It makes the value of life subjective as well, by subjective, I mean that people have different opinions or feelings on the value of life. A person who is highly depressed feels that life is very awful. Life not only has no value for him, but it also is like a trap that he wants to get rid of by committing suicide, for example. The same person feels differently about life when the depression is gone. — MoK
Yes, the value of life is contingent on the fact that life is not possible if we feel differently about it. — MoK
If the suffering of X is justifiable, then morality is subjective. — MoK
I think the source of our disagreement is that we disagree on what we mean by objective and subjective. Do you mind providing your definition of them? I define morality as subjective if it is based on feelings, opinions, interests, and beliefs. Morality is objective if it is on pure reason. — MoK
Therefore, morality is subjective, given my definition of subjective. — MoK
It makes the value of life subjective as well, by subjective, I mean that people have different opinions or feelings on the value of life. — MoK
No, my point is that according to Kant's first formulation, we can only conclude that killing is wrong if we accept that life is valuable. According to this formulation, one has to universalize a maxim, killing a human is right, to see whether the action that maxim refers to is right or wrong. He then argues life is not possible if we universalize this maxim. He then concludes that killing a human is objectively wrong. There are two issues here: 1) Why should we universalize a maxim to realize that the action that maxim refers to is right or wrong, and 2) How could we conclude that killing a human is wrong from the fact that life is not possible if we universalize the maxim? This conclusion however only follows if life has a value. — MoK
No, my point is that he tries to give a general formulation that killing a human is objectively wrong. I think that killing a human is permissible, given the circumstances, so no, I don't think that killing a human is objectively wrong. To me, life, to be clear, is generally valuable, but there are cases in life where living just involves suffering. Think of a person with locked-in syndrome, a person who is terminally ill, etc. To me, killing these individuals is right if they want to terminate their lives. Following Kant, we are not allowed to kill any of these individuals, which to me is cruel. — MoK
It is in fact very rational statement. You are not happy with this example, let me give you another example: You face a psychopath who is willing to kill you with a knife. You however have a gun. Would you kill him or let him kill you miserably? — MoK
It is in fact very rational statement. You are not happy with this example, let me give you another example: — MoK
I think four factors construct any situation when a decision is required. These factors are feelings, beliefs, opinions, and interests. We most of the time can decide in a situation merely by weighting these factors. Practical reason however can help us decide when there is a ground for it. For example, you have an interest to increase your wealth and you know that the value of the share in market is increasing, therefore you decide to invest in the market. When it comes to moral situations, practical reasoning can help us as well. Pure reason, like the one of Kant, however, gets us astray as it is illustrated. I will comment more on this in the following.Sure, if we define subjective to mean something that people have an opinion about, then everything, literally everything, is subjective. To reiterate, by valuing of life I don't mean conscious intent, or how much you care for life in the sense that you'd care about your dog etc., - its more so an imperative necessary for us to even live, or rational agents. — KantRemember
Morality is not objective but subjective even in the first sense.Yes, exactly - its nonsensical to say you don't value life, while being alive and living as such - for all intents and purposes its a necessary precondition. This is what makes it objective - we know that there isn't any measurable laws in the universe that define moral codes, morality isn't objective in that sense. — KantRemember
By justifiable I mean morally justifiable.The distinction to be made here is between something being justifiable and something being moral - but this is a huge grey area, there's other threads on the matter, and to be frank, I don't even know if my opinions are consistent across the board. Practically, how could they be? — KantRemember
I am arguing that pure reason cannot help us when it comes to morality. So, we are left to feelings, interests, beliefs, opinions, and, of course, practical reasoning. Therefore, morality cannot be objective but subjective.Subjective meaning based on individual feelings interests beliefs etc... that is to say morality is merely what I, individually, think about something, It's more than that. Objective being something that's not constitutively dependant on the attitudes of observers, but reason also. — KantRemember
Morality is subjective since the pure reason that is based on accepted facts not only does not exist but it adds problems even if we accept that there is.No. you stated earlier that subjective means for something to be based on opinion etc. and before that you stated that something is subjective if people HAVE opinions about it. — KantRemember
If pure reason does not exist when it comes to morality, then we are left with feelings, opinions, beliefs, and interests. Therefore, morality is subjective.These are very different. We have opinions about everything, you have an opinion on X, X can be based in facts and yet you can have an opinion on how you feel towards X. That doesn't make X subjective. — KantRemember
I asked why we should accept universalization as a valid step. Your life has a value for you, then live it, otherwise you have all right to terminate it. We don't need Kant's formulation to decide about our lives. Accepting this step, universalization, leads to many problems as I discussed, such as whether torturing the terrorist is right or wrong.1. To take into account the needs and lives of others rather than just our own or those close to us. — KantRemember
Life having value is subjective. Consider the case of a person with locked-in syndrome, a person who is terminally ill, etc.2. See above, life having value is a necessary precondition to rational agency and life itself. Life does have value and it HAS to have value and since this is the case, the conclusion follows. — KantRemember
I am afraid that you cannot have both so you have to choose one. Either you accept pure reason which means that we are not allowed to assist a person with locked-in syndrome to terminate his life or you accept consequentialism, which allows you to help him.A common retort to his deontology, this is one that keeps me questioning too. I don't know what the 'right' thing to do is in these specific circumstances. Kant would say that killing is categorically wrong but the consequentialist would say otherwise. In real life, morality is sort of a mix of both Kantian and consequentialist ethics. Both come with their limitations. — KantRemember
You can read about locked-in syndrome here. It is a term that refer to cases in which people with this syndrome are locked-in within their body and cannot move any parts of their body but eyes. You can google yourself about those cases who wanted to terminate their lives but they were not allowed.I thought it was a form of hikikomori, but maybe it is not.
It doesn't matter what it is. The whole point is about the principle of morality and how it works. — Corvus
It is a moral issue if you accept that killing a human is wrong. By the way, how come torturing a terrorist who put a bomb in a location is wrong considering the fact that we can save lives of many but the act of killing a psychopath is permissible knowing the fact that you can only save one life, yours.Killing a psychopath before he kills me would be an act of self defense, which has nothing to do with morality. The action may be subject to legal probes in the society later, but it is not a moral issue. — Corvus
It is a moral issue if you accept that killing a human is wrong. By the way, how come torturing a terrorist who put a bomb in a location is wrong considering the fact that we can save lives of many but the act of killing a psychopath is permissible knowing the fact that you can only save one life, yours. — MoK
You can read about locked-in syndrome here. It is a term that refer to cases in which people with this syndrome are locked-in within their body and cannot move any parts of their body but eyes. You can google yourself about those cases who wanted to terminate their lives but they were not allowed. — MoK
Are you a Christian?Well, it seems like a tough situation. But still practical reason tells me that killing is bad, and life must go on. Everyone has a cross to bear in the path of life. In some sense all life could be seen as suffering, and persevering and hoping for the best would be the meaning of life from religious point of view. — Corvus
There is no cure available for it. It is interesting to see that at one point you say that it is his life and he has the right to decide about it. Now, you are saying that assisting him to terminate his life is not allowed.Keep going, and hoping for the miracle cure seeking the medical care in your example case with perseverance would be best for him, and doing so is moral good for sure. — Corvus
There is no ought when we deal with subjective morality. You are basically in a situation that is defined by the four factors. You weigh factors and then decide freely. You have all right when it comes to your life so there is no problem at all.I’m happy to grant that at its core, morality may actually be subjective , I’m struggling to find reason behind the jump from the Is to the ought. — KantRemember
Yes, there is a jump. Kant tries to resolve the gap by universalizing a maxim. There is however a valid objection to universalizing, the objection being why we should universalize a maxim to see whether the action that maxim refers to is right or wrong. There is also a danger in accepting objective morality considering the cases of locked-in syndrome, or those who are terminally ill, etc. How are you going to deal with these cases if you accept that the act of killing is objectively wrong?I was taking some time to reflect on my arguments and have ultimately decided on a moral pluralist approach. Even if we accept the premises that 1. Life is inherently valuable and 2. It is objectively better to act in should a way that preserves life if this is the case, there is still a jump from this to the normative claim that I ought to act in such a way. — KantRemember
It is a matter of practical reasoning rather than pure reason as you mentioned. We need laws as a matter of necessity but this necessity is a matter of practicality.I think ultimately, objectivity is necessary for collective life, there are axioms that we just have to accept in order for society and morality to function - if we were to accept and act in a way that aligns with subjectivism on a broad scale then life would be reduced to anarchy - the truth is, pragmatically, we must act in a way that follows atleast some universal maxim, life being valuable, and it would be detrimental to reduce morality to mere feeling and opinion. — KantRemember
I think consequentialism is one of the best approaches. You have a situation that is defined by at least two options, you consider the pros and cons, and you then decide. As simple as that.In extreme case scenarios - a consequentialist approach is often better. But there are implications to the radicalisation of both sides. — KantRemember
Thank you very much for your time too.Thank you for this discussion. I hope you gain something from this and realise that outside of arm chair philosophy, morality needs to have an objective framework. — KantRemember
I was just commenting from the general religious point of view including Christianity, Buddhism and Hindus etc.Are you a Christian? — MoK
Reason tends to go back to the points, and reflect on them coming out with better judgements and solutions.There is no cure available for it. It is interesting to see that at one point you say that it is his life and he has the right to decide about it. Now, you are saying that assisting him to terminate his life is not allowed — MoK
You don't wait for legal authority to allow you to kill the psychopath. Do you? You said you would kill him as a matter of self-defense. — MoK
It is alright to change your mind. Let's say that we disagree on the topic. — MoK
The point is you kill a human being even though you think it is objectively wrong. Call it self-defense or whatever. That does not resolve the issue. — MoK
So, do you agree with such a statement? If yes, then a person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his life.1) No one but himself has right to decide what to do with his own life if he is an adult. — Corvus
Now, you are saying the opposite.2) From the maxim, it is wrong to kill life even if one's own life, hence life must go on even if it is challenging. — Corvus
Where do laws come from?Please bear in mind that all case involving death is legal matter. But still practical reasoning can direct you to the best advice on the situation. — Corvus
You know, my friend, you don't have a coherent view and don't want to accept that it is incoherent. So, there is nothing I can do to help you. So, let's say that we disagree.I disagree. The real point is that if you acted in the situation of self defence, then the case is in the domain of legal matter of the society you live in. Morality doesn't apply to it. — Corvus
You know, my friend, you don't have a coherent view and don't want to accept that it is incoherent. So, there is nothing I can do to help you. So, let's say that we disagree. — MoK
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.