Are you saying that objective morality depends on the situation? If not, do you mind elaborating and giving examples of X and Y? — MoK
Quite oppositely, an understanding of morality and good linguistic skills are required to obey morality. How could one obey morality if he has no understanding of it? Linguistic skills are also required to pass the knowledge of morality from one generation to another. A rational agent who is not mentally evolved to understand morality just follows his feelings and interests. — MoK
It does undermine the idea of objective morality. In all conflicts there are two sides each believes they are right and doing right. All conflict would be resolved if people as rational agents agree on objective morality. I still do not know what you mean by conditional objective morality though. — MoK
We have many bad genes that are hidden and circulate in the human population. Selfishness is related to one gene. Psychopaths have another common gene. Some people are not intelligent enough to understand morality. And many others. The only way to get rid of these bad genes is to either monitor unborn children and abort those who have bad genes and disallow people with bad genes to have a baby otherwise we have to deal with this problem that there is no solution for it. Whether people ethically have the right to follow this approach is subject to discussion. — MoK
Morality is a very crucial concept when it comes to any society. I don't see how one can divorce sociology and morality. — MoK
Yes, we shouldn't live under such conditions. But the question is why we still do. I think that Capitalism is a form of weak slavery. The minority takes advantage of the situation and gets the most profit while the majority just receives a minimal. All intellectual products are confiscated by the minority. The majority have no right to have a secure job and life. Etc. — MoK
We cannot reach Utopia until there are bad genes that are hidden and circulate in the human population. Once these bad genes are removed either by evolution or by us then we have a chance to live in Utopia. I read about Kant's categorical imperatives and I am discussing his first formulation with Corvus right now. My main problem with this formulation is that he suggests that one has to universalize a maxim to see whether the action that the maxim refers to is right or wrong. I am questioning why we should universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. I also have a problem accepting how reaching a problem by universalizing a maxim helps us realize whether an act is right or wrong. Let me give you an example: Consider killing a human is right as a maxim. Now according to Kant, we need to universalize this maxim by this he means that all humans should act according to this maxim to see whether killing humans is right or wrong. Well, of course, there could be no human if everybody attempts to kill another. He then considers this as a problem and then concludes that killing is wrong. This however requires accepting that the existence of humans is objectively right otherwise you cannot conclude that killing humans is wrong. — MoK
We are what we are because we have evolved as social animals. Human life is valuable to us because we could not have survived if we had another opinion on this.The concept Evolution is purely for the biological sense for the developments and changes of the bodily organs and their capabilities of the animals. Evolution is not a concept to be used for the moral judgements.
Applying the concept Evolution to the other domain of knowledge than its original use and application would be classed as misusing the concept. — Corvus
Cool. I will be waiting for your response. :)I will try to come back on the other points you asked in the post as time permits here. Later~ :wink: — Corvus
Thanks for the elaboration. I agree that morality (not objective morality) is contingent on the value of life. But I think the value of life also is contingent on the fact that we are social animals and could not have survived if we had lived separately or had different opinions about the value of life.Morality as a whole depends on agency and conscious beings, viz., rocks aren't moral or immoral, they're amoral, they just are. The objectivity of morality, however, is contingent on the valuing of life (or wellbeing) - and to reiterate, by 'value' I don't mean conscious intent. — KantRemember
It just follows that suffering is subjectively bad. Consider the example of the terrorist that we discussed. The well-being of a person is a matter of opinion if he threatens the well-being of others.To give an example of X and Y: Iff we value well-being (X), then it is objectively true that suffering is bad (for the well-being of life) (Y) — KantRemember
Correct. People did not have a conceptual understanding of what morality is yet they avoided certain acts like killing individuals of the same tribe. My point is that this disposition was mainly due to their feelings, interests, opinions, or beliefs.I think in using the word understanding there are two underlying assertions - we could take understanding (of morality) to mean an understanding that an action in particular is right or wrong - which is what I was referring to with my Amazonian example, or an understanding of morality conceptually. — KantRemember
I agree that feelings, opinions, interests, and beliefs play an important role in morality.Right or wrong, should or shouldn't, better or worse, all of these are in having agency - following your feelings and interests is still behaviour predicated in the assumption that whatever you're feeling is either right or wrong. — KantRemember
Here I disagree. An action is subjective if humans do not agree on whether the action is right or wrong.Objectivity doesn't entail the compulsion to act in such a way that aligns with it, or that humans would agree on it. — KantRemember
Cannibalism yes, it is vanquished. However, we still deal with human terrific. Capitalism as I mentioned is a weak form of slavary. War is unavoidable because people have different opinions, feelings, beliefs, and interests. So no, we disagree on whether different acts are right or wrong in themselves.Over millennia, we agreed, explicitly, or implicitly, that cannibalism is bad for the survival of our species, that slavery is bad, and I'm sure even today nobody agrees that war is good, it just so happens that the teleology behind is what we disagree on, not the act in itself. — KantRemember
That I understand. But my point is that social change or shape is due to the interests, opinions, beliefs, and feelings of the individuals that live in a society. These factors are the same factors when it comes to morality.What I mean is that sociology and morality/ethics are different subjects. A ethics professional would not be a qualified sociologist and vice versa. — KantRemember
Well, I think there shouldn't be any weak or strong in a great nation.' A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats is weakest members ' - Ghandi or something — KantRemember
I disagree. We cannot possibly reach Utopia if we allow the breeding of those people who have genetic problems with the rest of the population. We have to deal with murder, selfishness, etc. all the way otherwise.I'd like to think most of us would agree that mass selective reproduction and weeding out those deemed to be genetically inferior is highly unethical. — KantRemember
My point is that we can conclude that killing is wrong based on Kant's formulation if we accept that life is valuable. Well, I wouldn't simply kill a human if life is valuable though. So I don't understand why we should follow his formulation if we accept that human life is valuable.I'm likely in less of a position to answer than Corvus, but if I may, I presume it boils down to the consideration of not how our actions effect ourselves, or the people we care about for that matter, but everybody. Your example exemplifies exactly why killing a human isn't *generally* considered the right thing to do. Under Kant, it is wrong. I'm unsure if you've seen the movie Purge, but this highlights how, on broad scale, the permission of theft, murder, and other heinous acts are detrimental to society and life. And to your last statement, that falls in line with what I was saying earlier, life inherently values life - the acceptance of the axiom that life is inherently valuable is necessary for life to exist, and to continue existing, even though this may not be a conscious acceptance, we imply that we accept it by living, to live and to state that you don't care would be paradoxical. And not only this, it's also a biological imperative, otherwise the life wouldn't evolve and reproduce. From the acceptance of this, the rest follows. — KantRemember
When you make moral judgements, you need all the facts that you will need to consider, reason and make judgements. You don't just judge on the moral cases with your fleeting feelings, beliefs and opinions and interests. That would be a disaster in the judgements with no knowledge about even what is involved. No one will approve moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions.Can you define a situation in which feelings, opinions, interests, and beliefs are not involved? Just give me an example. — MoK
Evolution is a theory or hypothesis that animals biological organs and bodies change to adapt for the environments they live in. It doesn't apply to human minds, morality or even biology.We are what we are because we have evolved as social animals. Human life is valuable to us because we could not have survived if we had another opinion on this. — MoK
:ok: :cool:Cool. I will be waiting for your response. :) — MoK
I asked whether you could give an example of a situation in which feelings, interests, beliefs, and opinions do not play a role.When you make moral judgements, you need all the facts that you will need to consider, reason and make judgements. You don't just judge on the moral cases with your fleeting feelings, beliefs and opinions and interests. That would be a disaster in the judgements with no knowledge about even what is involved. No one will approve moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions. — Corvus
Could humans survive and extend to such an extent without having the ability to think? Once, you have an agent with a rational ability, then she/he asks all sorts of questions and tries to rationalize things.Evolution is a theory or hypothesis that animals biological organs and bodies change to adapt for the environments they live in. It doesn't apply to human minds, morality or even biology. — Corvus
No problem with that. I can decide in any situation since I am a free agent. — MoK
I agree but this doesn't make morality, or the value of life subjective, it just makes it contingent. The value of life is contingent on the fact we care about our own wellbeing, it's true that we care about our wellbeing... and so on.Thanks for the elaboration. I agree that morality (not objective morality) is contingent on the value of life. But I think the value of life also is contingent on the fact that we are social animals and could not have survived if we had lived separately or had different opinions about the value of life. — MoK
It just follows that suffering is subjectively bad. Consider the example of the terrorist that we discussed. The well-being of a person is a matter of opinion if he threatens the well-being of others. — MoK
Correct. People did not have a conceptual understanding of what morality is yet they avoided certain acts like killing individuals of the same tribe. My point is that this disposition was mainly due to their feelings, interests, opinions, or beliefs. — MoK
Here I disagree. An action is subjective if humans do not agree on whether the action is right or wrong. — MoK
Cannibalism yes, it is vanquished. However, we still deal with human terrific. Capitalism as I mentioned is a weak form of slavary. War is unavoidable because people have different opinions, feelings, beliefs, and interests. So no, we disagree on whether different acts are right or wrong in themselves. — MoK
Well, I think there shouldn't be any weak or strong in a great nation. — MoK
I don't think this isn't the case, because its impossible to separate feelings, interests, beliefs, and opinions when it comes to agency and decision making, but this doesn't impede the objectivity of morals.That I understand. But my point is that social change or shape is due to the interests, opinions, beliefs, and feelings of the individuals that live in a society. These factors are the same factors when it comes to morality. — MoK
I disagree. We cannot possibly reach Utopia if we allow the breeding of those people who have genetic problems with the rest of the population. We have to deal with murder, selfishness, etc. all the way otherwise. — MoK
My point is that we can conclude that killing is wrong based on Kant's formulation if we accept that life is valuable. Well, I wouldn't simply kill a human if life is valuable though. So I don't understand why we should follow his formulation if we accept that human life is valuable. — MoK
I asked whether you could give an example of a situation in which feelings, interests, beliefs, and opinions do not play a role. — MoK
These factors define a situation where a decision is required. Freedom is different from free will. By free will, I mean the ability of an agent to decide when he is uncertain about what to do. I discussed this topic in another thread.Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests often trap you in illusions which blocks your freedom. — Corvus
These factors define a situation where a decision is required. Freedom is different from free will. By free will, I mean the ability of an agent to decide when he is uncertain about what to do. I discussed this topic in another thread. — 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. 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.I agree. This doesn't make morality, or the value of life subjective, it just makes it contingent. — KantRemember
Yes, the value of life is contingent on the fact that life is not possible if we feel differently about it.The life value of life is contingent on the fact we care about our own wellbeing, it's true that we care about our wellbeing... and so on. — KantRemember
If the suffering of X is justifiable, then morality is subjective.Under the framework of valuing life, suffering is not subjectively bad, it impedes the wellbeing of life which, if we value life, is bad. What's subjective is the justification behind it, whether the teleology justifies the action.
I'd agree that "the suffering of X" is subjectively justifiable, but not that suffering in and of itself is good. — KantRemember
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.Not true. Disagreement on any act, X, is independent from whether X is objective or subjective. What's subjective is the belief about the nature of X, not the nature of X itself. — KantRemember
Therefore, morality is subjective, given my definition of subjective.True, actually. We disagree on whether the act is right or wrong in themselves AND whether the justification behind the act is right or wrong. — KantRemember
I love him as well.Marx'd love you. — KantRemember
Correct, evolution does its job but we can expedite the process of reaching Utopia as well. We are rational agents. We know what we need and what we don't need.I mean isn't that what evolution is for? The natural order of life is to ensure that the best fitted survive, the ethical difference is that nature isn't a moral, rational agent. Morality doesn't apply to it. — KantRemember
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.Your second sentence is the logical succession of the first. — KantRemember
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.You state that you wouldn't kill a human being if life is valuable and Kant's imperatives state that if life is valuable we shouldn't kill human beings. — KantRemember
But he and his followers think that his formulation provides a reason for objective morality. That is something that I disagree with for the given reasons.His formulation doesn't just apply to killing, but moral actions as a whole - it's something that provides framework and consensus - granted, you're not compelled to accept it and it doesn't solve all moral qualms but something is better than nothing I suppose. — KantRemember
My point is that pure reason cannot resolve moral problems but adds problems. Think of a terrorist who put a bomb in a location that we are not aware of. The only way to know where the bomb is is through torturing the terrorist. According to Kant, torturing is not allowed. What would you do in such a situation? Wouldn't you torture him to find the bomb and save the lives of many? I would, and my decision in these circumstances is based on mere opinion, saving the lives of many worth torturing the terrorist.However, you seem to be claiming that feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests are the basis of morality. Whereas my point is that pure reason is the foundation of morality. — Corvus
My point is that we cannot put them aside when we want to decide since they are factors that build the situation. No factor, no situation, and nothing to decide. — MoK
My point is that pure reason can resolve moral problems but adds problems. — MoK
Going back to the OP, we seem to be in agreement on the point that believing in God does not resolve moral conflict. However, you seem to be claiming that feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests are the basis of morality. Whereas my point is that pure reason is the foundation of morality. — Corvus
Reason can only guide you in making a choice. Committing to the choice will always be an act of belief. Reason absent committed belief is just rhetoric. Which is why belief - in whatever it may be - is always the foundation of every person's moral choices. — Pantagruel
According to Kant, torturing is not allowed. What would you do in such a situation? — MoK
Beliefs based on feelings and opinions and interests are blind and misleading. — Corvus
Emotions are not "misleading" - they are a huge and significant characteristic of what it means to be human. — Pantagruel
f someone said to you, "I believe that you have insulted my intelligence. Therefore I feel you are evil and bad." How do you justify that claim? — Corvus
To impugn someone's rationality is, by definition, to impugn their beliefs, as my rational-defense claim illustrates. — Pantagruel
Hence they are not in the domain of truth and falsity of knowledge values. When you believe in something, it could be either grounded or groundless and justified or unfounded. Likewise when you feel angry or feel someone is bad, there is no truth or falsity value in the feeling. You either have the feeling or not.
Moral judgements are objective knowledge that is either true or false. Yes, they can be true or false too. But because they can be true or false, they are knowledge and objective.
Beliefs and emotions are subjective, hence folks can have them or not have them. There is no ground for them being true or false. They are not moral truths. They are just feelings and beliefs. — Corvus
This claim is inaccurate because you are saying that reason ought to inform morality, and ought implies can. If people are only capable of acting psychologistically (which seems as though it might be true by definition) then saying that they ought to act rationally instead is either by definition impossible or else it is highly unlikely. In either of which cases it fails as a norm. — Pantagruel
just said, moral judgements must be based on reason. — Corvus
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.