• KantRemember
    10
    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

    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.

    Yes, the value of life is contingent on the fact that life is not possible if we feel differently about it.MoK

    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.
    If the suffering of X is justifiable, then morality is subjective.MoK

    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?

    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


    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. We reason that morality is objective because it's a prerequisite for coherent thought and action. I will openly admit that this is all still grey for me - I'm still coming to terms as to where I stand definitively.

    Therefore, morality is subjective, given my definition of subjective.MoK

    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.
    here:
    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

    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.
    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

    1. To take into account the needs and lives of others rather than just our own or those close to us. 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.

    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

    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.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    You don't know what a locked-in syndrome is. Do you?MoK

    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
    4.1k
    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

    You have to understand that not every action is moral action. Moral action means that it was reasoned, premeditated and contemplated before the action for moral good or duty.

    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
    4.1k
    It is in fact very rational statement. You are not happy with this example, let me give you another example:MoK

    To reiterate the point, it is not the case that I am not happy with the example. It is the case that the example doesn't demonstrate a logical necessity that the premise guarantees the conclusion i.e. torturing doesn't necessarily save life.

    It is an empirical case, where all possible and various causes and effects might be involved. The result is uncertain and unpredictable. Under that situation, torturing cannot be a justified ground for saving lives. With the knowledge and understanding of the situation via practical reasoning, if one went ahead with torturing believing that it would save lives, it would be a moral wrong itself.
  • MoK
    861
    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
    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.

    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
    Morality is not objective but subjective even in the first sense.

    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
    By justifiable I mean morally justifiable.

    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
    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.

    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
    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.

    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
    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.

    1. To take into account the needs and lives of others rather than just our own or those close to us.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.

    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
    Life having value is subjective. Consider the case of a person with locked-in syndrome, a person who is terminally ill, etc.

    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
    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.
  • MoK
    861
    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
    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
    861
    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.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    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

    All killings and torturing are in the domain of the legal matter. They are not morality.
    I am not sure what part of the world you are living, but in where I have lived and am living, any
    and all death must be reported to the authority for investigation and the certification of the nature of death.

    If any death was caused by killing no matter what circumstance it was, and if there were any suspicion of any form of torturing on others, then the case must be reported to the criminal investigation authorities for the legal proceedings with the courts.

    Hence, they are not moral matter at all.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    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

    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.

    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.
  • KantRemember
    10
    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.

    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.

    Then again, one could argue that the jump
    From is to ought isn’t necessary for objective morality - it would still be the case that under the premise that wellbeing/ life being valuable, there are objective statements one can make about this.

    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.

    In extreme case scenarios - a consequentialist approach is often better. But there are implications to the radicalisation of both sides.

    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.
  • MoK
    861

    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. I then ask how self-defense is morally allowed if you think that killing under any circumstance is not morally allowed.
  • MoK
    861
    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
    Are you a Christian?

    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 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
    861
    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
    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 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
    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 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
    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.

    In extreme case scenarios - a consequentialist approach is often better. But there are implications to the radicalisation of both sides.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.

    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
    Thank you very much for your time too.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    Are you a Christian?MoK
    I was just commenting from the general religious point of view including Christianity, Buddhism and Hindus etc.

    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 allowedMoK
    Reason tends to go back to the points, and reflect on them coming out with better judgements and solutions.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    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

    Another reason why the acts of self defence are not in the domain of morality. Usually acts of self defence happens without contemplation or premeditation for the end. In other words, the only purpose for the acts of self dense is saving one's own life.

    Therefore there is no ground for moral judgements on the acts committed under self dense.
  • MoK
    861
    Reason tends to go back to the points, and reflect on them coming out with better judgements and solutions.Corvus
    It is alright to change your mind. Let's say that we disagree on the topic.
  • MoK
    861

    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.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    It is alright to change your mind. Let's say that we disagree on the topic.MoK

    It has nothing to do with changing mind. The point is that practical reasoning is guiding you that,

    1) No one but himself has right to decide what to do with his own life if he is an adult.
    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.

    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
    4.1k
    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

    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.
  • MoK
    861
    1) No one but himself has right to decide what to do with his own life if he is an adult.Corvus
    So, do you agree with such a statement? If yes, then a person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his life.

    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
    Now, you are saying the opposite.

    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
    Where do laws come from?
  • MoK
    861
    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.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    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

    Well, one last point you must understand is that, when an act has been committed with no time for consideration and contemplation for moral good, it cannot be a moral act. But because there haven a loss of life by the act of self dense, the case will be taken up by the legal authority.

    OK, MoK, my dear friend. It has been pleasure in engaging the discussions with you on this topic. But regrettably we disagree on some part of the conclusion. So be it. We can still carry on with discussions on some other topics which we have mutual interests and points. Thank you. G'day to you and yours.
  • MoK
    861

    Thank you very much for your time as well my friend. It was a pleasure to discuss things with you.
145678Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.