Moral Relativism versus Universal Morality

[RobotRipping]

that's still subjective morality. Kant's objective morality is still flawed and needs work. That is the issue here.

 

[Comrade Kane]

Harm is wrong.
Why is it wrong?
Because it harms another/yourself/society whatever.

Why is it wrong to harm another/yourself/society whatever
Because harm is wrong.

There is no objective basis for morality it is merely evolutions genetic programming existing only within our brains that allows us to exist in groups. It is not real. It is entirely relative.

Consider: humans existed but were not a social species. Perhaps we were all sociopaths utterly unable to empathise with others perhaps we are loners only coming together to mate.
Would our rules and morals really apply then?
How bout if when we came together to mate we males would assault each other for breeding access. Would those assaults be wrong?
What if our females cannibalised their mates.

See whatever appears moral to us and each species in fact is what is natural to us biologically. Thus morality is indeed subjective illusion.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Harm is wrong.
Why is it wrong?
Because it harms another/yourself/society whatever.

Why is it wrong to harm another/yourself/society whatever
Because harm is wrong.[/quote

you act like that's evidence of flawed, circular reasoning (if not failed reasoning). it is none of those; it is just belaboring one of the strongest underlying principles of "societal conduct" ie golden rule / harming man is bad / good.v.evil.

There is no objective basis for morality it is merely evolutions genetic programming existing only within our brains that allows us to exist in groups. It is not real. It is entirely relative.

lol. not "real", entirely relative.. is love 'real'? is survival-instinct real? the sensation of satisfying hunger? is the concept of justice real?
just because something isn't a tangible object, or pertains specifically and only within the confines of "human consciousness", doesn't make it less 'real' than anything else.
and, i don't buy that that equals "no objective basis" for morality; as mentioned morality can be approached objectively in large part IMO once and if a couple things are established/accepted as givens.

Consider: humans existed but were not a social species. Perhaps we were all sociopaths utterly unable to empathise with others perhaps we are loners only coming together to mate.
Would our rules and morals really apply then?
How bout if when we came together to mate we males would assault each other for breeding access. Would those assaults be wrong?
What if our females cannibalised their mates.

See whatever appears moral to us and each species in fact is what is natural to us biologically. Thus morality is indeed subjective illusion.

yes of course it is what is natural to man (biologically, and therefore philosophically/ethically); when we speak of morality it's ridiculous to think the idea is to find some "universal" morality; that is an area for (epistemology? metaphysics?); we are speaking of HUMAN morality, ie what is proper or right/wrong to man. Man, as he is understood to exist at the present, in the context of earth / humanity. We're not talking about what was proper to man at a different point in his evolution, "morality" there would be different (note that this makes neither more "real" or even more valid, though one is clearly an evolved version of the other). Early-man morality is of course different than "morality" in the way we're speaking of in this thread.
(females cannibalizing males would be moral if that was natural to the specie. it's not moral for females here to do so, but perhaps for some female aliens somewhere this is a norm of mating and automatically 'right' thus 'moral'. note i'm discounting mantises/bugs, etc, from earth as 'morality' requires consciousness/volition to be applicable so is only applicable to humans[perhaps argument for other here?])

 

[Comrade Kane]

Harm is wrong.
Why is it wrong?
Because it harms another/yourself/society whatever.

Why is it wrong to harm another/yourself/society whatever
Because harm is wrong.[/quote

you act like that's evidence of flawed, circular reasoning (if not failed reasoning). it is none of those; it is just belaboring one of the strongest underlying principles of "societal conduct" ie golden rule / harming man is bad / good.v.evil.




lol. not "real", entirely relative.. is love 'real'? is survival-instinct real? the sensation of satisfying hunger? is the concept of justice real?
just because something isn't a tangible object, or pertains specifically and only within the confines of "human consciousness", doesn't make it less 'real' than anything else.
and, i don't buy that that equals "no objective basis" for morality; as mentioned morality can be approached objectively in large part IMO once and if a couple things are established/accepted as givens.





yes of course it is what is natural to man (biologically, and therefore philosophically/ethically); when we speak of morality it's ridiculous to think the idea is to find some "universal" morality; that is an area for (epistemology? metaphysics?); we are speaking of HUMAN morality, ie what is proper or right/wrong to man. Man, as he is understood to exist at the present, in the context of earth / humanity. We're not talking about what was proper to man at a different point in his evolution, "morality" there would be different (note that this makes neither more "real" or even more valid, though one is clearly an evolved version of the other). Early-man morality is of course different than "morality" in the way we're speaking of in this thread.
(females cannibalizing males would be moral if that was natural to the specie. it's not moral for females here to do so, but perhaps for some female aliens somewhere this is a norm of mating and automatically 'right' thus 'moral'. note i'm discounting mantises/bugs, etc, from earth as 'morality' requires consciousness/volition to be applicable so is only applicable to humans[perhaps argument for other here?])

So in other words you agree with me. It's entirely moral to kill another sentient being denying them life if that was our biological nature. Good. Now you understand. Morality is relative and subjective. Those tribes in the amazon killing kids is thus FINE as that's THEIR morality THEIR nature. So how can we judge others by what is moral for us? We can't because our morals are NOT UNIVERSAL. Glad you see that.

As for the nature of sensations that is simply information virtual data in the brain chemicals and electrical signals not real. Love is endorphins and other chemicals creating an ENTIRELY subjective experience inside our brains.

 

[Comrade Kane]

We are not separate from nature thus whatever we do is natural. It is natural for a sociopath to be sociopathic a psychopath psychopathic. For these its not immoral as that's their nature.

We do seem to punish these people. Some confuse this as because what they do is immoral ex murder theft so on. In fact we punish the deviant merely because its part of our genetic programming to do so in order to maintain social cohesion. We don't actually punish, we remove, we prevent, we deter.

When a croc kills a human the rangers will come and shoot it, not to punish the croc cause the crocs done nothing wrong but to prevent it happening again. See the difference?

We THINK we are acting morally but really morals don't exist but are just subjective feelings pure data existing inside our imaginations which motivate us to do 'good' as per our nature and prevent 'bad' as per our nature.

Morality is nothing more than a goad our genes pushing us into survival pathways natural selection so on.

 

[L2R]

interesting points, ck.

we exercise both retributive and preventative systems of justice, the former appealing to emotion and the latter, rationality. i don't think this is neither here nor there in terms of the objectivity of some morality.

the argument over what is "natural" is not really helpful either, as one could argue that anything which exists is natural by the sheer fact that it does. the same applies to write offs to genetics.

 

[Comrade Kane]

Retributive justice is deterrent. We do it because of emotions not logic. We feel the emotions that lead to retributive justice because our genes program us to feel such. Our genes do this because it increases social cohesion thus our chances of survival. Thus those with the genes for retributive justice have been selected for in our past.

Simple cause and effect.

We act according to morals because of the emotions engendered in us whether someone offends us harming us (obviously if we allowed others to harm us with impunity...) or when an offends is commitee against another or we consider committing offends against another we feel what they would feel engendering the same or similar emotions thus causing us to act to salve those emotions.

And we feel the emotions because our genes program our brains to release the appropriate chemicals in response to appropriate stimuli. And the genes do this because these reactions increase our survival thus are selected for.



PS god exists because god exists is not a fallacy or circular argument it just reinforces the fact that god exists, at least according to someone's logic above.

 

[L2R]

1- retributive justice is not a deterrent. if it were, we'd have been crime-less years ago.
2- we also gain much of our morality from our social upbringing, and it strongly influence our intuitive reactions to most situations. as a result we seem to make judgements as an automated response in most cases. this is all true, but it does not follow from this that all morality is subjective.
3- your God analogy is not accurate, the divine is nothing like harm.

 

[Comrade Kane]

Really? Retributive justice doesn't deter? You mean when you think about fighting some other guy you never think about what if his mates get you back you know payback? What prevents you from openly using drugs if not fear of retribution from the police law and society? Are you saying no one EVER considers the legal consequences of their offences the jail time so on.

The only reason retributive justice does not prevent all crime is that most criminals are not caught in today's modern society but think about the tribal unit we evolved in... Everyone knew everything about everyone else and retribution was swift. No. Retribution does deter crime. It's just the dumb criminals don't think they'll be caught. If they knew they'd be caught they wouldn't do it.

If universal morality existed it would always be wrong to murder. Murder is the purposeful killing of another sentient being without provocation or their consent.

However if humans were not a social species but rather loners not cooperating with each no empathy whatsoever with others coming together only to mate our offspring hatching from eggs we abandon so on but each individual still sentient well then our morality might take another very different form.
In fact as we wouldnt need to get along with others there would be no reason not to kill other humans murder them for objects food or mates that they have and we desire. This murder and theft would no longer be wrong and in that situation no human would even think it wrong to casually murder others in day to day life.

Clearly morals are not universal but subjective. Clearly morals only exist so as to enhance our individual survival by allowing us to pool our efforts in a society. Clearly without morality society breaks down and it becomes harder to survive.

Morals are an emotional reaction due to empathy our brain squeezes out if us in reaction to stimuli. Most of the basic morals are had wired in the genes. The rest are culturally inherited (don't eat pork) and cultural evolution meme evolution is another subject entirely.

Morality does not exist its just a set of feelings we get then rationalise about consciously its just data and chemicals in the computer that's our brain.


Yes divine is not harm however the argument used is identical in each case. Circular arguments are always false and does not enhance anything.

 

[ebola?]

So in other words you agree with me. It's entirely moral to kill another sentient being denying them life if that was our biological nature. Good. Now you understand. Morality is relative and subjective.

"Relative to situational context" is not equivalent to "subjective". Situational circumstance encompasses the set of objective conditions in which agents find themselves, and is in this way thoroughly objective.

ebola

 

[ebola?]

Retributive justice is deterrent. We do it because of emotions not logic. We feel the emotions that lead to retributive justice because our genes program us to feel such. Our genes do this because it increases social cohesion thus our chances of survival. Thus those with the genes for retributive justice have been selected for in our past.

Simple cause and effect.

This is a sound (if incomplete) causal argument, but this is beside the question. We are not asking what produces morality but rather rather, what justifies what is right and wrong to do.

Clearly morals are not universal but subjective.

Once again, "universal vs. subjective" does not precisely or accurately capture the subjective/objective dichotomy that is produced as organism-environment interaction produces subjects and objects. So to return to your hypothetical example of human beings as a group of 'natural sociopaths', you altered the set of objective conditions produced by humans in interaction, so of course the constellation of moral claims under consideration would be different (or I would argue, the very possibility of positing moral claims would be undermined).

[that] Circular arguments are always false and does not enhance anything.

They are not false but rather invalid.

ebola

 

[Comrade Kane]

"Relative to situational context" is not equivalent to "subjective"

please reread thread title "moral relativism vs universal morals."

That is the dichotomy morals are not universal but relative. If a moral law does not hold true everywhere in all situations how can it be universal? Since morals vary between individuals how can they be universal? How when I've just proven its fine to murder if you want to?

Now I use the word subjective to mean morals are entirely virtual entirely within our brains and are not real objective things but rather just feelings causing a reaction to stimuli in a way that increases survival. It's virtual not objective.

 

[RobotRipping]

i definitely agree with comrade kane on many points except the god argument lol.

so if every human has a built in way of comprehending stimuli through the senses and from this gains understanding and even the ability to reason, would this not be universal to all humans? i think this is what Kant built his moral framework around. i should probably go reread some of it to be sure but i think that was his point. That is the groundwork for the metaphyics of morals, about rationality, that which makes us different from other 'creatures'. Since we all have the capabilities for reason (well most of us) then we can appeal to reason to objectify our morality. There are some obvious flaws to this though, as there are sociopaths, people with mental disorders and skewed versions of reality compared to the average person. And sometimes the rules in logic change or are revised, for example frege correcting Aristotle's logic with predicate logic, i think it was him anyway.

I think i'm missing a step in there logically, something about our ability to reason but i'm too tired to figure it out for now. I think Kant really made the best attempt at a universal moral framework in his groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. Really Kant lays it out far better than i ever could, though i still see flaws (utilitarianism is the big one) i think if we are to gain an understanding of what is meant by universal morality then he is the guy to go to.

The Groundwork is broken into a preface, followed by three sections. Kant's argument works from common reason up to the supreme unconditional law, in order to identify its existence. He then works backwards from there to prove the relevance and weight of the moral law. The third and final section of the book is famously obscure, and it is partly because of this that Kant later, in 1788, decided to publish the Critique of Practical Reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysic_of_Morals