posted
Ive always thought that it would be incredibly difficult to construct a foundational moral theory which provides a process for the determination of right and wrong. In fact, this led me to wonder whether morality could in fact be subjective to society and to man (I use man only as a place holder, sorry ladies). So I formulated this proof.
1. We gain beliefs through empirical and sociological data. 2. Different cultures will employ different empirical and sociological data. 3. Different cultures will therefore gain different sets of beliefs through this data. 4. By definition then, beliefs are subjective to society. 5. Morality is simply a set of beliefs held by mankind about right and wrong. 6. Morality itself is subjective to society.
posted
i agree with you. a point i've always tried to argue (and usually failed) is that while i believe that there is an absolute right and wrong (or i did anyway), i don't think that anyone on earth is qualified to determine what is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. i could go on, but to answer your question, no, i don't think you're wrong.
Posts: 1090 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
5. Morality is simply a set of beliefs held by mankind about right and wrong.
Morality is a set of rules defining right and wrong. We have beliefs ABOUT morality, but those beliefs are not morality itself.
For instance, there is a difference between "America believes it is right for it to invade Iraq" and "it is right for America to invade Iraq." Or, to put it a different way, it is possible to believe something is wrong and have it turn out to be not wrong, therefore your belief is not identical to morality.
quote: Morality is a set of rules defining right and wrong. We have beliefs ABOUT morality, but those beliefs are not morality itself.
Well, I dont necessarily think your wrong about morality being a set of rules that govern right and wrong. However, those sets of rules are in fact beliefs themselves. They are derived from other beliefs about the world, and in this manner Morality is still essentially a belief set pertaining to right and wrong.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you say that? Why must morality be a belief set derived from other beliefs? Couldn't it be a set of facts derived from other facts about the world?
And if morality is a belief set, whose belief set is it? Whose belief set determines whether my actions are right or wrong? If right was whatever I believe is right then I could never be wrong about what is right, which means it must not be my belief set. If right was whatever my society believed was right then my society could never be wrong about what is right, yet it can be mistaken too, so morality could not be my society's belief set. What belief set is it?
I would argue it makes more sense to say morality is not a belief set at all, unless there's some compelling reason we should think it is. Is there?
And here's another question... if morality is the set of beliefs about what is right and wrong, what would we call the set of facts about what is right and wrong?
posted
Morality is subjected to society. Virtue is not. Furthermore, morality is also subjected to virtue, we being somewhat conscious of virtue.
If you think they're exactly the same, just do me the favor of shooting me to save me the trouble of explaining what I mean.
To summarize a summary, so to speak, morality is a fact. Morality is in fact different in different cultures. Also a fact is that Our morality is not the morality of 10,000, 1000, 100, or 50 years a go.
Virtue, on the other hand, could be believed in or not. Virtue is not exactly a fact, at least not one entirely comprehended-except possibly by a completely virtuous person, the existence of which there has been some speculation and belief, aka most modern religion. Virtue, in theory, is unchangable, intangible, and infinite. Thus in theory, our morality can evolve to be more and more virtuous, but some question if morality and virtue will ever be the same.
quote:And here's another question... if morality is the set of beliefs about what is right and wrong, what would we call the set of facts about what is right and wrong?
i think you've hit upon the fundamental issue in discussions such as these; if morality is determined by facts, the 'facts' are god's will. if you don't believe in god, there can be no such facts, and as such morality is based not on any underlying facts, but on what belief sets are culturally sustainable.
this whole discussion is just a slightly veiled argument about the existence of god.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why do you say that? Why must morality be a belief set derived from other beliefs? Couldn't it be a set of facts derived from other facts about the world?
And if morality is a belief set, whose belief set is it? Whose belief set determines whether my actions are right or wrong? If right was whatever I believe is right then I could never be wrong about what is right, which means it must not be my belief set. If right was whatever my society believed was right then my society could never be wrong about what is right, yet it can be mistaken too, so morality could not be my society's belief set. What belief set is it?
I would argue it makes more sense to say morality is not a belief set at all, unless there's some compelling reason we should think it is. Is there?
And here's another question... if morality is the set of beliefs about what is right and wrong, what would we call the set of facts about what is right and wrong?
Morality could be a set of facts, but as you said these facts are derived from the world through empirical data. Therefore, those facts could be called into quesiton by other cultures and are themselves subjective. I would also argue that they are beliefs about the world whether or not we call them facts. The word fact just makes a stronger claim about whatever we are discussing but its clear that these facts are beliefs which could be disagreed upon.
Morality is a belief set but it is your belief set not anyone else's. Thats what makes it inherently subjective. There is no foundational belief set pertaining to morality so that it must then be fundamentally subjective. You've hit on exactly the point of the proof I laid out. If morality is subjective, then you cannot be definitivly right or wrong about moral claims. Yet, through society one can see that society deems these issues "right" or "wrong".
Finally, there is not set of absolute facts about what is right and wrong. They are all beliefs about certain moral claims. Certainly, some moral claims are stronger than others (murder vs adultery as an example) but that does not make them a fact about the world.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Point 3 is ludicrous. Belief and data are completely divorced from one another, which is why it is called belief and not knowledge.
If that is the case then empiricism is sunk and you can never experience the world. Data from the senses is the basis for belief about the world. We employ and percieve data about the world and then form beliefs through this data.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Empiricism already is sunk as a philosophy of governing more than one person, because no two people's perceptions of everything are the same. If you want to keep up the computer analogies, we don't have enough RAM for everyone to perceive everything all the time. That would be the only way two people could think the same thing about a situation, and even then there would be the variable of the other person changing it.
I think a lot about whether I am a futuristic person or alien reliving the memories of a long dead pooka. Or recently dead. you know. I probably need thorazine, but who cares.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Empiricism already is sunk as a philosophy of governing more than one person, because no two people's perceptions of everything are the same
Not necessarily. Two people can look at a black cat and percieve a black cat. Still, empiricism cant be suck because their would seem to be only two ways of justifing beliefs (empiricism and apriori). Simply because two people percieve two different things, doesnt mean that empiricism is sunk. Skepticism may in fact gain precedence but thats not the point.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not necessarily. Two people can look at a black cat and percieve a black cat.
But if you took it away and then asked them to estimate its size later, would they say the same thing? How about if you then briefly showed them another cat and asked them if they thought it was the same cat they saw earlier? What if the light was very dim and one person thought it might instead be a small dog?
Basically, strict empiricism (I'm using this term intuitively; forgive me if this has some specific philosophical definition that I'm abusing) breaks down with anything more complicated than "what colour is this?" (and even there, some people are colourblind).
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
ae: Off-topic question. Are you british? I couln't help but wonder because of your spelling of "colour." Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: But if you took it away and then asked them to estimate its size later, would they say the same thing? How about if you then briefly showed them another cat and asked them if they thought it was the same cat they saw earlier? What if the light was very dim and one person thought it might instead be a small dog?
Basically, strict empiricism (I'm using this term intuitively; forgive me if this has some specific philosophical definition that I'm abusing) breaks down with anything more complicated than "what colour is this?" (and even there, some people are colourblind).
Well, I would agree about most of what you said, however it seems that empiricism itself is not under attack by what you said. The epistemic claims behind empiricism may in fact be wrong (just like you said) but empiricism itself survives, so long as you understand that these are epistemic claims about empirical data. That is a totally different matter.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Therefore, those facts could be called into quesiton by other cultures and are themselves subjective.
I can call into question the claim that 1 + 1 = 2, as many kindergardners do every day. Does this mean the claim that 1 + 1 = 2 is subjective, and could be false for people who believe it is false?
quote:Morality is a belief set but it is your belief set not anyone else's. Thats what makes it inherently subjective. There is no foundational belief set pertaining to morality so that it must then be fundamentally subjective. You've hit on exactly the point of the proof I laid out. If morality is subjective, then you cannot be definitivly right or wrong about moral claims. Yet, through society one can see that society deems these issues "right" or "wrong".
Let's clarify then. You are saying that if I believe that killing is wrong then it would be impossible for me to be wrong, because what is wrong for me is what I believe is wrong? That is a bold claim - that all people are infallible when it comes to making moral judgements.
How do you explain the many occassions where I've discovered my beliefs about right and wrong to be mistaken?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe their is one set of right and wrong. Things are right for all people, and somethings are wrong. Now whether people realize whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant.
There are things that are absolutely true for all people, all the time.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with David. _______________ I'll throw some statements on top, though.
The world opens up differently in accordance with your position in it.
The sameness of this world resides upon the fact it's the same world that is opening up to everyone, and despite our position in it, we are all human.
Add to the mix that the way the world actually opens up to us and the way the world appears to open up to us is not always the same.
The process of finding out how the world actually opens up to us is hard. It involves inner and outer dialogue, and enduring that hardship leaves us with such uncertainty, that it's tempting to grab on to anything branch of truth so that we can stop thinking.
posted
We all have mechanisims we use to filter data; without them we would be overloaded by stimuli and would not be able to function.
Our bodies automatically filter out data/stimuli, determining what it deems necessary to our comprehension and/or our survival.
Our minds do that as well, by way of an IPES (interpersonel expectancy system) which filters everything that we say and everything we hear. It gives context to what we say, what we do, and our relationships with others. It is how we interpt actions of ourselves and of others.
Think of the IPES as a filter between you and someone (everyone) you are speaking with, and realize that everthing you hear is colored by it. Also, ever word you say passes through it as well. That is why you can say something as a complement to some one, but they hear it as an insult. It also shows up when you try do do somthing for someone, and they completely misjudge your intentions. You meant to communicate one thing,either through words or by actions, but by the time it passes through your IPES, to them, and through THEIR IPES (because everyone has their own!), what you said or did had taken on a completely different meaning to them.
Morality is a set of standards that people believe to be correct. Not everything is the same culture to culture, or even from group to group within a perspective culture, but certain standards are common in most.....murder is usually considered wrong, but prostitution is legal in Nevada, as long as you pay your taxes on the income you derive from it....
Not all morality is the same, nor does it necessarily come from God or religion. However, religion has historically influenced societies and affected human development. Quite a few of our common beliefs derive from various religious views, although not all of them do.
By the way, virtue varies culture to culture as well. Suicide is considered wrong by most in the US, but in Japan it was considered an honerable path to avoiding shame, and even considered a hero's death in WWII.
I think some morality issues are almost universal, while others interpetations rely heavily on cultural context, which is why we often have trouble relating to others from a different cultural background than our own.
Also, when you decide that morality is subjective, you leave yourself open to the dangers of cultural relativism. The most extreme example is Nazi Germany, where extreme persecution of Jews and other minorities became the cultural norm. Luckily, the Allies decided that that was immoral and they were right.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's then that I bring out my trump card. "Was not the Holocaust inherently evil?" I ask smugly, knowing full well that I've got them locked into an untenable position. After all, everybody and his cat knows that the Holocaust was inherently evil! But to my utter surprise, one student after another shakes his head "No." "The Holocaust was not inherently evil!"
Are they putting me on? No, they're serious--dead serious. And that's not the worst of it. In each of the last two years, even my Jewish students have agreed!
That's from F. LaGard Smith, a law professor at Pepperdine University. I wonder how things have progressed since the book came out in 1992...
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Facts, Tres? What facts are you talking about? Some intangible yet utterly absolute qualities that define - strictly, irrevocably and unchangeably because otherwise they are not absolute - all morality, regardless of religion, culture or personal belief? Show me 'em. Seriously, I want to see these facts.
Isn't it far more plausible to say that morality is not absolute but rather that different cultures and religions define their morality as absolute. In essence, isn't the 'absolute-hood' of morality simply a virtual construction, something that allows a group (whether it's two people, a cult or an entire society) to determine right and wrong without recourse to arguing the foundational premises that govern human social (political, economic) interaction?
If someone believes morality is absolute because it is God's Word (or any other religious equivalent) then there is no point discussing the matter because it becomes a question of God's existence and not really worth debating. However, if someone insists that morality is absolute and that this absolute quality is one inherent in the morality itself - that, in other words, the morality has some pure existence outside mere belief - then I ask again: show me the facts, baby.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Facts, Tres? What facts are you talking about? Some intangible yet utterly absolute qualities that define - strictly, irrevocably and unchangeably because otherwise they are not absolute - all morality, regardless of religion, culture or personal belief? Show me 'em. Seriously, I want to see these facts.
Here's one: It was wrong for the Nazis to commit genocide during World War II. Anyone, from any culture, who denies this is mistaken, regardless of their beliefs about right and wrong.
Or, at least, so I think. But the curious thing about facts - all facts - is that you never know if they are actually really a fact, or if they are just some false claim that appears to be fact. We think it's a fact that the world is round, and we call it a fact, but it could be believed and argued that it is not fact but fiction. (In other words, don't tell me they aren't facts because they might be wrong or because other people might think differently - this is the case for all facts.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, your second comment is almost precisely the point - there is no way to determine what constitutes any absolute morality so there is no way to determine if it exists unless its existence is based on faith.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Now prove to me that you exist and are not a figment of my imagination. You can't do that either, but we both nevertheless believe you do exist.
There is no way to determine for certain what constitutes morality, just as there is no way to determine for certain what constitues any sort of truth at all. As I have said before, this shows that all facts we believe in, not just moral facts, are based to some degree on faith. ALL beliefs have the same problem. It's not in the least bit exclusive to morality.
This does not mean all truth is relative and there are no facts, though, just as it does not mean morality is subjective and there are no moral facts. Nor does it mean we have no insights into what is right or wrong. Just as we can come to some degree of certainty regarding things like 'the world is round', we can come to some degree of certainty regarding morality - we just can't prove anything.
You're calling morality relative based on a fault that is not exclusive to morality, but rather exists for any belief about anything. If morality is subjective for that reason, you'd better be prepared to claim everything else is subjective too.
posted
From Treso.: "It was wrong for the Nazis to commit genocide during World War II. Anyone, from any culture, who denies this is mistaken, regardless of their beliefs about right and wrong."
True. Because it's a matter of ethics and virtue. Because it doesn't matter what you "believe" About right and wrong. I believe most psychology holds the idea that anyone who does not have a set of ingrained ethics from birth or a very young age is a psychopath.
From Eth.G.: "Prove to me that it constitutes an absolute moral imperative."
Frankly, it doesn't. Because by definition (at least my operating definition, that I hold is the most effective), there's no such thing as an absolute moral imperative. I'm saying this because I think morality is dependent on background, and that perception, and therefore background, determines ethics to a large degree. This is the equivalent of saying that if you truly believe something is right, then for you, at that time, with that perception it is right. aka ignorance of the law is no excuse but ignorance of 'other'-morality is more than an excuse. (The fact that ethics determines background before background determines ethics is not a point signifigant to this argument)
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I'm prepared to claim that most things are subjective. It causes me no existential crisis to accept that.
Look, you're never, ever, ever going to convince me that absolute morality can exist, in reality, without the prior assumption that some all-powerful figure (God, etc.) exists in order to establish such absolutes. It just ain't gonna happen. I agree that anyone from any culture who says that the Holocaust wasn't a terrible thing is wrong. However, I believe that because I am human, because I am a social creature, because I am empathic. I don't believe it because there is some undefinable, distant, unattainable, absolute moral law that exists a priori. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. We've gone around in circles with this before. Why bother to do so again?
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, I'm prepared to claim that most things are subjective. It causes me no existential crisis to accept that.
You sure? It will make things difficult. For instance... Does Iraq have WMDs? Subjective. Is it legal to steal mp3s? Subjective. Can your bank steal your life savings? Subjective. Did the sniper kill those people in the DC area? Subjective. You can see how this might make arguing or attempting to come to a consensus on even the most simple of questions impossible. (And I will bring this argument up in other issues, if you really do accept it. )
quote:I agree that anyone from any culture who says that the Holocaust wasn't a terrible thing is wrong. However, I believe that because I am human, because I am a social creature, because I am empathic. I don't believe it because there is some undefinable, distant, unattainable, absolute moral law that exists a priori.
But you contradict yourself. If you believe anyone from any culture who says that the Holocause wasn't a terrible thing is wrong, then you believe in an absolute, regardless of why you believe it. All an absolute is is something such that if anyone denies it, they are mistaken, regardless of their 'perspective'.
posted
"But you contradict yourself. If you believe anyone from any culture who says that the Holocause wasn't a terrible thing is wrong, then you believe in an absolute, regardless of why you believe it. All an absolute is is something such that if anyone denies it, they are mistaken, regardless of their 'perspective'."
No. All that means is that I believe the same way you do. It's not an absolute. I can see how someone else would believe differently - say, a neo Nazi. They'd be wrong... but not according to them. The problem is, you're confusing "absolute" with "consensus". It's not an absolute because it's not always true, for all times, places, peoples, cultures - anywhere on earth or elsewhere in the galaxy.
There are no laws of morality like there are laws of physics.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:All that means is that I believe the same way you do. It's not an absolute. I can see how someone else would believe differently - say, a neo Nazi. They'd be wrong... but not according to them. The problem is, you're confusing "absolute" with "consensus". It's not an absolute because it's not always true, for all times, places, peoples, cultures - anywhere on earth or elsewhere in the galaxy.
Aren't you the one equating absolute and consensus? You are saying that anybody who believes the Holocaust wasn't wrong is mistaken (which, to me, means you're saying it's absolutely true), but you are also saying it's not an absolute because there's not necessarily a universal consensus that it's true (because a Nazi might believe otherwise.)
And isn't this a contradiction with what you are saying:
quote:It's not an absolute because it's not always true, for all times, places, peoples, cultures - anywhere on earth or elsewhere in the galaxy.
quote:I agree that anyone from any culture who says that the Holocaust wasn't a terrible thing is wrong.
If you believe anyone from any culture is wrong if they think the Holocaust wasn't terrible, then aren't you saying you believe it's absolutely true ("always true, for all times, places, peoples, cultures") that the Holocaust was terrible?
quote:There are no laws of morality like there are laws of physics.
This is correct. Morality is subjective. There is not absolute and final arbiter of what is moral and what is not, there is only personal judgement.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
