Morality and Subjectivity

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

(You would seriously order people to stop listening to and agreeing with your points of view? Why?)

Because I am not arrogant enough to think my opinion ist he right one. We are a flawed species and we get it wrong. Nor is everything I want going to be what everyone else wants either.

I see society as a human relationship. On some levels I do not think it is any different to a relationship between two people. There are things they both want to do and want not to do. However in order to live together they must not only assert themselves, but compromise too. A man might, for example, really want to sleep with as many girls as possible, but he gives up that desire in order to make the relationship work.

It is the same for society. We come together with our desires and we have to compromise on some of them. If I want to murder and rape and I am 1 in 999,999 people who want that, then I have to realise I must compromise that if I want to be part of that society. Or face that societies wrath?

And no I wouldn’t, as you say “order people to stop listening to and agreeing with” my point of view. I want people to listen to it, think about it, then vote their way on voting day. I do not want to say “Abortion should be legal” and have everyone agree. I DO want to say “Abortion should be legal” present my arguments, then go to listen to other people who say the same thing, then go and listen to the people who say the opposite and then finally go down and vote with everyone else on voting day on the issue.

The rest of your post I will not even reply to as all it is doing is presuming to tell ME what it is IVE been espousing here. I know what I espouse, I do not need you to change it for me.

 

[Betterave]

You would seriously order people to stop listening to and agreeing with your points of view? Why?

Because I am not arrogant enough to think my opinion is the right one. We are a flawed species and we get it wrong. Nor is everything I want going to be what everyone else wants either. [Uh, right… isn’t that the little problem that authority is supposed to address?]

I see society as a human relationship. On some levels I do not think it is any different to a relationship between two people. There are things they both want to do and want not to do. However in order to live together they must not only assert themselves, but compromise too. A man might, for example, really want to sleep with as many girls as possible, but he gives up that desire in order to make the relationship work.

It is the same for society. We come together with our desires and we have to compromise on some of them. If I want to murder and rape and I am 1 in 999,999 people who want that, then I have to realise I must compromise that if I want to be part of that society. Or face that societies wrath?

And no I wouldn’t, as you say “order people to stop listening to and agreeing with” my point of view. I want people to listen to it, think about it, then vote their way on voting day. I do not want to say “Abortion should be legal” and have everyone agree. I DO want to say “Abortion should be legal” present my arguments, then go to listen to other people who say the same thing, then go and listen to the people who say the opposite and then finally go down and vote with everyone else on voting day on the issue.

The rest of your post I will not even reply to as all it is doing is presuming to tell ME what it is IVE been espousing here. [Presuming?? Uh…read it and weep!] I know what I espouse, I do not need you to change it for me. [You’re “not arrogant enough,” you say…?]

You are expressing an opinion (or set of opinions) above - do you think it is the right one? From what you’ve said above, no, you do not think it is right, and, you think (!), it would be *arrogant *for you to think it’s right! So why should people bother listening to your opinion if *you *don’t even think your own opinion is right? If you don’t think your own opinion is right, you shouldn’t be preaching it to others; you should restrict yourself to listening to others until you manage to form an opinion that you do think is right!

 

[Ender]

1. Where does MY moral position come from? My consciousness and the knowledge I have of myself and the world around me.
2. What is my moral authority to which I defer? Society and the moral expectations it has of me. Moral expectations that I only in a small part helped to form. How I act day to day is based on 2) not on 1). Thankfully in 95% of cases the two are the same.

If society and its moral expectations are your principle source of moral authority, does this mean that you would accept whatever values were predominantly held by whatever society of which you were a part? Are you implying that all societies are morally equal regardless of the particulars of what each society believes?

Ender

 

[Syntax]

You are expressing an opinion (or set of opinions) above - do you think it is the right one? From what you’ve said above, no, you do not think it is right, and, you think (!), it would be *arrogant *for you to think it’s right! So why should people bother listening to your opinion if *you *don’t even think your own opinion is right? If you don’t think your own opinion is right, you shouldn’t be preaching it to others; you should restrict yourself to listening to others until you manage to form an opinion that you do think is right!

ha ha!! Now that’s pretty funny!

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Aside from the user who wants to use every chance available to get not so subtle digs and insults in at me about being arrogant etc, there still is some things I can respond to here.

No I do not think any of my opinions are the “right” one because I do not think the realm of morality and rights and laws etc are realms where “right” and “wrong” are things that exist in and of themselves. They are merely expressions of our own subjective desires, ends, goals and ideas. The best I can hope to achieve is that all my opinions and positions on these issues are based on defensible intellectually honest arguments.

There is nothing on offer to me to suggest these things exist as “right” and “wrong” objectively in and of themselves and morality is some kind of realm that exists external to us which affords itself to exploration and discovery.

As I said all I can do is play by part in the moral authority to which I myself defer. I am both part of and subject to it’s conclusions, conclusions it makes partly from my (name removed by moderator)ut.

As I said in my example, I want people to listen tomy opinionst, think about it, then vote their way on voting day. I do not want to say “Abortion should be legal” and have everyone agree. I DO want to say “Abortion should be legal” present my arguments, then go to listen to other people who say the same thing, then go and listen to the people who say the opposite and then finally go down and vote with everyone else on voting day on the issue and then conform to the choice they make.

 

[sidbrown]

I DO want to say “Abortion should be legal” present my arguments, then go to listen to other people who say the same thing, then go and listen to the people who say the opposite and then finally go down and vote with everyone else on voting day on the issue and then conform to the choice they make.

So you would let abortion be legal. Would you also allow it to be legal for a man to kill an unfaithful wife?

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

A bit of a non-sequitar but no, given a vote on that issue I would vote against allowing that.

You will have to adumbrate the connection between the two for me as I am a little lost and need some help on that.

 

[sidbrown]

A bit of a non-sequitar but no, given a vote on that issue I would vote against allowing that.

You will have to adumbrate the connection between the two for me as I am a little lost and need some help on that.

Both involve killing a human. Why allow one but not the other?

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

False. One involves killing a clump of cells called a feotus which have neither human consciousness nor the faculties to even produce it in the 0-16 week area and the other is the murder of a human being with the faculty fully formed.

However discussing specific cases is a little off topic so I do not want to go into it here. There are enough threads on the abortion issue. Pop over to one of those. Threads are too easily derailed by discussing someone’s examples, provided for illustration purposes only, rather than their main points.

If you want to know more about my position on abortion you can find it in my essay in the link below:

atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1554&start=0

 

[sidbrown]

False. One involves killing a clump of cells called a feotus which have neither human consciousness nor the faculties to even produce it in the 0-16 week area and the other is the murder of a human being with the faculty fully formed.

However discussing specific cases is a little off topic so I do not want to go into it here. There are enough threads on the abortion issue. Pop over to one of those. Threads are too easily derailed by discussing someone’s examples, provided for illustration purposes only, rather than their main points.

If you want to know more about my position on abortion you can find it in my essay in the link below:

atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1554&start=0

False as is seen from the case of partial birth abortion.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Sorry that reply was too short and I am not sure what you are directing at, what your point is, or what partial birth abortion is meant to show that negates something I have said. Could you elaborate somewhat?

 

[tonyrey]

No I do not think any of my opinions are the “right” one because I do not think the realm of morality and rights and laws etc are realms where “right” and “wrong” are things that exist in and of themselves. They are merely expressions of our own subjective desires, ends, goals and ideas. The best I can hope to achieve is that all my opinions and positions on these issues are based on defensible intellectually honest arguments.

If our moral beliefs are merely expressions of our own subjective desires, ends, goals and ideas why should our other beliefs be any different? After all, the basis of **all **our knowledge is our subjective experience…

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

I feel like I am being battered with non-sequitars from the left and the right

I am more than aware that everything we believe is subjective. I am also aware that this is constrained by objective truths too. I am honestly struggling to find what your point is, what it has to do with a thread on morality, or how I can respond to it. Can you help me out a bit?

 

[tonyrey]

I am more than aware that everything we believe is subjective. I am also aware that this is constrained by objective truths too. I am honestly struggling to find what your point is, what it has to do with a thread on morality, or how I can respond to it. Can you help me out a bit?

Of course! There are three possibilities:

1. Morality is entirely subjective
2. Morality is entirely objective
3. Morality is partly subjective and partly objective
4. If morality is entirely subjective it has nothing to do with objective reality. In other words it is an illusion - which is clearly false in view of its consequences. An illusion can have some effects but not ones which are so universal and fundamental.
5. If morality is entirely objective it has nothing to do with subjective reality. In other words it is not related to ourselves as individuals - which is clearly false in view of the extent to which morality varies from one person to another. its consequences. Very often a fact has different effects on different individuals.
6. If morality is partly subjective and partly objective it explains both its variety and its fundamental significance. The right to life, for example, is universal but it is affected by a person’s circumstances.

 

[Ender]

1. If morality is entirely objective it has nothing to do with subjective reality. In other words it is not related to ourselves as individuals - which is clearly false in view of the extent to which morality varies from one person to another. its consequences. Very often a fact has different effects on different individuals.

The objectivity of morality has nothing to do with its affect on individuals. Clearly the law of gravity affects those who fall off ladders differently than it does those who drop their keys but it doesn’t make it any the less objectively valid. Nor does the fact that people take different positions on what is moral have any more to do with which position is valid than students giving various answers on a test have to do with which answer is correct. Objectivity is solely about whether an answer is true regardless of ones opinion on the matter.

Ender

 

[sidbrown]

I am more than aware that everything we believe is subjective.

Everything we believe is subjective? I don’t see how that can be true. Take for example, our simple beliefs that 1 + 1 = 2. I don’t see what you mean that this is subjective.

 

[Betterave]

A rhetorical question: Sanctimonious arrogance masquerading as humble and conscientious intellectual honesty - is there anything objectively wrong with that?

 

[Sair]

Of course! There are three possibilities:

1. Morality is entirely subjective
2. Morality is entirely objective
3. Morality is partly subjective and partly objective
4. If morality is entirely subjective it has nothing to do with objective reality. In other words it is an illusion - which is clearly false in view of its consequences. An illusion can have some effects but not ones which are so universal and fundamental.
5. If morality is entirely objective it has nothing to do with subjective reality. In other words it is not related to ourselves as individuals - which is clearly false in view of the extent to which morality varies from one person to another. its consequences. Very often a fact has different effects on different individuals.
6. If morality is partly subjective and partly objective it explains both its variety and its fundamental significance. The right to life, for example, is universal but it is affected by a person’s circumstances.

Or perhaps, to think of it in another way, morality is a subjective response to objective circumstances.

There are certain facts about humans and the way we interact with the world around us, and the effects external realities have on our internal workings. These can be considered objective facts.

Our judgement of the rightness or wrongness of actions is intricately bound up with these kinds of objective realities. We can observe the effects of certain actions, both on the external world - including other people - and on our internal conditions, both psychological and physiological. We can determine if these effects are positive or negative.

Thus much for the objective facts. Moral philosophers often say there is no direct mechanism for deriving an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. I’m not so sure. I don’t think it’s possible to speak of ‘morality’ as an objective entity existing apart from minds, and so I don’t think morality as such can be entirely objective. Indeed, if there were no minds, there would be no morality. But minds process information that comes from objective realities, and although every mind does this slightly differently, the objective facts are, by definition, the same for everyone.

So, after this somewhat confused summation, my conclusion, for what it’s worth, is that what we call morality is a many-faceted subjective entity built by minds in response to objective facts about us and the world.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Of course! There are three possibilities:

I think you are a little too keen to split the word into distinct categories and declare by fiat that things must fall into one and have nothing to do with the other.

Given that no one has provided any evidence that there is an objective moral realm external to ourselves which we can explore and discover I am forced into the only other conclusion that it starts and ends solely with us. Where does this “right to life” actually exist except as an idea humans came up with and retained?

However just because this is therefore a subjective realm does not mean it has nothing to do with the objective at all. The subjective is constrained and influenced by objective truths.

Take the color blue. We have no idea what you as an observer see when you look at blue and whether it is the same as I see and experience. “Blue” is entirely subjective. However this does not change the fact that regardless of the observer light with the color “blue” has the exact same wavelength regardless of whether you look at it, I look at it, or no one at all looks at it.

Human morality appears to be a subjective realm, but it is constrained and influenced by dominantly occurring truths about the human condition. Things like our wish to avoid pain, to protect our children, to retain our possessions and so on.

Although there are clearly minority exceptions to all those things, when we come together in the human relationship we call society the consensus on those issues is so overwhelming that I am not unsympathetic to those who are given the illusion that those consensus represent some form of objective truth which we have discovered. However given the lack of evidence that any such “truth” exists, an illusion is all it is.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Everything we believe is subjective? I don’t see how that can be true. Take for example, our simple beliefs that 1 + 1 = 2. I don’t see what you mean that this is subjective.

That is not a belief, that is a definition. 1 is not something that exists, nor is the operation 1 + 1 = 2. In mathematics we have defined for ourselves what 1 and 2 represent and what the operator + means. It comes from the idea of mathematical “sets”. Numbers in and of themselves do not exist. They are concepts.

Humans choose many ways to represent the world in their minds. Some of those representations are useful and some are not, but they are all subjective means by which we choose to represent our awareness of the world around us. Mathematics is one of those representations and it has proven to be a monstrously useful one to us. The idea that 1 + 1 = 2 represents some kind of objective truth however is to miss the very basis of the subtle beauty and foundation of mathematics, but alas it is the prevailing impression those who have not engaged in mathematics as a career or deep hobby are presented with.