (according to your logic) the enviroment that you exist in. If you accept that if history played out diffrnely, the dominant ideologies would be equally right as the current dominant ideologies, then you accept that neither ideology has anything other than the power to enforce itself upon people that makes it right.


Not to me it doesn't. I'm an individual, I can put a moral value on things. I can think something is wrong, and something else is right.

Sure I can. It's better at creating goods and services. It wasn't moral reasons that brought down the USSR, there were measurable economic reasons, as well as political ones

But the only reason you think those things is (according to might makes right) the way in which events in history have played out. Not the rightness or wrongness of the beliefs themselves. If you accept that if history played out diffrently all the ideologies that become dominant are just as right as the ones we have now, then you accept that the only thing that makes an ideology right or wrong is the power that ideology has behind itself to enforce itself on people

I did not say that God would have stopped them. Nor did I say that the premise of an objective moral law means that evil will be stoped by God. But what I am saying is that the idea of no objective moral law is ludicrous. Read C.S.Lewis's "Mere Christianity" for further understanding.
Let us look at the ideas of laws then. Laws, in a very lose scientific term, means a set of constants that cannot be broken, except in some very extreme circumstances. You cannot, for example, break the laws of gravity. The universe slaps you back down should you attempt to.

Laws, in the judicial sense, are a society's way of keeping order, if you violate them, you MAY be punished based upon a wide range of factors, including if you get caught, if the DA decides to go ahead with your case, if you are actually convicted, and so on.

The first set of laws are objective, the second are subjective. Since the universe (God or whatever your ultimate authority figure is) does not prevent breaking of the laws, or punish the breaking of the laws, you can hardly state they are objective. If a law is objective, but can be violated freely, what is the point? It's like laws on the books that no one bothers to enforce, why have them?

Morals working because people agreeing with them does not make a set of morals "right". If people agree with a set of morals that means that one racial group should be subserviant to another, does that make it right?
And at one point in time, the US South could point out Bible passages that supported slavery as their moral authority.

Let me make this simpler then, why do you bother to form lines? Wouldn't it be easier to push ahead and get what you want? So why stand in line? Because everyone else has agreed to stand in line and those who do not are (hopefully) punished.

However, sometimes they are not. Their behavior is instead rewarded. So standing in line is subjective, but it works because most of us agree to it.

So what if the opposite moral had proven stronger. What if the Cold war had been won by the soviets. Would that have meant that authoritarian communism was right. Or what about religion. For the sake of arguement, lets suppose Christianity is right, but it dies down with the breading rate of Muslims. Does that mean that Islam becomes "right".
The Muslims believe they are right. Who are you to say otherwise? There are communists on this board who believe they are right and capitalists who think they are right. Whoever wins in the end makes the "right" way till the next "right" way. Currently republican democracy is the ascendant political system. Does that make it right? The United States is the most powerful nation in the world, but the United Kingdom, under a queen, ruled far more than the US ever did. Genghis Khan, Imperial Rome, Alexander the Great and China have ruled far larger empires, and in Rome and China's case, far longer than the US has been around as a nation. So which is better?

It depends on your point of view at the time.

So you think that if morals are objective, God rewards the rightous and punishes the evil. Ok, let me just show you what kind of world that would be if it were true.
And you prove my point. Again, if it was hard objectiveness, the objectiveness of science where what is IS, not what you wish it to be, perhaps it would be so. Or perhaps not.

Thats just rediculous. The logic of objective morality does not require that God interviene every day in order to maintain the position of the good and the bad
Then show me the logic of objectiveness. I've been waiting for someone to show me how, logically and not because we want it to be, an objective system that does not have consequences can actually exist.

So what does objective morality require as a belief. Well not the intervention of God in events nessecarly. Well what then? Well the intervention of God in our minds. For more infomation, read "Mere Christianity" the opening chapter explains this best.
This would work, IF all societies operated via guilt, but Asian societies use public shame for control. And what about those who have never heard of the Bible, are they moral, or not?

Yes. You see you accepted that liberal democarcy is the equivlent of authoriatian socialism by accepting that if history turned out diffrently and the soviets won the cold war you would think that authoritarian socialism was right.
Objectively, yes. If I was a third player, outside the world and unbiased, and I looked at the two, I couldn't make a moral decision on which is better. I could however make a decision on which one is more effective at attaining its goals - but if the Soviets had won the Cold War, it would have been them.

...you accept that the only thing that makes an ideology right or wrong is the power that ideology has behind itself to enforce itself on people
Yeah, I think I said that already.

So what is your problem with that?

in direct reply to the first post:

Maybe it doesn't have to be purely subjective, maybe it can be transcendentally subjective... Maybe, in line of Kant's thinking there is some universally human morality, a basis of sorts... To have purely subjective morality is in line with nihilism. There is an attraction to the "strong" kind of a purely subjective morality that is not based on dogma and/or strict belief, but I do believe that, somewhere a foundation must lie for all that we perceive as morally good or evil... Things have to come from somewhere, and something that is either a written or unwritten present in all human behaviour has to draw it's power and validation from somewhere. Morality may be a human construct for purposes biological or evolutionary, but a construct can transcend pure subjective reasoning, emotional life and behaviour

it's ok, ayn rand fucked this up too, so he's in good company.

Immanuel Kant made similar errors, so did Simone de Beauvoir. Melkor Unchained is in the company - I don't know whether or not it is "good" - of a large portion of the modern philosophers who tried to rationally prove moral systems.

Let us look at the ideas of laws then. Laws, an a very lose scientific term, means a set of constants that cannot be broken, except in some very extream circumstances. You cannot, for example, break the laws of gravity. The universe slaps you back down should you attempt to.

Laws, in the judical sence, are a soceity's way of keeping order, if you violate them, you MAY be punished based upon a wide range of factors, including if you get caught, if the DA decides to go ahead with your case, if you are actually convicted, and so on.

The first set of laws are objective, the second are subjective. Since the universe (God or whatever your ultimate athority figure is) does not prevent breaking of the laws, or punish the breaking of the laws, you can hardly state they are objective. If a law is objective, but can be violated freely, what is the point? It's like laws on the books that no one bothers to enforce, why have them?

Laws exist, but that doesnt mean that people obey them all the time. If you read mere Christianity it explains this. The first part of the book isnt dedicacted to Chrisitanity itself, but to the notion of moral absolutes. They exist in our minds, in that we know what they are. But the fact remains that we do not always obey them for a miriad of reasons. C.S.Lewis starts this off by looking at quarreling. People will always quarrel and disagree about minor things and major things. But look at what they do when they do it. They are always attmepting to appeal to some kind of moral standard. The other side tries to avoid this by saying that there is a special excption to the rule, or that there is a greater violation of the standard at stake. Read the book. It deals with Christianity in the entirtiy of its picture, but in the first section, it deals with why absolute morality makes sense.



And at one point in time, the US South could point out Bible passages that supported slavery as their moral athority.

No. They could interpret the verses to support slavery.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative6March2001.asp


Let me make this simpler then, why do you bother to form lines? Wuldn't it be easier to push ahead and get what you want? So why stand in line? Because everyone else has agreed to stand in line and those who do not are (hopefully) punished.

A very simplistic arguemnet. How about this. Why do strong people form lines. They could just as easily push to the front. Would they then be "right" for pushing. Becase since the managed it and might makes right, doesnt that make them "right"?


However, sometimes they are not. Their behavore is instead rewarded. So standing in line is subjective, but it works because most of us agree to it.

Well hey, Facisim "worked" in Germany untill the outbreak of WW2. Hitler revived Germany amazingly.


The Muslims believe they are right. Who are you to say otherwise? There are communists on this board who believe they are right, and capitolist who think they are right. Whomever wins in the end makes the "right" way till the next "right" way. Currently republican democracy is the assendant politcal system. Does that make it right? The United States is the most powerful nation in the world, but the United Kingdom, under a queen, ruled far more than the US ever did. Genhis Khan, Imperial Rome, Alexandar the Great, and China have ruled far larger empires, and in Rome and China's case, far longer than the US has been around as a nation. So which is better?

It depends on your point of view at the time.

You miss my point. What I am saying is that if you accept that if history produced a diffrent outcome, and say Facism was the dominant ideology in the worlds most powerful nations, and you then accept that Facisim is equally "right" in that reality as is liberal democracy in ours, you must then accept that there is nothing inherriantly wrong with facsim and that the only rightness or wrongness of an ideology comes down to the power used to enforce it.


And you prove my point. Again, if it was hard objectiveness, the objectiveness of science where what is IS, not what you wish it to be, perhaps it would be so. Or perhaps not

Then show me the logic of objectiveness. I've been waiting for someone to show me how, logcially and not because we want it to be, an objctive system that does not have consequences can actually exist.

Morals are not like Gravity. We can choose not to obey them. We can even choose to create a system around not obeying them. However that does not mean we do not know within ourselves what is right and wrong.


Which would work, IF all societies oberated via guilt. But Asian societies use publich shame for control. And what about those who have never heard of the Bible, are they moral, or not?

Dont assume you know what the book is talking about before reading it. Read the book first.

Yeah, I think I said that already.

So what is your problem with that?

Its quite simmple. It means that whatever is done is morally right. For example if I have the power to kill someone and then kill all of those who would attempt to punish me for the killing, by the logic of the rightness of an action being based on its ability to enforce itself, that action is right.

In other words if you were to kill a baby and the mother objected to stop you and you killed the mother, and anyone else who was able to tell anyone and then managed to destroy any and all evidence linking the killings to you, you would be morrally right in your actions because the powers and resocrces you have have enforced those actions sucessfully

It means that whatever is done is morally right.
No, it means that it is neither right nor wrong.

The world is amoral. If a lion kills a zebra, that's neither right nor wrong. It just so happens. We're just glorified animals, why should we be any different?

Immanuel Kant made similar errors, so did Simone de Beauvoir. Melkor Unchained is in the company - I don't know whether or not it is "good" - of a large portion of the modern philosophers who tried to rationally prove moral systems.

yeah. i singled out ayn cause that's where he's paraphrasing from. and she does it so openly and badly.

However that does not mean we do not know within ourselves what is right and wrong.

and what of where our moral intuitions disagree?

No, it means that it is neither right nor wrong.

The world is amoral. If a lion kills a zebra, that's neither right nor wrong. It just so happens. We're just glorified animals, why should we be any different?

So in that case the holocaust was neither wrong nor right
The Marshall plan was neither wrong nor right
Ghandi was neither good nor evil
Hitler was neither good nor evil

That is rediculous. What you are saying is that something is right based on the power it has to assert itself. Not that nothing is wrong or right. That is what you and all those here opposed to me stated before now. If nothing is right or wrong then surely anyone is justified in doing anything to anyone else they like. Since nothing is wrong or right. No one can enforce anything. The only enforcement comes from the barral of a gun. Thus I can kill you and it has no moral consequences so why does anyone have a right to prosecute me?

So if actions are neither good nor evil then why do the concepts even exist in our minds at all? If we are just glorified Zebras why do we come up with these advanced concepts of good and evil which are evolutionarly disadvantageous. I dont know if you've noticed but the exceptionally "good" person in our society doesnt seem to prosper. Its useally the exceptionally "bad"

and what of where our moral intuitions disagree?

Read the passage on quarreling in the first chapter of C.S.Lewis's "mere Christianity". It explains the answer to your question

morality should be subjective. the right or wrong thing to do depends entirely on the situation. For example, you can say killing is wrong, but if you had met hitler, it would have been your moral obligation to kill him to save others. Western civilization has set up objective morals, relics of 1950's closeminded thinking, but really morality just depends on what the situation is. Life is too crazy to set any kind of standard for it.

What you are saying is that something is right based on the power it has to assert itself. Not that nothing is wrong or right. That is what you and all those here opposed to me stated before now.
Right and wrong are empty words. All you have to tell whether or not something is right is yourself. You can come to one conclusion, someone else comes to another.

I'll ask you to do the same thing I asked Melkor to do. Prove to me what is good and what is evil, using your reason and without requiring me to make your assumptions and follow your belief system.

No one can enforce anything. The only enforcement comes from the barral of a gun.
How is that not consistent with what we see in the real world?

Thus I can kill you and it has no moral consequences so why does anyone have a right to prosecute me?
Because we have elected people to do exactly that.

If we are just glorified Zebras why do we come up with these advanced concepts of good and evil which are evolutionarly disadvantageous.
They aren't. That bit was covered before - not killing other people for example is something that can be quite advantageous to the species as a whole.

I dont know if you've noticed but the exceptionally "good" person in our society doesnt seem to prosper. Its useally the exceptionally "bad"
And Melkor would now tell you to bugger off with your sentimental ideas of good and evil. And he too believes in absolute morality. But in his world, ruthless and selfish people succeed, and rightly so.
To him, ruthlessness and selfishness are virtues. So who's right?

morality should be subjective. the right or wrong thing to do depends entirely on the situation.

Taking a particular action depending on the situation does not indicate that morality is subjective. The particulars of the situation simply dictate which objective morals are or are not applied. Thus, objective morality is perfectly compatible with such situations. Edit: Again, the question being asked here is whether or not morality exists in and of itself.

Read the passage on quarreling in the first chapter of C.S.Lewis's "mere Christianity". It explains the answer to your question

no it doesn't. lewis' claim that cultures don't fundamentally disagree on morality is just false. and a subjective cultural standard explains the tendency of people within the same culture to argue towards a standard at least as well as the existence of some universal one. better, actually, since the standard they have in mind will invariably be their own culture's and not that of some other culture.

when me and somebody from (for example) papua new guinea argue about whether it is morally forbidden or morally required to eat a bit of my recently dead grandpa, we are not arguing about insignificant details of an otherwise identical standard.

Its quite simmple. It means that whatever is done is morally right. For example if I have the power to kill someone and then kill all of those who would attempt to punish me for the killing, by the logic of the rightness of an action being based on its ability to enforce itself, that action is right.

In other words if you were to kill a baby and the mother objected to stop you and you killed the mother, and anyone else who was able to tell anyone and then managed to destroy any and all evidence linking the killings to you, you would be morrally right in your actions because the powers and resocrces you have have enforced those actions sucessfully

Wow. I must say I'm impressed with how many heart-rending 'examples' you can come up with in some sort of bid for a reductio-ad-'isn't-it-horrible'. And vastly ignoring or deviating from the real point of leonstein, nervun et al. in the process.

No amount of 'so you think [this or that particularly horrible event] has no intrinsic moral value' will advance the discussion. Hell, you're asking them what they would think of a nazi dominated world in the event of a ww2 defeat, when they would precisely be, according to their own premisses, wholly different person, educated from a wholly different perspective, with wholly different cultural outlets. Maybe they would still oppose the regime - as would any reasonable person today - but that would still not make of their or the regime's view of morality any a more absolute one.

morality should be subjective. the right or wrong thing to do depends entirely on the situation. For example, you can say killing is wrong, but if you had met hitler, it would have been your moral obligation to kill him to save others. Western civilization has set up objective morals, relics of 1950's closeminded thinking, but really morality just depends on what the situation is. Life is too crazy to set any kind of standard for it.

That is a common mistake people make when they consider this question. They assume that if morality is objective, then it should be clear what choices should be made in any situation. Since it is fairly obvious that what is moral tends to vary depending on the specific situation, many therefore assume that morality is subjective.

This is a flawed view. Our interpretations of morality are what is subjective, not morality itself. I can post almost any moral question on these forums, and it is practically agreed that there will be differing opinions. But that doesn't mean that whether it is actually moral or not is subjective, that means that our interpretations of what is actually moral or not are subjective... which is already fairly obvious, since opinions are what defines subjectivity.

In other words, just because what is moral on a case-by-case basis seems to differ does not mean there are no set "rules" about morality. If there were no set rules, then our ideas of morality would differ to a much greater extent than they do now (I daresay that they would differ infinitely).

But, the rules are there, that is why our interpretations of morality are, on a grand scale, remarkably similar. We are all basing our morals over the one, objective reality... but none of us can see that morality clearly. We see it through our thoughts and our opinions, which are what adds the seemingly subjective layer to morality (which, in the end, has no bearing on the morality itself, just our interpretations of that morality.)

If there were no set rules, then our ideas of morality would differ to a much greater extent than they do now (I daresay that they would differ infinitely).

or, more probably, they would differ to the extent that such difference didn't impact a society's chances of survival too greatly. because while there isn't anything that says it is impossible for it to be moral to kill your friends and family on a whim, any society that might have held that position has long since fallen apart.

other than a few very basic "required in order to have any society at all" ethical standards, the various human cultures have differed enourmously on just about everything. and this doesn't even make those basics objective, merely successful.

Laws exist, but that doesnt mean that people obey them all the time. If you read mere Christianity it explains this. The first part of the book isnt dedicacted to Chrisitanity itself, but to the notion of moral absolutes. They exist in our minds, in that we know what they are. But the fact remains that we do not always obey them for a miriad of reasons.
You dance around my point without actually addressing it. Again, if a law is objective, you CANNOT violate it. If it is subjective, you CAN.

Another way of looking at it is that objectiveness is the same everywhere. However, you have not shown anything that is an objective moral law. We can state the 10 Commandment (ignoring the religious ones), but again, even in the Bible they were not absolutes. Thou Shall Not Kill gets violated, on God's command no less. Thou shall not steal or covet is violated, repeatedly.

Again, show the objective absolutes that cannot be broken, or are punished, or are somehow the same in all cultures.

C.S.Lewis starts this off by looking at quarreling. People will always quarrel and disagree about minor things and major things. But look at what they do when they do it. They are always attmepting to appeal to some kind of moral standard. The other side tries to avoid this by saying that there is a special excption to the rule, or that there is a greater violation of the standard at stake. Read the book. It deals with Christianity in the entirtiy of its picture, but in the first section, it deals with why absolute morality makes sense.
The appeal to a moral standard is the same as the logical fallacy you make here, appeal to authority. And WHICH one is the better one? There are how many denominations of Christianity out there. There are hundreds of not thousands of other religions. There are also non-religious moral philosophies. How shall man choose?

No. They could interpret the verses to support slavery.
My point being that they had moral justification, no matter how repugnant we view it now for their actions. People who wished for women to remain subservient to men had, and have, their own Bible passages as well. You can justify a lot with that book.

A very simplistic arguemnet. How about this. Why do strong people form lines. They could just as easily push to the front. Would they then be "right" for pushing. Becase since the managed it and might makes right, doesnt that make them "right"?
Simple, they form lines from two standpoints. One is the notion of equality/fairness. Combine that with the only REAL moral rule (more on that later) of wanting to be treated equally, they form lines. The other is being unsure of if there is a stronger presence nearby. Their behavior may not be rewarded and they may be pushed back and lose their place in line.

Well hey, Facisim "worked" in Germany untill the outbreak of WW2. Hitler revived Germany amazingly.
Yes, he did. And the people supported him. Which just proves my point, the people believed in what he said, they supported him, so for that time period, his was the right way in Nazi Germany. The rest of the world disagreed and our argument was stronger that theirs.

You miss my point. What I am saying is that if you accept that if history produced a diffrent outcome, and say Facism was the dominant ideology in the worlds most powerful nations, and you then accept that Facisim is equally "right" in that reality as is liberal democracy in ours, you must then accept that there is nothing inherriantly wrong with facsim and that the only rightness or wrongness of an ideology comes down to the power used to enforce it.
Exactly! Is there a good fascism? I don't know, all those systems have been brutal in their own way and have fallen. But the point being, there's no inherent goodness or evilness within a given system, only how they are applied.

Morals are not like Gravity. We can choose not to obey them. We can even choose to create a system around not obeying them. However that does not mean we do not know within ourselves what is right and wrong.
You just proved my point. Gravity is objective, morals are not.

If we KNOW what is right or wrong, why do we continue to do wrong? If it is wrong, how come we are not punished for being wrong?

Try this on for size, here, in a nut shell, is my moral philosophy. It is subjective, and takes everything on a case by case, but it is designed to.

Presumption 1. I am. I think, therefore I am, and all that. I actually exist as a separate person and individual from all other objects and people in this universe.

Presumption 2. I value myself in that I wish to survive and thrive.
Check: Evolution teaches us that all living creatures are driven to live by reproducing and perpetuating the species. Humanity is no different.

From there we move to all people are equal. Genetics has shown that there is less than 2 hundred billionth of a percentile difference between the various "races" and ethnic groups of man. Since there is, generally speaking, no difference between people, all people are therefore equal in an absolute term. Abilities may differ, but no one person is inherently better than another.

Since I myself has value, and all people are equal, therefore, everyone has the same value as everyone else. My needs are not more important than someone else's needs and their needs are not more important than mine.

In the case of moral dilemmas then, one must attempt to see the situation from the other person's side and then compare the needs of the two. Whoever has the "higher" need has the right.

Do unto others, in other words.

Dont assume you know what the book is talking about before reading it. Read the book first.
I'm afraid that I am very far away from any bookstore that would carry such a book. Stop trying to appeal and start stating what the actual arguments are.

But, the rules are there, that is why our interpretations of morality are, on a grand scale, remarkably similar. We are all basing our morals over the one, objective reality... but none of us can see that morality clearly. We see it through our thoughts and our opinions, which are what adds the seemingly subjective layer to morality (which, in the end, has no bearing on the morality itself, just our interpretations of that morality.)
Doesn't work. I can observe gravity happening, I may even (probably not as math was never my strong point) derive the same "Laws" that Newton did without ever hearing of that bloody apple.

Can you same the same of morality?

Try this on for size, here, in a nut shell, is my moral philosophy. It is subjective, and takes everything on a case by case, but it is designed to.

Presumption 1. I am. I think, therefore I am, and all that. I actually exist as a separate person and individual from all other objects and people in this universe.

Presumption 2. I value myself in that I wish to survive and thrive.
Check: Evolution teaches us that all living creatures are driven to live by reproducing and perpetuating the species. Humanity is no different.

From there we move to all people are equal. Genetics has shown that there is less than 2 hundred billionth of a percentile difference between the various "races" and ethnic groups of man. Since there is, generally speaking, no difference between people, all people are therefore equal in an absolute term. Abilities may differ, but no one person is inherently better than another.

Since I myself has value, and all people are equal, therefore, everyone has the same value as everyone else. My needs are not more important than someone else's needs and their needs are not more important than mine.

In the case of moral dilemmas then, one must attempt to see the situation from the other person's side and then compare the needs of the two. Whoever has the "higher" need has the right.

Do unto others, in other words.
Hate to tell you, but this is an argument for objective morality. You start with what you apparently take for a subjective premise, "I think." Well, this was the same premise that Descartes took in The Meditations, which were an attempt to derive an objective understanding of the world and an objective moral philosophy. Insofar as we all have access to the intuition, 'I think,' it is universal -- which, contrary to some misunderstanding on this thread, is all that is meant by 'objective' in the sense of 'an objective moral philosophy.' Your other premise, 'I value myself in that I wish to survive and thrive,' holds equally universal; thus, objective. The rest is deduction, á là Descartes. Of course, this is not to say that I think your deduction is any more valid than Descartes', but merely that I recognize in your moral philosophy a claim to objectivity.

All that I think on the subject of this thread is that, whether or not objective morality exists, few people really believe that their own moral philosophy is 'merely subjective,' and one who does is experiencing a terrible fever which must break in order for the patient to survive. We require faith. We all believe that we are justified, or at least we spend most of our lives believing it; we are capable of doubt, but not for very long.

Hate to tell you, but this is an argument for objective morality. You start with what you apparently take for a subjective premise, "I think." Well, this was the same premise that Descartes took in The Meditations, which were an attempt to derive an objective understanding of the world and an objective moral philosophy. Insofar as we all have access to the intuition, 'I think,' it is universal -- which, contrary to some misunderstanding on this thread, is all that is meant by 'objective' in the sense of 'an objective moral philosophy.' Your other premise, 'I value myself in that I wish to survive and thrive,' holds equally universal; thus, objective. The rest is deduction, á là Descartes. Of course, this is not to say that I think your deduction is any more valid than Descartes', but merely that I recognize in your moral philosophy a claim to objectivity.
On the contrary, I'd say you missed it. This is my moral basis for how I function as a moral being. Mine and mine alone, if you choose to adopt it, it is then your moral basis. I make no objective claims beyond myself because I cannot do so. I also make no claims to having recieved any moral guidelines from any higher moral source.

It is however in answer to the point of, if morality is subjective, how can you take offence at what X person, or people, did (or are doing). The answer is I use this system to judge on my own merits. I do not make a claim that this is the correct system or even the best system, just that it is my system. If I get into a moral argument, I shall use my system, my oponet shall use his or her system, and whoever 'wins' was right.

I also take it from the I think position because of some of the smartasses on this forum who would gladly state that I don't. ;)

On the contrary, I'd say you missed it. This is my moral basis for how I function as a moral being. Mine and mine alone, if you choose to adopt it, it is then your moral basis. I make no objective claims beyond myself because I cannot do so.
Why do you insist that you cannot? Do your sentences make claims to objectivity while the mouth which speaks them, modestly, does not? It is like for you to say to me, 'the dome of the Cathedral Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence is red -- at least, it was red for me, but I allow that it may appear in any color to you.' Fine, you do not claim to presume, but it is pointless to tell me it is red unless you're confident that my experience of it will agree with yours.

If you were actually a subjectivist you would not be willing to debate a point of morality, or any rate you would not be able to debate it in good faith. Intelligent and polite people do not debate anything which is purely a matter of taste.

If I get into a moral argument, I shall use my system, my oponet shall use his or her system, and whoever 'wins' was right.
If you are not a moral objectivist, then please explain why the debate was held and how it was possible to 'quote-unquote-win' it.

You are a moral objectivist, although you are not an arrogant or ego-centric one. If I may paraphrase your position: 'It is possible to arrive at correct moral action through deduction from self-evident cognitions.' This, by definition, is the position of one who believes in the objectivity of morals.

The sense you mean, I think, when you insist that your system is subjective is that, while you can explain your principles and share them with anybody you cannot share your faith in them -- that faith is purely subjective, because it requires an act of will. That's fine. Insisting everybody ought to emulate your will is ego-centrism, which clearly you are not guilty of. But you do believe in the objectivity of morals, although you deny it.

Doesn't work. I can observe gravity happening, I may even (probably not as math was never my strong point) derive the same "Laws" that Newton did without ever hearing of that bloody apple.

Can you same the same of morality?

The law of gravity is not fundamentally tied with your mind, so you have the ability to view it objectively. Morals, on the other hand...

Why do you insist that you cannot? Do your sentences make claims to objectivity while the mouth which speaks them, modestly, does not? It is like for you to say to me, 'the dome of the Cathedral Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence is red -- at least, it was red for me, but I allow that it may appear in any color to you.' Fine, you do not claim to presume, but it is pointless to tell me it is red unless you're confident that my experience of it will agree with yours.
I could make a comment about how, I being somewhat colorblind, we could indeed have a debate on if the roof was red or not. ;)

If you were actually a subjectivist you would not be willing to debate a point of morality, or any rate you would not be able to debate it in good faith. Intelligent and polite people do not debate anything which is purely a matter of taste.
Well, one this is a debate board, debating is what goes on here, sometimes for the silliest of reasons. But in any case, the question was whether morals are objective or subjective, of which I am stating that I believe them to be subjective, and why.

If you are not a moral objectivist, then please explain why the debate was held and how it was possible to 'quote-unquote-win' it.
As noted in a previous post, the 'force' by which we fight with, in this case postings on NationStates General is how our moral view points clash. Either one will 'win' by superior argument, making a point or exposing a logical inconsistancy with their sparing partner, or (more likely on NS), neither of us will gain a win and instead we will agree to disagree with our views on morals.

My point being however, there is no higher moral source to appeal to to state with certainess that I am right, or you are right. It is very subjective as to who is in the right here.

You are a moral objectivist, although you are not an arrogant or ego-centric one. If I may paraphrase your position: 'It is possible to arrive at correct moral action through deduction from self-evident cognitions.' This, by definition, is the position of one who believes in the objectivity of morals.
It would be better to state, "It is possible for me to arrive at correct moral actions for myself through deduction from self-evident cognitions applicable to me." This isn't so much lack of ego as knowing that I am not an objective source for morals (except in my classroom of course). My morality does not exist outside of myself. Should I have a moral delema with someone else, like Melkor for example, I cannot claim that my moral way was righter or better than his, just that it is my own.

I think perhaps we are not on the same page as to the meanings of objectivness or subjectiveness. Objectiveness would state that morals exist outside of each person's or society's constructs. They are stated as actual laws, if you will, that are applicable to all people in every situation.

Subjectiveness is much more of an Oscar Myer theory of philosphy, where morality is what you make of it. No system is more correct than the others, however they do come into conflict. Because there is no objective moral code, it is whatever system has more force behind it (and not just physical force either) that becomes the "correct" one. Being correct does not etch the moral system in stone either, as the next system might prove to be more "correct" than the last, or at least stronger than the previous one.

The sense you mean, I think, when you insist that your system is subjective is that, while you can explain your principles and share them with anybody you cannot share your faith in them -- that faith is purely subjective, because it requires an act of will. That's fine. Insisting everybody ought to emulate your will is ego-centrism, which clearly you are not guilty of. But you do believe in the objectivity of morals, although you deny it.
I thank you for your compliments and hope that my explinations above show where I am coming from in my claims.

The law of gravity is not fundamentally tied with your mind, so you have the ability to view it objectively. Morals, on the other hand...
Is different how? Again, if morals are objective, what are they? Again, I would state that any objective morals must be applicable to all people in all situations. Show me then, these universal morals that meet the criteria. Otherwise, we're left with a system where morals become a case-by-case basis, and one where no one really holds a moral high ground.

Right and wrong are empty words. All you have to tell whether or not something is right is yourself. You can come to one conclusion, someone else comes to another.

I'll ask you to do the same thing I asked Melkor to do. Prove to me what is good and what is evil, using your reason and without requiring me to make your assumptions and follow your belief system.


Your asking me to do what hundruds of philosphers before me have failed to do. They have all tried to do this and all come to the same conclusion. That an objective morality does exist, but they have no way of defining it precisiely. They do know that there can be no such thing as subjective morality, for many of the reasons I have stated


How is that not consistent with what we see in the real world?

Because people dont always accept the power from the barral of a gun. If a moral systems rightness comes from its enforcement powers, then there is no logical reason for discontents. Why would people disagree if the power is not there to disagree. They cannot enforce their own ideas yet they do so.

Also, what you are suggesting is abhorent in the extreme. It basicly means that killing is neither right nor wrong. That theft is neither right nor wrong. That cheating is neither right nor wrong. That Hitler is neiter evil or good. That Jesus was neither evil nor good. It just doesnt work in people's minds.


Because we have elected people to do exactly that.

But if my morality holds that elected representatives hold no authority over me, what right does anyone have to force them onto me.

And if I am able to kill all those who would try and enforce it on me, does that then make my position "right" since it can be enforced.


They aren't. That bit was covered before - not killing other people for example is something that can be quite advantageous to the species as a whole.

If morallity was based on what is advantageous for the species, then we would not have introduced marriage. Marriage means a reduction in the size of the gene pool and goes directly against the human male predisopostion.

You dance around my point without actually addressing it. Again, if a law is objective, you CANNOT violate it. If it is subjective, you CAN.

Ever heard of something called "free will". We have a knowledge of an objective morality, but that does not mean we always choose to obey it.


Another way of looking at it is that objectiveness is the same everywhere. However, you have not shown anything that is an objective moral law. We can state the 10 Commandment (ignoring the religious ones), but again, even in the Bible they were not absolutes. Thou Shall Not Kill gets violated, on God's command no less. Thou shall not steal or covet is violated, repeatedly.

They were absolutes for humans to do to humans. God however has the right to kill people. Because the wages of sin are death. Since he is the perfect moral being he is the only one entitled to judge


Again, show the objective absolutes that cannot be broken, or are punished, or are somehow the same in all cultures.

Find a country that praises cowardice, or where he is actually praised for double crossing all those who have been kind to him. Those two are just extrapolated examples. And hundruds of other philosphers have failed in this regard. As I have said before, what they have come to is the conclusion that an objective morallity clearly exists, but they cannot define it.


The appeal to a moral standard is the same as the logical fallacy you make here, appeal to authority. And WHICH one is the better one? There are how many denominations of Christianity out there. There are hundreds of not thousands of other religions. There are also non-religious moral philosophies. How shall man choose?

It is not a learned moral standard. It is an implict one, found within all people


My point being that they had moral justification, no matter how repugnant we view it now for their actions. People who wished for women to remain subservient to men had, and have, their own Bible passages as well. You can justify a lot with that book.

Yes, if you read it wrong.


Simple, they form lines from two standpoints. One is the notion of equality/fairness. Combine that with the only REAL moral rule (more on that later) of wanting to be treated equally, they form lines. The other is being unsure of if there is a stronger presence nearby. Their behavior may not be rewarded and they may be pushed back and lose their place in line.

The notion of equality and fairness is opposite to human evolutionary logic. If you believe yourself to be stronger, you should strike out and push through. Your second point is guff. This behavior has never been seen in any other creatures, so there must be some special awareness factor that humans have. Perhaps you could define that for me.


Yes, he did. And the people supported him. Which just proves my point, the people believed in what he said, they supported him, so for that time period, his was the right way in Nazi Germany. The rest of the world disagreed and our argument was stronger that theirs.

Exactly! Is there a good fascism? I don't know, all those systems have been brutal in their own way and have fallen. But the point being, there's no inherent goodness or evilness within a given system, only how they are applied.

So if the Germans had won that would make their morality "right" and killing all non Aryans "good"


You just proved my point. Gravity is objective, morals are not.

If we KNOW what is right or wrong, why do we continue to do wrong? If it is wrong, how come we are not punished for being wrong?

Because we see it to our own advantage not to do what is right. We may get more out of it, or have more fun or own more things at the end etc. We disobey moral law because we think that it will benefit us. What we dont always apreciate is that moral law works best when as many people as possible obeys it. We disobey because we can (free will) and we think its good for us.


I'm afraid that I am very far away from any bookstore that would carry such a book. Stop trying to appeal and start stating what the actual arguments are.

I'm not going to write out an entire book to please you. If you actually want to know the answers to these questions, instead of debating and "winning" the arguement then go and read it.

We have a knowledge of an objective morality

demonstrate this. because i don't.

Now then, a moral answer is (depending on your point of view) that it is right for Heinz to steal the drug as the right to life should trump the right to make excessive profit. The drug maker being a miser and all. However, when the theft is discovered, the law states that Heinz should be arrested. He may be right, but the strength of the society that he lives in triumps over such moral considerations. Who is right here? Whomever is stronger.

Perhaps. But show me a jury that will actually send the guy to jail for it....

I'm not going to write out an entire book to please you. If you actually want to know the answers to these questions, instead of debating and "winning" the arguement then go and read it.

frankly, it isn't very good anyway.

you are the one citing it, that means you should either lay out the arguments or quote from it. or were the arguments so bad that you can't even remember how they went, but you liked the prose well enough to think it convincing and are hoping for a similar effect on us?

Irrelevant.
Then why did you bring it up?

I say "Life is the root of all values" then you come along and say "Well, it's the root of bad ones too," which I quickly point out is already implicit in my already-stated thesis that life is the root of all values. If it's immaterial to the discussion, why did you challenge that particular point?

If "Evil" is "evil" because it eliminates the possibility of "Good," then it must also be seen as "Good" because it eliminates the possibility of itself.
It might not necessarily make the Good impossible [since good things can still happen pretty much anywhere, and I'm sure they have even under the most oppressive of regimes], it's just that Evil's only true consistency is that it undermines and sabotages the Good through various means. The ultimate goal of said Evil might actually be to make the Good impossible, but it probably doesn't always happen like that.


Let's try this again.
Yes, lets.

You assume that because values spring from life, logical values must support life.
Wrong! Life makes value possible, value does not "spring from life," it springs from thought, or more specifically, from a moral pondering or dilemma.

You're correct that logical values must support life, I'll give you that much.

There is no purely logical basis for this. It is, in fact, a moral assumption, one you are using to make the jump that logic itself cannot make - from what is real to what should be real.
I'm really having a hard time understanding where this "jump" is-- my conclusions about reality are fairly straightforward and easy to understand. It ought to go without saying that because only a reasoned mind can make moral decisions, that one should rely on the faculty which enables them to make that decision.

Logic and emotion are different tools, to be used for different things; emotion, for all its [potential] virtues does not teach its host about the reality: it does not reveal to him through revelation at a certain age the "mysteries of the universe." If I want to learn things, including moral things, I use my head. If I want to get the hair on the back of my head to stand up while listening to a kickass song, I use my emotions. Suggesting that I make decisions using emotions is like suggesting one should cut down a Redwood with a rubber chicken. It just can't be done with the wrong tools.

You also are recklessly over-generalizing, something you try to get away with by being as vague in your terms as possible.
I knew this would come up; Christ you people do this to me every time.

I'm asked for what my morality is, as challenged by Neu Leonstein: "But unless you sit down in front of your PC and prove to me what is good and what is evil..."

Now, this sort of calls for an "in a nutshell" type response, since any more lengthy discourse on the subject would probably not be read. Granted, you weren't the one who asked for it [oh wait, you did in the next post...] but it really gets me angry when people ask me for a general definition of my moral beliefs and then try to crawl up my ass for being "too general" or "too vague."

This is what you asked for. If you want a blow by blow of philosophical beliefs that resemble mine, go to the library and get Atlas Shrugged or, if you'd rather skip Ayn Rand's dodgy fiction, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is also a good pick.

Just because an individual human being has certain values, dependent on that individual human being having life, does not mean that that individual human being should not destroy other people's lives and other people's values.
'S an issue of honesty. It's a question of whether or not one has the intellectual integrity to allow others to live under the same standards one expects for himself. If you're suggesting that one could live and operate under my code and slaughter millions for no better reason than this, you're woefully misinformed about my philosophy and really ought to read up on it before you attempt to discuss it with me again.

Wrong! Life makes value possible, value does not "spring from life," it springs from thought, or more specifically, from a moral pondering or dilemma.

You're correct that logical values must support life, I'll give you that much.

Again you divert the argument. Can a non-living entity think?

Obviously, values spring from thought. Thought springs from life, so it comes out to the same thing. That, in fact, was the essence of your original argument. If life is the "root" of all values, as you claim, then it is legitimate to claim that values ultimately spring from life.

The point remains that even if life is the root of all values, it does not logically follow that all values must support life.

I'm really having a hard time understanding where this "jump" is-- my conclusions about reality are fairly straightforward and easy to understand.

They are neither straightforward nor easy to understand. They are semantic tricks. You speak of vague, absurdly general concepts like "life" and point out, correctly, that certain aspects of life leads to certain other things, then use the generality of your original premise to twist your conclusion to what you want it to be.

Values do spring from life - from the specific life of a specific individual with his specific values. Even if we take it for granted that values logically cannot seek to corrode their source, which I contest, it only follows that that individual person must advance his own individual life and his own individual thoughts - that is, he must pursue his subjective perspective on the world, regardless of harm to any other form of life.

The "jump" you are making is between the observation that "life is at the root of all values" to "the advancement of life should be at the root of all values." You have not justified this point.

It ought to go without saying that because only a reasoned mind can make moral decisions, that one should rely on the faculty which enables them to make that decision.

Logic and emotion are different tools, to be used for different things; emotion, for all its [potential] virtues does not teach its host about the reality: it does not reveal to him through revelation at a certain age the "mysteries of the universe." If I want to learn things, including moral things, I use my head. If I want to get the hair on the back of my head to stand up while listening to a kickass song, I use my emotions. Suggesting that I make decisions using emotions is like suggesting one should cut down a Redwood with a rubber chicken. It just can't be done with the wrong tools.

Except that since morality has nothing (practically, at least) to do with objective reality, there is no point in trying to use a tool for analyzing objective reality - logic - to come up with a moral system.

I knew this would come up; Christ you people do this to me every time.

I'm asked for what my morality is, as challenged by Neu Leonstein: "But unless you sit down in front of your PC and prove to me what is good and what is evil..."

Now, this sort of calls for an "in a nutshell" type response, since any more lengthy discourse on the subject would probably not be read. Granted, you weren't the one who asked for it [oh wait, you did in the next post...] but it really gets me angry when people ask me for a general definition of my moral beliefs and then try to crawl up my ass for being "too general" or "too vague."

Brevity and simplicity - reasonable under the circumstances - are quite different from over-generality. Your over-generality, anyway, is not that you do not develop your conclusions (as, again, would be reasonable), but rather that your argument depends on the use of vague terms that, through their vagueness, you can twist to your purposes.

'S an issue of honesty. It's a question of whether or not one has the intellectual integrity to allow others to live under the same standards one expects for himself. If you're suggesting that one could live and operate under my code and slaughter millions for no better reason than this, you're woefully misinformed about my philosophy and really ought to read up on it before you attempt to discuss it with me again.

Not under your code, no. The point is that your code lacks logical support, not that it allows for atrocities - which is really a pointless point, anyway, because the truth has no obligation to be convenient.

I'm really having a hard time understanding where this "jump" is-- my conclusions about reality are fairly straightforward and easy to understand.

you can't logically go from "value is impossible without life" to "one ought act to advance or further life". not without some other 'ought' statement in the premises.

It ought to go without saying that because only a reasoned mind can make moral decisions, that one should rely on the faculty which enables them to make that decision.

unless, of course, it is true that ethical pronouncements are merely emotive expressions. at the very least it is the case that without the emotional component, reason cannot lead one to make ethical statements. all the facts and reason in the world amount to nothing without some primal 'ought'. which, as far as anyone can tell, is invariably rooted in emotion.

Your asking me to do what hundruds of philosphers before me have failed to do. They have all tried to do this and all come to the same conclusion. That an objective morality does exist, but they have no way of defining it precisiely. They do know that there can be no such thing as subjective morality, for many of the reasons I have stated
They don't know anything. They believe. They hope. They suggest.

And yet, what they have done is consistent with what I said initially: There may be a universal right and wrong, or there may not be. As with god, I hold that there is no such thing until proven otherwise.
And as with god, it's not something that can be rationally proven. It's a matter of faith, and as such, not really important to the lives of those who don't believe.

Because people dont always accept the power from the barral of a gun. If a moral systems rightness comes from its enforcement powers, then there is no logical reason for discontents.
Why not? Haven't I already said that individuals make up their own minds, have their own opinions and put their own values on things and actions?

Ultimately, the winner writes history. Because of that, I am the person I am today. Some things in this world I agree with, some I don't. But you can't seriously suggest that I would still hold the same values if I had been raised by the Hitler Youth.

Also, what you are suggesting is abhorent in the extreme. It basicly means that killing is neither right nor wrong. That theft is neither right nor wrong. That cheating is neither right nor wrong. That Hitler is neiter evil or good. That Jesus was neither evil nor good. It just doesnt work in people's minds.
It works if you qualify it as "universal" right and wrong. People have their own ideas, as was said before. We see that every day.

I just don't think that there is a universal right and wrong, apart from what all the individuals think.
So, if no one was there to judge him, Hitler would neither be good nor bad. But if a hundred people judge him, then a hundred people might think he's bad. And if they have the power, they might punish him.

But if my morality holds that elected representatives hold no authority over me, what right does anyone have to force them onto me.
Well, most of society could care less about what your morality is. If they all think that you have done something wrong and should be punished, the police will do so, and if not the police, they themselves.
They might not have some sort of esoteric right to do so, but they've got the numbers, torches and pitchforks, which makes for a convincing argument in itself.

And if I am able to kill all those who would try and enforce it on me, does that then make my position "right" since it can be enforced.
Yes.

If morallity was based on what is advantageous for the species, then we would not have introduced marriage. Marriage means a reduction in the size of the gene pool and goes directly against the human male predisopostion.
Again, we covered that before. Evidence suggests that having two parents work together to raise the child increases the chance of the child surviving. Alternatively, some cultures don't have marriage in the same way we do. They might have harems.
The point is just that if the mother has to raise the kid alone, chances are it will get eaten by a lion of some sort.

Ever heard of something called "free will". We have a knowledge of an objective morality, but that does not mean we always choose to obey it.
Nice dodge, but does not address the fundemental point, if it is objective, it cannot be violated. Free will allows us to be subjective, but again, I cannot be subjective about gravity. I may choose to try and be subjective about gravity and jump off my roof of course. But that doesn't mean I can be subjective and I'll go splat.

They were absolutes for humans to do to humans. God however has the right to kill people. Because the wages of sin are death. Since he is the perfect moral being he is the only one entitled to judge
Look up Joshua and how he took the lives of every man, woman, and child, lo, even the beasts of certain cities. Again, for an absolute, it seems to have a lot of subjective shades of gray in it.

Find a country that praises cowardice, or where he is actually praised for double crossing all those who have been kind to him. Those two are just extrapolated examples.
I believe Neu Leonstein did just that a few pages back. Again though, you can make very broad catagories for morals, but when you add in the shades of gray you suddenly lose all meaning of an objective moral.

Killing is wrong according to both the US and the EU. However, it is ok to kill convicted murderers in the name of justice in the US. For both groups, it is ok to kill in the name of national defence. Both groups also have clauses in their laws that codify when it is ok to kill in self-defence. The "moral" becomes Thou shall not kill, unless...

And hundruds of other philosphers have failed in this regard. As I have said before, what they have come to is the conclusion that an objective morallity clearly exists, but they cannot define it.
So we have a moral certanity that we cannot define. We cannot state that it is actually there. We just suspect that it is there, but have no hard evidence to that. We cannot use it for any moral conundrums, we cannot even agree on what shape it might take.

Congratulations, you have the dragon in your garage. Carl Sagan wrote of this to explain alien abduction stories, but I think it fits here as well. You tell me you have a dragon in your garage. I want to see it so you take me to your house and proudly show me an empty space and proclaim, "Here is the dragon."
"I cannot see it."
"Well, it's an invisable dragon you see."
"Oh, well perhaps I can skatter flour on the ground and see its footprints."
"It floats above the ground."
"Er, I can track it by heat."
"It emits no heat."
And so on and so forth. Every test I devise to show proof of this dragon is met by a reason from you as to why it cannot be detected by that test. Eventually I must conclude that there is no dragon and you get annoyed with me that I fail to believe that you have a dragon living in your garage.

You tell me morals are objective, you cannot state what they are, how they are used, or how we can test for this, but you tell me you have objective morals.

I choose to believe you don't have a dragon in your garage either.

It is not a learned moral standard. It is an implict one, found within all people
Which is what?

The notion of equality and fairness is opposite to human evolutionary logic. If you believe yourself to be stronger, you should strike out and push through. Your second point is guff. This behavior has never been seen in any other creatures, so there must be some special awareness factor that humans have. Perhaps you could define that for me.
No, because humans are a sociatel animal. We're stronger in groups. As in a wolf pack, the omegas may not get the choice cuts of meat, but they do get to feed. The pack is far stronger than an individual.

And yes, being bounced back works as a good break. I wanted to see Star Wars Ep III, I push my way ahead of everyone else in line. The ticket seller refuses to sell to me and calls security to escort me out. I don't get to see Star Wars. It works.

So if the Germans had won that would make their morality "right" and killing all non Aryans "good"
To them, yes. To me, no. We've answered this objection many times.

Because we see it to our own advantage not to do what is right. We may get more out of it, or have more fun or own more things at the end etc. We disobey moral law because we think that it will benefit us. What we dont always apreciate is that moral law works best when as many people as possible obeys it. We disobey because we can (free will) and we think its good for us.
Again, if you can get away with it, how can you state that morals are objective at all then?

I'm not going to write out an entire book to please you. If you actually want to know the answers to these questions, instead of debating and "winning" the arguement then go and read it.
I want you to look at my location. I live in a small town in rual Japan, a country decidedly non-Christian. The nearest city has three bookstores in the whole city of over 200,000 people, that carry English language books. The only Lewis it has in the Chronicles of Narnia, and that is due only to the movie. I am not going to order Mere Christanity from Amazon.com, wait the three weeks it takes to get the book over the Pacific just to read the first chapter. Use that brillant skill called summerizing and tell me the argument, or find me a place on the Net I can read it.

Perhaps. But show me a jury that will actually send the guy to jail for it....
You never know, I have seen juries convict people in like situations before, because of their emotions and so on.

I think perhaps we are not on the same page as to the meanings of objectivness or subjectiveness. Objectiveness would state that morals exist outside of each person's or society's constructs. They are stated as actual laws, if you will, that are applicable to all people in every situation.
Okay, you're right... we're not on the same page:

You dance around my point without actually addressing it. Again, if a law is objective, you CANNOT violate it. If it is subjective, you CAN.
…
Nice dodge, but does not address the fundemental point, if it is objective, it cannot be violated. Free will allows us to be subjective, but again, I cannot be subjective about gravity. I may choose to try and be subjective about gravity and jump off my roof of course. But that doesn't mean I can be subjective and I'll go splat.
At first I thought we could talk about the same objectivity, but you clearly have an impossible idea of what moral objectivity must mean. Do you think that for moral objectivity to exist, morality must be some necessary part of the universe, and not something that only inheres in human reason? Your objection is like NL's:

I think the question is moot.

Is there some sort of higher plane where things like universal good and evil exists? I don't think so, just as I don't think god exists. I simply see no evidence, and the case can't really be made with reason either. If it can, I haven't seen it.

That is not to say that it is impossible for good and evil to exist independently of human action and thinking. But even if it does, we can't tell, and thus every one of us has their own definition of what is right and what is wrong. And no one can tell who is actually correct, if anyone is.

That may be the death sentence of moral philosophy...but to be honest: So be it.
Or Willamena's:

Objective morality makes no sense, since morality requires an agent. It's like trying to discuss "objective feelings"; the only context for discussing them objectively is that they are subjective to someone else. (Edit: Well, okay not the only context.) Otherwise, all you are left discussing is the chemical makeup of changes in the body that correspond with feelings, and that's not the same as discussing the feelings themselves. "Feelings" only make sense from the subjective perspective.
If all this argument is saying is that 'morality requires an agent, hence objective morality is impossible' then this is a claim that 'objective morality' is an oxymoron and it is nonsense to speak of it. Why, then, have countless philosophers tried to make a case for it, including Immanuel Kant, probably the most careful and meticulously thorough philosopher in history? Because the moral objectivist is not saying that morality inheres in its own plane out there in the universe, he is saying that morality inheres in human reason; specifically, in the intuition. If you can have a moral intuition, then there can be objective moral law.

An intuition is not the same as a concept, or a syllogism, or a law -- an intuition is merely that by which a truth is self-evident. For example, how do you know that no fewer than three straight lines may completely enclose a space? Is there something that you get from the definition of 'a straight line' or 'three' which tells you so? No; you have an intuition of its truthfulness, and so does anybody who has reason, and all of our laws of geometry proceed from this sturdy foundation. So a moral intuition, the feeling that something is good and right, while another thing is bad and wrong, implies an objectively-valid moral law, without explicitly stating what it is. Since life is a bit complex, the formula for living entirely in the right hasn't quite yet been hammered out -- but that doesn't mean that we can't discover the right course of action in any given situation. This is why we debate a point of morality, proceeding from self-evident axioms to logical conclusions about the correct course of action. If you did not believe in moral intuitions, then there would be no way for another person to see that you are right, and you might as well debate with a brick wall. So to believe in the objectivity of morals is simply to believe in moral intuitions, and to debate a point of morality is to appeal to moral intuitions, thus, implicitly, to be an objectivist.

By the way, I must've overlooked this post of yours, NERVUN, until now:

I'd say that there are some objective rules, but how we view them is subjective.

For example, every culture has some rule against killing, but there are many shades of gray when it comes down to when is killing acceptable as vew few to none have an absolute rule on not killing. The same with theft, and so on and so forth.

I'd say that the subjective parts are so many and varried as to make the actual objective rules worthless.
Are those objective rules, which you hold to be meaningless, nevertheless self-evidently true to the intuition, not the 'higher moral source' to which both parties appeal in a debate over a question of morality? In other words, rather than appealing to God or to some holy writ, cannot one make appeal to the moral sense of his adversary? Or is that impossible, because no moral sense exists in reason?

At first I thought we could talk about the same objectivity, but you clearly have an impossible idea of what moral objectivity must mean. Do you think that for moral objectivity to exist, morality must be some necessary part of the universe, and not something that only inheres in human reason?
Not quite what I was getting at, but the idea being that I view objectivity as something beyond human reason. Even then, I don't think that's quite what I mean, hmm, how about I view objectivity as a moral source that exists outside of individual constructions. Something that can be said to have a singular source in all of humanity that is the same for and in all humanity. I argue against the idea that source is the same throughout humanity.

If all this argument is saying is that 'morality requires an agent, hence objective morality is impossible' then this is a claim that 'objective morality' is an oxymoron and it is nonsense to speak of it. Why, then, have countless philosophers tried to make a case for it, including Immanuel Kant, probably the most careful and meticulously thorough philosopher in history? Because the moral objectivist is not saying that morality inheres in its own plane out there in the universe, he is saying that morality inheres in human reason; specifically, in the intuition. If you can have a moral intuition, then there can be objective moral law.
I can think of a number of reasons as to why someone would want for mankind to have such a moral intuition. It makes the identification of evil so much easier. It provides SOME justification and reason to the universe in general and human actions in particular. If Hitler was evil, it is easy to face him and defeat him; you do not have to understand him because he's evil. However, if such terms are subjective because there is no moral intuition, it makes it far harder to find a reason to condemn him that cannot come back and bite you in the rear in later on.

An intuition is not the same as a concept, or a syllogism, or a law -- an intuition is merely that by which a truth is self-evident.
Self evident truths rarely are. They sound wonderful in philosophy; they fall apart in hard science.

For example, how do you know that no fewer than three straight lines may completely enclose a space? Is there something that you get from the definition of 'a straight line' or 'three' which tells you so? No; you have an intuition of its truthfulness, and so does anybody who has reason, and all of our laws of geometry proceed from this sturdy foundation.
This I think shows where we differ. Yes, I can state that three straight lines are needed to enclose a space. That is something I can draw on paper, however geometry is a language to describe exactly how this is taking place. I can remember my geometry teaching pounding into us that just because a line LOOKS straight; it isn't until you have the math to back it up along with the proof.

Again, just because morals LOOK like they are objective does not mean that they are until you can show proof of this.

So a moral intuition, the feeling that something is good and right, while another thing is bad and wrong, implies an objectively-valid moral law, without explicitly stating what it is.
But that, however, assumes that people feel bad when they do something bad. Psychopaths do not feel bad, that is part of the problem, there's no guilt involved in that. Asian countries do not work on guilt but shame, it's all fair unless you are publicly exposed and made to feel shame, but there is no guilty feeling of right or wrong. With knowing that, either you have removed half of humanity as not being human or something else is at work here. Again, it seems subjective.

Since life is a bit complex, the formula for living entirely in the right hasn't quite yet been hammered out -- but that doesn't mean that we can't discover the right course of action in any given situation. This is why we debate a point of morality, proceeding from self-evident axioms to logical conclusions about the correct course of action. If you did not believe in moral intuitions, then there would be no way for another person to see that you are right, and you might as well debate with a brick wall.
Again, the "force" used in the argument provides the "right" course of action. I look at it this way, two people raised in the same culture probably share the same moral background to the extent that they can. There an appeal to morals may actually be a workable situation (hopefully, perhaps not). Two people from different cultures will have a much harder time to appeal to morals.

I'm living a good example right now. American culture is highly individualistic. Japanese is highly group orientated. My fiancée, who is Japanese, and I will get into arguments over who is right or the right way to do something because we both approach things from a different angle. For example, we had a large debate over whether when my parents get old(er) they should move in with us or not, even if that means relocating them to Japan. I, as an American, feel that the right of the individual to determine their own life as long as they can is the most important point. She, however, views the family as a whole unit and cannot understand why I would not want my parents to come live with us as soon as they retire. The group harmony would be stronger and we should therefore sacrifice our own individuality to it.

What is the moral decision here?

So to believe in the objectivity of morals is simply to believe in moral intuitions, and to debate a point of morality is to appeal to moral intuitions, thus, implicitly, to be an objectivist.
Not actually as I have stated. To say so would be that there is a hard "right" or "wrong" to the debate, which there may not be. Life is messy; there is no right or wrong way in many things. It would be helpful in clashes in morality to have such an unassailable position, but there doesn't seem to be so.

Are those objective rules, which you hold to be meaningless, nevertheless self-evidently true to the intuition, not the 'higher moral source' to which both parties appeal in a debate over a question of morality? In other words, rather than appealing to God or to some holy writ, cannot one make appeal to the moral sense of his adversary? Or is that impossible, because no moral sense exists in reason?
I would say that such rules are not so much self evidently true, but as stated, cultures wide, universal. They have been placed within society by society. And each society has rules that mirror each other. But... as I said, we can point and say each tribe says don't kill, but then each tribe has a list of except's and those except's just don't match.

Intuition is a behavior or instinct. Wolves up in Alaska act like wolves in Mexico. The pack behavior in the same, it is not so in humans

そして、　僕は外国人です。 Guyjinじゃに。

I can see you chose not to respond to the first portion of my rebuttal. Should I take this to mean you've got my size 12 in your mouth already, or that you simply overlooked it?

It'd be nice, for once, to see one of my opponents develop the balls to concede their error.

Again you divert the argument. Can a non-living entity think?
"Again?" I believe I pointed out rather quickly that it wasn't I who diverted it to begin with. You most certainly did and your silence on that particular issue is a more profound confession than you could have possibly managed with even a full apology.

That said, saying "Life is the root of value" does not imply that all living things have values, which is the implication if you're attempting to suggest that values "spring from life" [your words, not mine]. I'll say this again: life makes values possible; it's the root of value because no value can exist without it, but at the same time merely being alive does not guarantee that one has values. A tree is alive, but it doesn't have moral values: only functional ones--the sun, the water, the soil, etc.

Obviously, values spring from thought.
...Good so far...

Thought springs from life, so it comes out to the same thing. That, in fact, was the essence of your original argument. If life is the "root" of all values, as you claim, then it is legitimate to claim that values ultimately spring from life.
No, it isn't legitimate at all, at least not in the sense you seem to be suggetsing. This is all more or less immaterial to any attack on Objectivism anyway, since it relies on a grossly erroneous interpretation of its ideas. The claim "values spring from life" is like saying "fire springs from wood," ignoring the obvious catalyst that makes either one possible within its surrounding context.

The point remains that even if life is the root of all values, it does not logically follow that all values must support life.
I'd love to hear this. Please, enlighten me.

They are neither straightforward nor easy to understand. They are semantic tricks. You speak of vague, absurdly general concepts like "life" and point out, correctly, that certain aspects of life leads to certain other things, then use the generality of your original premise to twist your conclusion to what you want it to be.
Wait, what? When did "life" turn into a "vague, absurdly general" concept? Did living organisms and non-living ones become indistinguishable while I wasn't looking? Really, now you're just grasping for straws.

If you're going to accuse me of being "too general" with my points without making any counterarguments of your own tell me that I'm wrong, simply stating that I am], is turnabout fair play? It's kind of funny, in a way, since in a larger sense my opponents are trying to be about two or three times more vague than I am in the first place [compare my "x is right and y is bullshit, and for thse reasons:..." to your "You're just wrong" and the predominant chorus of "morality is subjective"--the ultimate in vague-statement goodness]. Making statements in a direct and coherent manner, clarifying whenever asked to [as I have done] is the antithesis of vagueness--yet I'm being accused of being so by the very people that assure the rest of us that morality is an inherently [b]vague and largely unidentified concept. In a sense, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, since it's bullshit for anyone to be vague when they talk about morality unless its you.

I've not been vague or over-generalizing one goddamn bit more than the situation necessitates. If you don't feel I'm offering enough exposition, and if that's what you actually want, then go out and read one of the books I mentioned. If, on the other hand, you are [as I suspect] only in it for the fight, then go right ahead but don't get snippy with me for sparring on your own goddamn terms. I'm not here to write a book, and I'm not dodging anyone's questions, to the best of my knowledge. If I asked you to present your morality in as many words as I presented mine, you would suddenly lose your basis for this complaint.

Values do spring from life - from the specific life of a specific individual with his specific values. Even if we take it for granted that values logically cannot seek to corrode their source, which I contest, it only follows that that individual person must advance his own individual life and his own individual thoughts - that is, he must pursue his subjective perspective on the world, regardless of harm to any other form of life.
Alas, Nietzsche strikes again. That man has so thoroughly degraded individualism to the point where I fear no one will accept it for what it ought to be any longer.

First off, I'm not suggesting that anyone should operate with a "subjective perspective." Since knowlege is possible, it would be preferable that they operate under an objective perspecive. "Subjective" in this context implies "borne of whims or emotion," which shouldn't be the basis for moral action.

Secondly, I am not saying "My Life is the root of all values," although I can see you chose to assume I did. Other people--insofar as they have the potential to succeed fantastically in embodying my values--should not be destroyed, but may be ignored. Again, it's an issue of honesty and integrity, like I said before. It has to do with whether or not one will permit others the same freedoms he enjoys for himself.

Finally, harming another life is a fairly obvious reference to the initiation of force. I should really hope I wouldn't have to tell you why that is morally objectionable. If I'm making a "leap" by suggesting that legitimate values should not corrode their source, you're making a god damn pole vault by suggesting that the initiation of force is implicit with a code that suggests life is the root of values. Again, you'll note I didn't say My life or a life is the root of value for a reason: enjoy it while you can, since that's about as close to collectivism as I'm ever going to get.

The "jump" you are making is between the observation that "life is at the root of all values" to "the advancement of life should be at the root of all values." You have not justified this point.
Yes I have, I did it in that first post in fact, should you deign to read it again and actually understand it this time. If you're not advancing life, what are you doing? Destroying it. If you're destroying life, are you destroying values too? Yes, unless you're just killing chickens or amoebas. Life should be advanced, encouraged, and celebrated because without it, value [and therfore virtue, and morality] cannot exist. What's so hard to understand about that?

Bear in mind we're still [whether you like it or not] dealing with relatively general moral contexts here: it's impossible to expound on how things might change given variations in every little circumstance.

Except that since morality has nothing (practically, at least) to do with objective reality, there is no point in trying to use a tool for analyzing objective reality - logic - to come up with a moral system.
If morality has "practically nothing" to do with objective reality, then how are we even talking about it? If it has "practically nothing" to do with reality, then why does it even matter what moral decisions one makes or doesn't make?

Morality has everything to do with objective reality. If I walk into a shopping mall tomorrow with a TEC-9 and start wasting people it would be a real and observable moral act with [i]direct and profound consequences on objective reality.

Observe, for example, that your only recourse against my arguments so far has been to claim more or less that logic is usless and morality has nothing to do with reality. Yet, you're conveinently ignoring the fact that everything I've written here has [i]led to these statments: your positions on morality were only made possible by your reasoning mind, therefore it's a bit ridiculous to challenge that axiom since you have to actually invoke it to do so. Likewise, your attempt to seperate morality from objective reality [which, to be frank, I'm surprised you even admit exists] is also an attempt to challenge an axiom while invoking it, since if morality wasn't a part of objective reality it wouldn't exist: it wouldn't be a debatable concept or even a concept at all.

Basically, you're falling into what I call the "God Trap" and on more levels than you'd ever be prepared to admit in this "progressive" lifetime of yours. You're admitting that moral truth is beyond the grasp of man, and is ultimately detached from reality [supernatural?]. You contend that one's feeling [faith, revelation, etc] is the ultimate key to moral truth, and that any attempt to actually use reason in such a context is absurd [nevermind the countless other dilemmas reason has solved over the centuries]. It's an understanable compulsion, I suppose, and it really is a lot more prevalent than most people think.

Brevity and simplicity - reasonable under the circumstances - are quite different from over-generality. Your over-generality, anyway, is not that you do not develop your conclusions (as, again, would be reasonable), but rather that your argument depends on the use of vague terms that, through their vagueness, you can twist to your purposes.
Err...you already said this. Somehow, I'd guess, in the time it took you to write the same accusation twice, you could have actually found some examples by now. Care to give it a shot, or are you still sticking with "life" as a "vague, absurdly general concept?"

Not under your code, no. The point is that your code lacks logical support, not that it allows for atrocities - which is really a pointless point, anyway, because the truth has no obligation to be convenient.
I hate to break it to you, but you are only marginally acquainted with what my code actually is, and I can tell from my discussions with you that it's quite clear you've never encountered anything quite like me in your life. Before you go around telling people that their logic is riddled with holes, it would be advisable to actually investigate said logic first. If you're going to contend that something does not follow logically, then back it up: say "This doesn't follow for x, y, and z reasons," not "X and y don't follow." As of this writing, the latter has invariably been your method, and for all the accusations you've levelled at me for not clarifying my position, the statements supporting yours are much more lacking. Observe, for example, that I have offered far more information and clarifications than you have; my posts are much longer and more detailed, and challenge yours point by point instead of leaving out the parts that are too tricky to answer [such as my opening query in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10467221&postcount=170)].

Do you actually expect me to take you seriously when you accuse me of being too vague when you haven't even stated your position? It seems to me like this is little more than a trap so that you can argue on your own terms under any circumstances; by avoiding making any direct statements of your own, you pre-empt the possibility of challenging them, and furthermore you are afforded the luxury of saying "I didn't mean that" or "I didn't say that" at some point in the future, since I'm forced to deduce your position largely by inference and am likely to screw up here and there since you make no definate statements.

You're trying to shoot fish in a barrel, but it looks like you forgot to bring the bullets. I didn't.

そして、　僕は外国人です。 Guyjinじゃに。
Well... sorry about my shitty Japanese. It's been a long time since I've used it, and then it was really mostly only to order Teriyaki McBurgers. Watashi wa mo nihongo de dekimasen. Gomen nasai.

That said, I'm still waiting for a coherent answer to my question -- if there is no inherent moral sense among human beings, no innate capacity for moral judgment, then how is it possible to win a morality debate?

Here is what you've said. It is clear as mud.

[One may] 'win' by superior argument, making a point or exposing a logical inconsistancy with their sparing partner...
Again, the "force" used in the argument provides the "right" course of action.
First off, bracketing every important word in quotation marks doesn't help you -- it only gives me the impression that you prefer to obfuscate the question rather than considering it. Quote-unquote-win. To win on a moral point of contention would mean, I should think, to convince your adversary of the correctness of a particular course of action. Surely, the hope of winning in this way was what impelled you to debate the point in the first place. Quote-unquote-force. You claim to disbelieve in "moral force" but cannot dispense with the word, so you bracket it in quotes and remain mysterious as to what you mean by it. Quote-unquote-right. Another word in which you disbelieve but cannot avoid using. If you cannot accept the literal meaning of right then what does it mean in your ironic sense?

The postmodernist philosopher Richard Rorty was asked, how do we dispense with metaphysics? His answer was, "Stop talking about it." You cannot do the same with morality, because you are not the subjectivist you think you are.

As for your formula for quote-unquote-winning (a dubious objective!)...
By exposing a logical inconsistency: Certainly one tries to point out logical inconsistencies in his opponent's argument, but that is hardly enough in a moral debate. Two systems can both be logically consistent and not agree on a single point.
By superior argument: I can only guess what you mean by 'superior argument' -- a more refined rhetorical style, perhaps? This is desired but hardly pertinent to the merits of the argument.
By making a point: perhaps you mean... no, I don't understand; what could you possibly mean by that? If "my morals are my own, nobody else's" and "what is self-evident to me may not be self-evident to you," then how is it possible to make a point? A point, i.e. fixed, something which is the same when viewed from any perspective. If some moral statement which is true for you may just as well be true as false for anyone else, then how as anybody ever won a moral argument by making a point?

You get no further by talking about "cultural values." Our discussion doesn't inquire into what makes discussions of morality "workable" or "difficult" any more than it inquires into what makes one an eloquent defender of his moral position or a poor one, but simply into what decides the argument.

So, if not moral axioms, then what? You still have not come up with any better answer to my question than the two vague sentences infested with ironic quotation marks.

If you could answer the question, it would prove that being a total subjectivist and holding a basically liberal moral position are not contradictory, and I would stop trying any more to make you believe that you believe what I believe you believe. That is all you need to do to end the argument. But I really think you can't, because I think most self-declared total subjectivists are not what they claim to be.

A true subjectivist would not complain about differences in cultural mores, because his morality has nothing to do with norms or proverbial wisdom. A true subjectivist would not say "psychopaths do not feel bad" because he knows that everybody suffers privately, even those who are outside the community of shared values. A subjectivist would be like the biblical Abraham when he was commanded by God to violate the First Commandment and slaughter his own son. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard, the Danish iconoclast, tells several different versions of the story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son Isaac, and in each version, Abraham the Existentialist is completely silent while he meditates on his moral dilemma. He says nothing to his wife, Sarah, to Isaac, or to any of his servants -- if he has ambivalent thoughts about killing his son, he keeps them all to himself. That is a moral subjectivist, one who acts, perhaps confidently or perhaps hesitantly, but acts without trying to justify himself to anybody because he stands resolutely outside of moral law. The moral subjectivist could not even put his moral position into words, or, like Nietzsche's ubermensch, he would have to invent a new language to describe it. But you, you lay it out articulately, you invoke the philosophers, hell, you even begin with axioms.

Most of those who claim to be subjectivists actually take moral positions which are solidly, sanguinely, within bounds, and do not hesitate, in fact, to cast their moral judgments on friends, neighbors, family, lovers, and anyone else they consider to be within the expansive sphere of their subjectivity. As for the rest of the world, "That's fine for those people" is their policy, echoing the embroidery on their mantle which says, "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change..." In other words, it's just so much WASPy humility and liberal tolerance, plus distrust of philosophy, masquerading as a belief in total subjectivity, which it isn't.

Morality is subjective.

Next question?

Morality is relative, ergo it is open to interpretation, which inherently makes it subjective.

Morality is relative, ergo it is open to interpretation, which inherently makes it subjective.

hold up. what is the thing that is "open to interpretation"?

Yes I have, I did it in that first post in fact, should you deign to read it again and actually understand it this time. If you're not advancing life, what are you doing? Destroying it. If you're destroying life, are you destroying values too? Yes, unless you're just killing chickens or amoebas. Life should be advanced, encouraged, and celebrated because without it, value [and therfore virtue, and morality] cannot exist. What's so hard to understand about that?

the logically invalid jump from "if you're destroying life, you are destroying values" to "one ought to advance, encourage, and celebrate life"

is-ought gap, my friend. you cannot logically get an ought by deducing it purely from a set of is statements. you'd need to include an ought in the premises. but that ought itself couldn't be based purely on empirical statements either - an argument for it must also include an ought in the premises. and so on.

the logically invalid jump from "if you're destroying life, you are destroying values" to "one ought to advance, encourage, and celebrate life"

is-ought gap, my friend. you cannot logically get an ought by deducing it purely from a set of is statements. you'd need to include an ought in the premises. but that ought itself couldn't be based purely on empirical statements either - an argument for it must also include an ought in the premises. and so on.
Wait a second, "logical gap?" Moral subjectivism relies on the idea that logic is impotent in the field of morality. If it isn't, then can't logic be deployed to find and define certain real, objective benchmarks within it?

The answer is yes, before you ask. Now granted, you're not Soheran, but if I'd have asked you ten posts ago about the relationship between logic and morality, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if your answer had been similar to Soheran's. However, now that you've made this point you're probably going to change your tune, since now your only recourse is to suggest that logic can sometimes have the power to discern right from wrong [since logic clearly shows my viewpoint is flawed, right?], and basically it should be deployed only when you want it to be.

If you're going to contend that logic shouldn't be the basis for morality, fine. Just don't expect to get away with accusing me of "logical gaps" and such in the process. If, on the other hand, logic is a legitimate basis for morality, don't go around claiming its "subjective" or that it all depends on how and where you were brought up, etc etc. Logic is not arbitrary. This doesn't mean that all people should act and direct their lives in the same manner--different things can be logical choices for different people because the context of their decision-making varies from person to person. Opponents of moral Objectivism seem to labor under the notion that such a moral code consists of sweeping moral declarations like the Ten Commandments, but nothing could be further from the truth. Moral subjectivists observe [correctly so] that morality is contextual, but they get a little carried away with it, assuming on those grounds that it's "subjective" or "open to interpretation" or what have you.

If morality is subjective, then anything anyone could possibly have to say about it wouldn't be worth contesting, since objective moral truth is impossible. If this is the case, why are we debating it? If everyone is right about morality, then aren't I right when I say it's Objective? Subjective morality is impossible for this reason and many others. It creates an unavoidable paradox wherein everyone is right about morality and simultaneously a portion of us [moral Objectivists] are dead wrong about it.

Also, the "is-ought" problem is one of those useless philosophical conventions [Hume... pfft.] like the soul-body dichotomy, to name one of them. Philosophers fuck up and do stupid things too, just like anyone else with any profession.

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out at this point that the "is-ought problem" is the result of Hume's ethics, which you ought to know by now that I refuse to accept in any incarnation. If you want to employ the is-ought problem you could raise literally thousands of complaints with any moral declaration, including your own. The is-ought convention is a useless one, devised to discourage the use of one's logic and intellect, since the rest of Hume's moral theory more or less rests on its disuse.

Wait a second, "logical gap?" Moral subjectivism relies on the idea that logic is impotent in the field of morality. If it isn't, then can't logic be deployed to find and define certain real, objective benchmarks within it?

The answer is yes, before you ask. Now granted, you're not Soheran, but if I'd have asked you ten posts ago about the relationship between logic and morality, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if your answer had been similar to Soheran's. However, now that you've made this point you're probably going to change your tune, since now your only recourse is to suggest that logic can sometimes have the power to discern right from wrong [since logic clearly shows my viewpoint is flawed, right?], and basically it should be deployed only when you want it to be.

If you're going to contend that logic shouldn't be the basis for morality, fine. Just don't expect to get away with accusing me of "logical gaps" and such in the process.

i utterly fail to see where my opinion on the matter enters into it (which, btw, is that logic is quite useful in ethics for finding problems and contradictions, and for examining the logical consequences of particular ethic statements and systems - you know what they say about when you assume: it makes an ass out of you and, well, you).

you are the one claiming to have an objective system of ethics derived from logic and empirical statements about the world. if there is a logical flaw in your argument, there is a logical flaw in your argument regardless of whether i believe that logic is the work of the devil.

and your claim that ethical relativism or subjectivism relies on the idea that logic is impotent in the field of morality would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

If morality is subjective, then anything anyone could possibly have to say about it wouldn't be worth contesting, since objective moral truth is impossible. If this is the case, why are we debating it? If everyone is right about morality, then aren't I right when I say it's Objective? Subjective morality is impossible for this reason and many others. It creates an unavoidable paradox wherein everyone is right about morality and simultaneously a portion of us [moral Objectivists] are dead wrong about it.

ethical statments can lack truth values without in any way removing the truth values of statements about ethical statements. this is an argument about meta-ethics, about the nature of ethics. claiming that ethics are objective or subjective is an empirical or logical claim, not an ethical one.

Also, the "is-ought" problem is one of those useless philosophical conventions [Hume... pfft.] like the soul-body dichotomy, to name one of them. Philosophers fuck up and do stupid things too, just like anyone else with any profession.

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out at this point that the "is-ought problem" is the result of Hume's ethics, which you ought to know by now that I refuse to accept in any incarnation. If you want to employ the is-ought problem you could raise literally thousands of complaints with any moral declaration, including your own. The is-ought convention is a useless one, devised to discourage the use of one's logic and intellect, since the rest of Hume's moral theory more or less rests on its disuse.

you misunderstand the issue, i think. rather badly. the is-ought gap is a logical problem. it arises because the rules of logic make it happen. let's look at an example moral argument:

1. murder causes pain and suffering
2. murder restricts the liberty of others
3. murder makes society more dangerous
4. (whatever other 'is' statements you'd care to add)
____________
5. therefore, you should not commit murder.

now where the hell did that "should" come from? there is no "should" statement to be found in the premises. it is a new term added to the conclusion that does not follow of logical necessity from the premises. which makes this an invalid argument; the truth of the premises does not logically necessitate the truth of the conclusion.

in order to make it valid, the premises would need to contain a statement like "you should not cause pain and suffering, restrict the liberty of others, or make society more dangerous". but that statment is not an empircal one, nor does it fall out of the rules of logic. it is an ethical one. so in order to ground your argument purely on logic and empirical statements, you'd need to construct an argument based on those sorts of premises that concluded with the statement "you should not cause pain and suffering..."

but that argument itself would require a "should" statement in the premises. and that "should" statement wouldn't be empirical or a logical truth either. it would be an ethical claim too. and so you'd need another argument trying to ground that ethical claim in logical necessity and empirical evidence. but you won't be able to. you'd just have an infinite regress of arguments attempting to ground "should" statements in "is" ones.

that is the is-ought gap. the only solutions are to accept the infinite regress or choose some starting "should" and just accept that you can't ground it in logic and evidence. either path leads only to moral skepticism or moral subjectivism.

Whether morality is actually objective or not, from a secular perspective, is not the point. The fact is, everyone believes in some kind of morality. It may differ from person to person, but chances are, within that person's world, it is objective, and applies to everyone. So in a sense it retains both objective and subjective elements.

As I see it, the best way for a common morality to be achieved is through dialogue and free inquiry. Morality imposed by force or fear is not morality at all (ultimately that's why I am a libertarian). Of course, there is also the present problem of protecting the survival and furtherance of the human race by creating an environment of peace and stability, but within that, it is best if people are persuaded of the truth (whatever that truth is) rather than having it forced on them by external forces. As a Christian, I am going to have opinions that differ from an atheist, but I see us both as having the right to our opinions, as I would much rather confront a difference of opinion on morality in a non-threatening way, as equals, than as either the tyrant or the servant.

Proposition number two is ridiculous because Objectivity and Subjectivity are by definition mutually exclusive. I hope whoever lodged this answer was just doing it to be cheeky.

The problem with a simple concept of objectivity is, it assumes that there is such a thing as a Godlike perspective. If you believe in God, then chances are, you believe in objective morality. Subjectivity certainly resides in the mind and values of even the most critical thinkers of the human race, because no one in the human race is God. Thus, if the human race is the highest race, than morals are subjective.

In my opinion, a singular or common perspective or basis is desired by all people (it's funny how that works really, that everyone has a way that they would like everyone else to think). Thus, even if I am not an Objectivist philosophically (and not knowing enough about objectivism, I can't comment on it), the competitive nature of opinions has the possibility of ultimately producing 'something' that might be considered objective. Of course, as we neared the 'objective' perspective, there is always the possibility that we would reject the process that got us there, and that a voluntary commonality would self-destruct into tyranny. That's why I don't trust government, except when I absolutely have to, and why whenever we glom on to the gang mentality, i tend to 'zag' when everyone else is 'zigging.'

If you believe in God, then chances are, you believe in objective morality.

not automatically though. if you hold a divine command theory of ethics, then whatever your dieties of choice say is right, is right. even when they change their minds or say that something only applies to you.

I can see you chose not to respond to the first portion of my rebuttal. Should I take this to mean you've got my size 12 in your mouth already, or that you simply overlooked it?

It'd be nice, for once, to see one of my opponents develop the balls to concede their error.

I was tired of that particular line of discussion, and thought it unproductive, especially considering that your "rebuttal," typically, quibbled with phrasing and not with content.

It was really just a clumsy attempt to point out the false generality contained within your arguments, anyway, and that issue is dealt with elsewhere.

That said, saying "Life is the root of value" does not imply that all living things have values, which is the implication if you're attempting to suggest that values "spring from life" [your words, not mine]. I'll say this again: life makes values possible; it's the root of value because no value can exist without it, but at the same time merely being alive does not guarantee that one has values. A tree is alive, but it doesn't have moral values: only functional ones--the sun, the water, the soil, etc.

Obviously. I never claimed it did.

No, it isn't legitimate at all, at least not in the sense you seem to be suggetsing. This is all more or less immaterial to any attack on Objectivism anyway, since it relies on a grossly erroneous interpretation of its ideas. The claim "values spring from life" is like saying "fire springs from wood," ignoring the obvious catalyst that makes either one possible within its surrounding context.

The "catalyst" being thought, which is dependent on life too. Not much of an argument there.

I'd love to hear this. Please, enlighten me.

Me, enlighten you? It was you who made the claim in the first place; I asked for a justification. How does the fact that life is at the root of values have anything to do with what those values must advance?

Wait, what? When did "life" turn into a "vague, absurdly general" concept? Did living organisms and non-living ones become indistinguishable while I wasn't looking? Really, now you're just grasping for straws.

My individual life is not your individual life. From my individual life springs my individual values, not from yours. "Life" as an general concept has no place in this discussion.

If you're going to accuse me of being "too general" with my points without making any counterarguments of your own tell me that I'm wrong, simply stating that I am], is turnabout fair play? It's kind of funny, in a way, since in a larger sense my opponents are trying to be about two or three times more vague than I am in the first place [compare my "x is right and y is bullshit, and for thse reasons:..." to your "You're just wrong" and the predominant chorus of "morality is subjective"--the ultimate in vague-statement goodness]. Making statements in a direct and coherent manner, clarifying whenever asked to [as I have done] is the antithesis of vagueness--yet I'm being accused of being so by the very people that assure the rest of us that morality is an inherently [b]vague and largely unidentified concept. In a sense, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, since it's bullshit for anyone to be vague when they talk about morality unless its you.

I've not been vague or over-generalizing one goddamn bit more than the situation necessitates. If you don't feel I'm offering enough exposition, and if that's what you actually want, then go out and read one of the books I mentioned. If, on the other hand, you are [as I suspect] only in it for the fight, then go right ahead but don't get snippy with me for sparring on your own goddamn terms. I'm not here to write a book, and I'm not dodging anyone's questions, to the best of my knowledge. If I asked you to present your morality in as many words as I presented mine, you would suddenly lose your basis for this complaint.

I do not want "exposition," I want clarity. There is a difference.

Alas, Nietzsche strikes again. That man has so thoroughly degraded individualism to the point where I fear no one will accept it for what it ought to be any longer.

I was actually not advancing Nietzsche, I was pointing out the inconclusiveness of your argument.

First off, I'm not suggesting that anyone should operate with a "subjective perspective." Since knowlege is possible, it would be preferable that they operate under an objective perspecive. "Subjective" in this context implies "borne of whims or emotion," which shouldn't be the basis for moral action.

I never said you were. I pointed out that, even under the assumption that you can indeed move from "life is at the root of values" to "advancing life should be an aspect of values," at best the argument would lead to the conclusion that one should individually advance their own values. Note that nowhere in that process do I imply that either you or I is advancing that particular position, merely that your premises only lead to it, and not to the conclusion you intend.

Secondly, I am not saying "My Life is the root of all values," although I can see you chose to assume I did. Other people--insofar as they have the potential to succeed fantastically in embodying my values--should not be destroyed, but may be ignored. Again, it's an issue of honesty and integrity, like I said before. It has to do with whether or not one will permit others the same freedoms he enjoys for himself.

Your particular life, providing as it does a basis for your particular thought, is at the root of your particular values. The same thing is true with me, and with everyone else. Once again, I did not ever accuse you of holding the position that destroying other people's lives is a moral course of action.

Finally, harming another life is a fairly obvious reference to the initiation of force. I should really hope I wouldn't have to tell you why that is morally objectionable. If I'm making a "leap" by suggesting that legitimate values should not corrode their source, you're making a god damn pole vault by suggesting that the initiation of force is implicit with a code that suggests life is the root of values.

Here's what I actually said:

"Even if we take it for granted that values logically cannot seek to corrode their source, which I contest, it only follows that that individual person must advance his own individual life and his own individual thoughts - that is, he must pursue his subjective perspective on the world, regardless of harm to any other form of life."

That is, since:

1. The source of an individual's values is that individual's thought
2. The ultimate source of that individual's thought is that individual's life
3. Values must not seek to corrode their source (which, again, I contest)

It follows that "good" values advance the thoughts and life of the individual who has them, meaning that, as I said, "he must pursue his subjective perspective on the world." Since no life but his has any objective value through the argument, this advancement occurs irrelevantly of other lives. If they are in the way they are removed, as are any other obstacles.

Again, you'll note I didn't say My life or a life is the root of value for a reason: enjoy it while you can, since that's about as close to collectivism as I'm ever going to get.

Yes I have, I did it in that first post in fact, should you deign to read it again and actually understand it this time. If you're not advancing life, what are you doing? Destroying it. If you're destroying life, are you destroying values too? Yes, unless you're just killing chickens or amoebas. Life should be advanced, encouraged, and celebrated because without it, value [and therfore virtue, and morality] cannot exist. What's so hard to understand about that?

That's an argument derived from the subjective moral proposition that value should exist. You are taking presupposed moral assumptions and leading them to their conclusions, not logically deriving a moral system. Furthermore, again you are generalizing. An individual could be advancing his own life and his own values at the expense of other people's lives and values. You have failed to show why that is, objectively, morally wrong.

Bear in mind we're still [whether you like it or not] dealing with relatively general moral contexts here: it's impossible to expound on how things might change given variations in every little circumstance.

An issue I haven't even addressed.

If morality has "practically nothing" to do with objective reality, then how are we even talking about it? If it has "practically nothing" to do with reality, then why does it even matter what moral decisions one makes or doesn't make?

One can discuss God without conceding His existence. Objectively, no, it does not matter; subjectively it does, because human beings have certain views on what should be true, and seek to implement them.

Morality has everything to do with objective reality. If I walk into a shopping mall tomorrow with a TEC-9 and start wasting people it would be a real and observable moral act with [i]direct and profound consequences on objective reality.

But it would only be a "moral" act from the perspective of observers with subjective moralities of their own.

Observe, for example, that your only recourse against my arguments so far has been to claim more or less that logic is usless and morality has nothing to do with reality. Yet, you're conveinently ignoring the fact that everything I've written here has [i]led to these statments: your positions on morality were only made possible by your reasoning mind, therefore it's a bit ridiculous to challenge that axiom since you have to actually invoke it to do so. Likewise, your attempt to seperate morality from objective reality [which, to be frank, I'm surprised you even admit exists] is also an attempt to challenge an axiom while invoking it, since if morality wasn't a part of objective reality it wouldn't exist: it wouldn't be a debatable concept or even a concept at all.

Subjective morality - that is, the perspectives of human minds on what is right and wrong - does indeed exist. What does not exist is an objective moral system by which all human beings should, objectively, abide.

Basically, you're falling into what I call the "God Trap" and on more levels than you'd ever be prepared to admit in this "progressive" lifetime of yours. You're admitting that moral truth is beyond the grasp of man, and is ultimately detached from reality [supernatural?]. You contend that one's feeling [faith, revelation, etc] is the ultimate key to moral truth, and that any attempt to actually use reason in such a context is absurd [nevermind the countless other dilemmas reason has solved over the centuries]. It's an understanable compulsion, I suppose, and it really is a lot more prevalent than most people think.

Objective moral truth is "beyond the grasp of man" because objective moral truth doesn't exist. Because moral truth is subjective, human minds can use whatever they see fit to arrive at it, which includes anything from twisted logic to emotion.

Err...you already said this. Somehow, I'd guess, in the time it took you to write the same accusation twice, you could have actually found some examples by now. Care to give it a shot, or are you still sticking with "life" as a "vague, absurdly general concept?"

Life. Moral values are only rooted in "life" in the sense that individual moral values are derived from individual lives.

I hate to break it to you, but you are only marginally acquainted with what my code actually is, and I can tell from my discussions with you that it's quite clear you've never encountered anything quite like me in your life. Before you go around telling people that their logic is riddled with holes, it would be advisable to actually investigate said logic first. If you're going to contend that something does not follow logically, then back it up: say "This doesn't follow for x, y, and z reasons," not "X and y don't follow." As of this writing, the latter has invariably been your method, and for all the accusations you've levelled at me for not clarifying my position, the statements supporting yours are much more lacking. Observe, for example, that I have offered far more information and clarifications than you have; my posts are much longer and more detailed, and challenge yours point by point instead of leaving out the parts that are too tricky to answer [such as my opening query in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10467221&postcount=170)].

The burden of proof is on the person who makes the argument in the first place. To the argument that "this book is red, therefore that shelf is orange," the only sensible response is to request an explanation for the reasoning, unless you have empirical proof to the contrary - which is impossible in this case.

Do you actually expect me to take you seriously when you accuse me of being too vague when you haven't even stated your position?

Considering that I am contesting yours and not advancing my own, there is nothing whatsoever vague about not stating my own position. The only relevant one is that I think your arguments are flawed, which I stated very clearly in my first reply to your explanation for your moral system.

that is the is-ought gap. the only solutions are to accept the infinite regress or choose some starting "should" and just accept that you can't ground it in logic and evidence. either path leads only to moral skepticism or moral subjectivism.

even retreating all the way to the statement "what is is what should be" doesn't work (in addition to having the unfortunate side effect of saying that genocides ought to occassionally happen, etc).

you just cannot empirically observe a should statement in the universe, nor can you logically derive one without recourse ultimately to "i want x, therefore i should do y".

My apologies, yesterday was my busiest day for teaching and I did not have the time to frame a good or clear answer. Today I have fewer classes due to preparation for the end o the year, so hopefully I can be more eloquent.

Well... sorry about my shitty Japanese. It's been a long time since I've used it, and then it was really mostly only to order Teriyaki McBurgers. Watashi wa mo nihongo de dekimasen. Gomen nasai.
I forgive the lack of Japanese skills, I just ask that if you attempt to call me an idiot foreigner you at least get the words right. ;)

That said, I'm still waiting for a coherent answer to my question -- if there is no inherent moral sense among human beings, no innate capacity for moral judgment, then how is it possible to win a morality debate?
Rather Clintonesque, it depends upon by what you mean by win.

First off, bracketing every important word in quotation marks doesn't help you -- it only gives me the impression that you prefer to obfuscate the question rather than considering it. Quote-unquote-win. To win on a moral point of contention would mean, I should think, to convince your adversary of the correctness of a particular course of action. Surely, the hope of winning in this way was what impelled you to debate the point in the first place. Quote-unquote-force. You claim to disbelieve in "moral force" but cannot dispense with the word, so you bracket it in quotes and remain mysterious as to what you mean by it. Quote-unquote-right. Another word in which you disbelieve but cannot avoid using. If you cannot accept the literal meaning of right then what does it mean in your ironic sense?
Alright, I'll try and take this a bit at a time. I use the quotes to denote more than one meaning in the word(s). The problem with saying, for example, "I used a good argument to win the moral debate by forcing him to acknowledge his wrongness" is what do we actually mean by 'win', 'forcing', and 'wrongness'? By wining, you seem to believe that we have consulted or shown our position to be more inline with some moral source, your moral intuition, others may say the rules of God, but what have you. The notion seeming to be that in showing the faults of the other, they will change their morals to ours to be more inline with this moral source.

I say nothing of the sort, to me, wining a moral argument is to have YOUR morality be the one in the fore. There's nothing to say that it is closer inline with a common moral source, just that you have managed to arrange matters so that the argument is advantageous to you, not your opponent.

A (non-moral, at least I hope so) example would be where should we eat for lunch? I'm all for going to MOS Burgers, you want McDonalds. It's a mater of taste and choice without any one common authority that would state one is better than the other. In the end, I may win and we go to MOS Burger. But what have I won? Did I change your opinion of McDonalds as being superior to MOS Burger? Will you now eat at MOS Burger exclusively as it has been shown to be the right, proper, and only burger shop to eat at? Or is it just more likely that I was able to force you to bend to my will this time, and next time we'll go to McDonalds instead?

By force I mean any methods used to arrange your position to be the wining one. Unfortunately that usually sounds like physical force. It may not be, it may be economic, or logical, or emotional, or just shear bloody mindedness. Example, the Bush Administration has forced its moral judgment about sex before marriage on AIDS sufferers in Africa. Any group that gets money from the United States now has to promote abstinence. The force here is economic. We can debate until the cows come home about if this is the best way, but since President Bush controls the purse strings, his moral way has won and been shown to be right.

Rightness, and wrongness, is again a moveable position. You seem to be suggesting, like all folks who claim objective status, that there IS a right and a wrong that is universal. There's no such thing. To say, "My argument is right" smacks of some unassailable position where some judge or some standard exists to compare the position to see if it is right or wrong. In the end, it attempts to reduce morality to 2+2=? Your answer is either right, or wrong. I am pointing out that when people and cultures clash, there is no such universal standard. Only force.

As for your formula for quote-unquote-winning (a dubious objective!)...
As pointed out, I mean to have my views be accepted or used as opposed to your views, or the views of someone else.

By exposing a logical inconsistency: Certainly one tries to point out logical inconsistencies in his opponent's argument, but that is hardly enough in a moral debate. Two systems can both be logically consistent and not agree on a single point.
Which is a point in my favor, actually. If both systems are consistent and right, how can one then be incorrect and wrong? How can one objectively be better than the other?

Again, in the class between McDonalds and MOS Burger, it's a matter of taste and opinion, all very subjective.

By superior argument: I can only guess what you mean by 'superior argument' -- a more refined rhetorical style, perhaps? This is desired but hardly pertinent to the merits of the argument.
No, by superior argument, I mean the best use of force for the argument at hand. Be it debating, economic, or out of the barrel of a gun.

By making a point: perhaps you mean... no, I don't understand; what could you possibly mean by that? If "my morals are my own, nobody else's" and "what is self-evident to me may not be self-evident to you," then how is it possible to make a point? A point, i.e. fixed, something which is the same when viewed from any perspective. If some moral statement which is true for you may just as well be true as false for anyone else, then how as anybody ever won a moral argument by making a point?
By referring to facts and other such points. The problem is, our language doesn't like use to question such things well.

You get no further by talking about "cultural values." Our discussion doesn't inquire into what makes discussions of morality "workable" or "difficult" any more than it inquires into what makes one an eloquent defender of his moral position or a poor one, but simply into what decides the argument.
I was attempting to show what I mean when I say morality is subjective in action. Again, force alone decides the argument, not appealing to some instinct or intuition to guide us. We are guided by a wide range of sources.

So, if not moral axioms, then what? You still have not come up with any better answer to my question than the two vague sentences infested with ironic quotation marks.
Ok, we are guided by our own choices. We decide alone what is moral or not. Our decisions are based upon our own reasoning, our experiences, and our cultures. This sounds close to what you have stated, but it removes that central component, that there is a moral intuition in everyone. When we are small, we are told what is right and wrong within our family. We learn very, very quickly that it is ok to do this, and not ok to do that. Later, when we make our first forays out into our communities, we are taught the rules of said community/tribe. Later on, we start to learn the rules of our society and culture at large. Finally, when we reach whatever period is coming of age, we come into the rules that bind our nation. We interact with these rules based upon our own experience with them. A thief may have learned that the rules against stealing do not apply to him or her. We use reason to apply what we have learned to the situation at hand.

Again, no where in there does a moral intuition come into play, just constructed memories and behavioral patterns. We learn that killing is wrong; we also learn our own culture's exceptions to that moral law. While the nation/culture/community/family impresses upon the individual the rules of right and wrong, the individual works upon the same chain. This is why morals change so much over the years. What was morally wrong then isn't so now, what was right then, is repugnant now. Is it that it was always right and we were mistaken? Or was it just a matter of changing morals and values?

See, that is what I do not understand about your objective moral source, your moral intuition. If it were truly there, how is it that we have free will? If we do have free will to ignore it, then why bother stating it is there in the first place? I get the feeling it is to provide a source of security. The world becomes harder, crueler, and much more random if there was no moral source to consult. Instead of being able to rely on the "inherent goodness" of man, we have to work to understand what that person's moral positions are and where they come from, and how much they clash or dovetail with our own. If you state I have not been able to show that you can be subjective and have a moral position, you have yet to show how it is possible for people to have an objective moral source and ignore it.

A true subjectivist would not complain about differences in cultural mores, because his morality has nothing to do with norms or proverbial wisdom. A true subjectivist would not say "psychopaths do not feel bad" because he knows that everybody suffers privately, even those who are outside the community of shared values.
A subjectivist states that there is no common moral source, therefore, no hard right or wrong, life and morals are what you make of it. An objectivist believes otherwise.

A subjectivist would be like the biblical Abraham when he was commanded by God to violate the First Commandment and slaughter his own son. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard, the Danish iconoclast, tells several different versions of the story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son Isaac, and in each version, Abraham the Existentialist is completely silent while he meditates on his moral dilemma. He says nothing to his wife, Sarah, to Isaac, or to any of his servants -- if he has ambivalent thoughts about killing his son, he keeps them all to himself. That is a moral subjectivist, one who acts, perhaps confidently or perhaps hesitantly, but acts without trying to justify himself to anybody because he stands resolutely outside of moral law.
I'll have to pick that book up; I'm interested in how the author deals with the problem that that First Commandment wasn't around when God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac. In any case, my point is just that. I do not have to justify my moral believes to anyone but myself because it is myself that decides my moral course. However, as no man is an island, I WILL clash with others. They are not subject to my moral code unless I force them to be. I am not subjective to theirs, unless they force me to be.

The moral subjectivist could not even put his moral position into words, or, like Nietzsche's ubermensch, he would have to invent a new language to describe it. But you, you lay it out articulately, you invoke the philosophers, hell, you even begin with axioms.
Actually I had to use a lot of quotation marks... ;)

Most of those who claim to be subjectivists actually take moral positions which are solidly, sanguinely, within bounds, and do not hesitate, in fact, to cast their moral judgments on friends, neighbors, family, lovers, and anyone else they consider to be within the expansive sphere of their subjectivity. As for the rest of the world, "That's fine for those people" is their policy, echoing the embroidery on their mantle which says, "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change..." In other words, it's just so much WASPy humility and liberal tolerance, plus distrust of philosophy, masquerading as a belief in total subjectivity, which it isn't.
I hope the above has answered the arguments you have made here. We force others to bow to our moral code because we want to eat at MOS Burger that day. But there is nothing in that force that makes our love of the wonderful teriyaki chicken burger there better and more morally right, than the teriyaki chicken sandwich at McDonalds.

Presuppositions:

Value is impossible without life [since inanimate objects cannot value things].
Life, therefore, must be the root of all values.
Morality deals with whether these values are attained [through virtuous action] and upheld or not.

Good = That which acts to advance or further life.

Evil = That which acts to hinder or destroy it.You stated in a later post that you are against the use of force, I imagine that you are assuming that force implies the destruction of life. However, it is possible to use force with the goal of furthering life. For instance, you could rob a bank of a million dollars and then use that money to buy food for the homeless. Robbing the bank would be the use of force, but the purchase of food (for people who don't have it) would be furthering life. Would such an act be good or evil, in your view?

Nice dodge, but does not address the fundemental point, if it is objective, it cannot be violated. Free will allows us to be subjective, but again, I cannot be subjective about gravity. I may choose to try and be subjective about gravity and jump off my roof of course. But that doesn't mean I can be subjective and I'll go splat. I don't see how something being objective means that it can't be violated, or that there is a punishment for doing so. The law of gravity does exist, yes, however you can get past it with a rocket, and you conceded this in an earlier post.