DeathDomokun
Ex-Bluelighter
For it to be good, judgement must arise.
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
Moral Relativism versus Universal Morality
- Thread starter rachamim
- Start date
Foreigner
Bluelighter
Sigh... this thread has become tedious.
You can't apply logic to morality, but that does not make morality subjective or of less value. The failure of logic is the ability to clearly distinguish the difference between symbols and what they represent. Reason does not itself provide a guide to truth. The basic universal laws that all societies share are not informed on rationality, they are informed on a different kind of consciousness. Rationality produces massive amounts of information and documentation, but lacks the capability to resolve discrepancies in data and conclusions - it cannot produce truth, only information to help another kind of consciousness arrive at truth. Know what that consciousness is? It is love. The argument of objective/subjective falls into the category of rationality. The argument of truth falls into the category of love; not romantic love or the way the mainstream defines it, but a heart centred consciousness that preserves the greater good.
People who are so stuck in rationality and logic are going to fail to see how there can be universal morality. It's when you rise up into the heart level of being that you see a greater arch of right and wrong that does not come from a place of value judgments or rules, but it is simply an insistant truth. Love does not murder, assault, rape, commit genocide, theft the lifeblood from individuals and communites, etc. Apply all the logic to it you want. If you have love and empathy these moral rules make sense, and they have objective truth beyond the sophistry of semantics.
Before laws became based on greed, fear, and power plays by those in charge, they were based on a paternalistic desire to protect the greater good of everyone within the village. That came from love.
You can't apply logic to morality, but that does not make morality subjective or of less value. The failure of logic is the ability to clearly distinguish the difference between symbols and what they represent. Reason does not itself provide a guide to truth. The basic universal laws that all societies share are not informed on rationality, they are informed on a different kind of consciousness. Rationality produces massive amounts of information and documentation, but lacks the capability to resolve discrepancies in data and conclusions - it cannot produce truth, only information to help another kind of consciousness arrive at truth. Know what that consciousness is? It is love. The argument of objective/subjective falls into the category of rationality. The argument of truth falls into the category of love; not romantic love or the way the mainstream defines it, but a heart centred consciousness that preserves the greater good.
People who are so stuck in rationality and logic are going to fail to see how there can be universal morality. It's when you rise up into the heart level of being that you see a greater arch of right and wrong that does not come from a place of value judgments or rules, but it is simply an insistant truth. Love does not murder, assault, rape, commit genocide, theft the lifeblood from individuals and communites, etc. Apply all the logic to it you want. If you have love and empathy these moral rules make sense, and they have objective truth beyond the sophistry of semantics.
Before laws became based on greed, fear, and power plays by those in charge, they were based on a paternalistic desire to protect the greater good of everyone within the village. That came from love.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
If you steal from others, that is 'wrong'*. If you grow food and trade it to me for clothing, that is "right"*.
/*but, as you say, who is to judge? Well, any contrarian can come in here and tell us he disagrees. He can say it's right to steal and wrong to trade. Is his "opinion" right, or as valid as mine?
Morality deals with right/wrong, but right/wrong require definition within context otherwise it's pointless, surely nobody woudl disagree with that. So this is really just a matter of determining context, or premises. *I* view life as good, happiness/joy/pleasure as a central goal of living, and i see freedom as a requirement to realize happiness/pleasure. So, within my premises, it's quite clear that robbery is immoral, rape is immoral, and murder is immoral. I see, as moral, *anything* that contribues to my premises, whether it's brushing my teeth, reading, fucking, working, drinking, whatever.
IF your premise was that life sucks and humans deserve to die, clearly that flips everything ;P
Given that we don't all agree on our initial premises, we'll automatically have trouble agreeing on what flows/extends from them and morality will be a contentious topic forever.
But IMO it is immoral to steal from someone else, and it is immoral to do self-harm/cutting stuff (which could be done on an island).
/will elaborate if need be.
All i can really say is that, since morality deals wiht what is wrong/right, it that must be determined and the only practical way to do so is to go a step back and determine proper frameworks. In *my* framework i see life as good, freedom being of utmost importance, and joy/pleasure as a central goal. If you're able to construe solid premises, the rest will flow from there (even if it's a PITA!)
Another thing re the objective/subjective dichotomy ppl were having trouble with. The way i see it there is no subjective/objective conflict. One's premises are determined subjectively, but the morality that proceeds from such a startinjg point must *objectively* support it. You can subjectively choose that procreation is the most important value in the world, but if you do, you must objectively conclude that your morality is against contraception.
Thorns Have Roses
Bluelight Crew
BMXXX said:
Stop for a second. When we say happiness is the goal, do we mean eudaimonia or hedonia? I think we should differentiate.
It sounds like you meant hedonism given your inclusion of pleasure, and I think that is going to lead to a "Do what you will, so long as you aren't harming others" kind of morality system. Eudaimonism might lead to something more complex and polarizing.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
unfortunately i'm not familiar enough w/ the terms to answer you based upon them, perhaps if i elaborate a bit it'll suffice...
Positive emotions are the purpose of life IMO, but that's not to say that it's proper to blindly pursue whatever gives satisfaction- doing so will sometimes be counter-productive (drugs would be a great example here, in that indulgence is <IMO, again> proper to the human experience, whereas overindulgence is counterproductive to "the good").
"Do what you will, so long as you aren't harming others" / laissezfaire are the "freedom" attribute i mentioned, and this is requisite to man's proper interpersonal relations. Within that confine, one's goal should be to 'maximize the human experience' (and again, that doesn't mean blind hedonism/pleasure-seeking, as eating all of the month's food today, or smoking a dub of rock, are short-sighted and clearly do not maximize pleasure/happiness/positive over time periods longer than the present moment)
Hopefully that sufficiently explains what i meant, if not, just re-phrase or ask examples or something and i'll elaborate :]
[EDIT: on the note of drugs- I believe the proper role of drugs is moderate usage, as both abstinence and addiction/dependence are inferior ;P ]
Positive emotions are the purpose of life IMO, but that's not to say that it's proper to blindly pursue whatever gives satisfaction- doing so will sometimes be counter-productive (drugs would be a great example here, in that indulgence is <IMO, again> proper to the human experience, whereas overindulgence is counterproductive to "the good").
"Do what you will, so long as you aren't harming others" / laissezfaire are the "freedom" attribute i mentioned, and this is requisite to man's proper interpersonal relations. Within that confine, one's goal should be to 'maximize the human experience' (and again, that doesn't mean blind hedonism/pleasure-seeking, as eating all of the month's food today, or smoking a dub of rock, are short-sighted and clearly do not maximize pleasure/happiness/positive over time periods longer than the present moment)
Hopefully that sufficiently explains what i meant, if not, just re-phrase or ask examples or something and i'll elaborate :]
[EDIT: on the note of drugs- I believe the proper role of drugs is moderate usage, as both abstinence and addiction/dependence are inferior ;P ]
Thorns Have Roses
Bluelight Crew
I don't have much a background/more than a passing understanding either, so if I'm fucking this up someone please help me phrase what I'm getting at better.
Eudaimonia as happiness would define it as worthwhile living/welfare, we might associate it with virtue and being socially constructive. In this sense you could be happy without experiencing any positive emotions. Hedonism would associate happiness with the acute experience of positive emotion (joy, pleasure, whatever, I don't want to subdivide it) and/or absence of negative ones. I didn't take you to mean ribald self-indulgence (though it could mean this), but more the Epicurean sense of the word.
Eudaimonia as happiness would define it as worthwhile living/welfare, we might associate it with virtue and being socially constructive. In this sense you could be happy without experiencing any positive emotions. Hedonism would associate happiness with the acute experience of positive emotion (joy, pleasure, whatever, I don't want to subdivide it) and/or absence of negative ones. I didn't take you to mean ribald self-indulgence (though it could mean this), but more the Epicurean sense of the word.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
"happy without experiencing any positive emotions" I don't understand what you mean by that- doing a job well and getting paid (or enjoying the fruits of labor yourself), or successfully helping someone important to you through a tough time, are things that, while not on the order of magnitude of shooting up, are still positives/happiness/satisfaction/etc.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
it's not an appeal- i think that seeking happiness, and not interfering w/ others' pursuit thereof, are the 2 main principles of morality. I don't consider monks moral, if that makes sense (start the hate ;P )
i'm not hating, but what you are arguing is easily contentious.
as for "appeal to", i use this term to describe the rationality behind an assertion. you are asserting morality is objective by appealing to the fair and equal pursuit of happiness. i don't think that pursuit is anywhere near universal.
as for "appeal to", i use this term to describe the rationality behind an assertion. you are asserting morality is objective by appealing to the fair and equal pursuit of happiness. i don't think that pursuit is anywhere near universal.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
Most of what I say is, unfortunately ![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
Lots of the time tho it's in how i explain it, and not what i actually believe (w/ the exception of political/economic stuff, an area that most do truly disagree with my views.EDIT: lol how i include 'political/economic' as if it weren't practically paramount to formal, interpersonal relationships in a society. But ppl tend to agree with a lot of that too, just not how far i take it)
I see <human>life as an incredible gift, and consider it a "duty", for lack of something more precise, for ppl to make the most of their lives while *not* infringing the rights of others to do so. I'm not trying to be contentious - I think it's immoral to waste your life, as it is immoral to hinder the ability of another to (fairly)maximize theirs.
Lots of the time tho it's in how i explain it, and not what i actually believe (w/ the exception of political/economic stuff, an area that most do truly disagree with my views.EDIT: lol how i include 'political/economic' as if it weren't practically paramount to formal, interpersonal relationships in a society. But ppl tend to agree with a lot of that too, just not how far i take it)I see <human>life as an incredible gift, and consider it a "duty", for lack of something more precise, for ppl to make the most of their lives while *not* infringing the rights of others to do so. I'm not trying to be contentious - I think it's immoral to waste your life, as it is immoral to hinder the ability of another to (fairly)maximize theirs.
Last edited by a moderator:
i know you aren't doing it intentionally, so no judgement from this end, mate. 
it's cool.
i think the clearest way to express objective morality is with examples in which a morally questionable thing remains undetected, and through analysis of what harm actually is. it isn't as straightforward as one who hasn't studied philosophy of morality would ordinarily expect.
it's cool. i think the clearest way to express objective morality is with examples in which a morally questionable thing remains undetected, and through analysis of what harm actually is. it isn't as straightforward as one who hasn't studied philosophy of morality would ordinarily expect.
What if the person that was wasting their life was destined to waste their life to help others learn from them?
or
What if by taking the supposed moral low road and hindering the ability of another to maximize your potential, you awaken the true pathway the person you hindered was blueprinted for. Allowing that person to progress much further than he would have if you would of just helped him.
would morals even matter in that reality?
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
then in the end, no real harm or even potential net-good. just because the end was worth the means doesn't mean they were moral.
RobotRipping
Bluelighter
utilitarianism mixed with kantian ethics is workable for me and what i live by.
I think our morality could be objective in the sense that each being sees the world the same way and through this (say genetics) do certain things to keep the species strong or healthy. Going against this natural morality would be wrong, the judge would be reason but ultimately no consequences either way.
Objective morality must be grounded in reason, otherwise it will not apply properly and you will run into this constant issue of what if this what if that. The what ifs are stupid and add nothing to the discussion.
what if i killed 10 men? and they were all good men with families and were happy. It doesn't matter, no one cares, God doesn't care, the universe doesn't care. Why wouldn't i do this then? well i have this empathy inside me, this is what forms our moral basis.
I think our morality could be objective in the sense that each being sees the world the same way and through this (say genetics) do certain things to keep the species strong or healthy. Going against this natural morality would be wrong, the judge would be reason but ultimately no consequences either way.
Objective morality must be grounded in reason, otherwise it will not apply properly and you will run into this constant issue of what if this what if that. The what ifs are stupid and add nothing to the discussion.
what if i killed 10 men? and they were all good men with families and were happy. It doesn't matter, no one cares, God doesn't care, the universe doesn't care. Why wouldn't i do this then? well i have this empathy inside me, this is what forms our moral basis.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
L2R said:
This sounds like a good start. I will put forth that insofar as 'nodes' of organism-environment interaction begin to develop an intersubjective character, those principles which promote the development of further intersubjectivity become established as 'ethically good', and those principles which reduce the possibility of its development establish themselves as 'ethically harmful'. However, I'm not entirely sure that this gives us a sufficient pivot to discriminate between deontology and consequentialist concerns. Provisionally, it seems that one would need examine how such ethical principles manifest when put into practice, both in terms of how they affect growth of a 'healthy' community of agents (that is, stable and expansive, in terms of both membership of ethical agents and the conceptual complexity of these agents) , but also in terms of how the use of these principles affects the complexity and adequacy of these subjects' action. This might seem rather consequentialist (that is where my intuitions usually lie), but expanding the realm of consequences to include how they affect subjecthood retains the impetus of deontology.
From this perspective, rachamim's original ethical principle seems well intersubjectively established, but whether it extends to things like the termination of fetuses is unclear (with greater intersubjective complexity, there is greater room for accounting for multiple ends, multiple situational contingencies, etc.).
robotripping said:
Not really. I wouldn't like "objective" to simply denote "ubiquitous", "universal", "time-invariant", etc. Rather, "objective" should point to the constellation of conditions which are perceived by and act upon subjects from without. Accordingly, "subjective" should not just denote "variable" or "arbitrary". Rather, the subjective is that which stems from the perception and action of those beings which take objects.
However, it also makes 'subjectivity', as you put it forth, impossible. Insofar as we participate in ethical programs, we are discerning how subjects come to grips with objective forces. I think that in general, the synthetic/analytic distinction cannot be maintained (per Quine's argument), and I think that "a priori" and "a posteriori" are useful descriptors only when pitted vis-a-vis particular moments of investigation.
bmx said:
Even on a desert island, we remain intersubjective beings, as socialization retains its mark on our psyche, and we continue to hold concern for potential others, however distant. However, more tangibly, sure, how could morality operate on that desert island? How can you affect your relationships with others who are not and will not be there to experience those actions' effects? The ethical dwindles to the mere tactical...
If I am alone and never to be discovered, how would my self-harm alter anyone else in any way?
l2r said:
What effects utility in a single case, the short term, or with application limited in scope can be readily surmised to cause harms (external or internal to the immediate application of such actions) when wider concerns are taken into account. Do you have a hypothetical example where such concerns are an insufficient prophylactic to harm?
ebola
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
my contention was that morality is about how right/wrong pertains to man, whether a single human or the entire planet, and thus is not lost on an island.
I consider things that one does or does not do for oneself, even aside from any implications upon others, as still containing right/wrong values and thus being within the scope of morality.
I consider things that one does or does not do for oneself, even aside from any implications upon others, as still containing right/wrong values and thus being within the scope of morality.
RobotRipping
Bluelighter
if morality is objective then it is not lost on an island. But if you are alone on that island morality is irrelevant, unless you're going to consider eating fish to be immoral (which is subjective again).
I agree ebola although some of what you say always goes over my head. I need an interpreter for your posts lol.
I agree ebola although some of what you say always goes over my head. I need an interpreter for your posts lol.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
^is it irrelevant? Let's say you just arrived at your island, knowing that you will be spending the rest of your life there w/o any chance of leaving, or having outside help. You still consider life to be worth living, and you have a handful of seeds with you, and you're damn hungry.
I'd argue it's immoral to be weak and consume your seedstock. Morality is about right/wrong, and despite your hunger you need to plant, not eat, your seeds. If life is a value then the moral thing is to plant them, the immoral thing is to consume them.
IMO considering morality, or fundamental "rights"/"wrongs", only with regards to interpersonal actions is shortsighted.
and lol sorry, at least you're not talking to me in real life (i talk absurdly fast, so that+ slight hearing issue that i gave myself many years ago, can make it difficult for ppl who don't know me to understand me when i get into what i'm talking about, as the conscious articulation/pacing go right.out.the.window. lol)
[err, i wanna note that this isn't some medical or disabling thing, i mean if you were a clerk somewhere you'd never notice in a couple of minutes' talk about products, it's just when i get into what i'm talking about that it comes out, and have been that way since childhood, missing words in sentences only to randomly insert them 1-2 sentences later ;PP ]
I'd argue it's immoral to be weak and consume your seedstock. Morality is about right/wrong, and despite your hunger you need to plant, not eat, your seeds. If life is a value then the moral thing is to plant them, the immoral thing is to consume them.
IMO considering morality, or fundamental "rights"/"wrongs", only with regards to interpersonal actions is shortsighted.
and lol sorry, at least you're not talking to me in real life (i talk absurdly fast, so that+ slight hearing issue that i gave myself many years ago, can make it difficult for ppl who don't know me to understand me when i get into what i'm talking about, as the conscious articulation/pacing go right.out.the.window. lol)
[err, i wanna note that this isn't some medical or disabling thing, i mean if you were a clerk somewhere you'd never notice in a couple of minutes' talk about products, it's just when i get into what i'm talking about that it comes out, and have been that way since childhood, missing words in sentences only to randomly insert them 1-2 sentences later ;PP ]