• Philosophim
    2.8k
    Ok MoK, I've been trying to get you to think a little deeper about your statements, but I think you're stuck on statements and firm beliefs that just keep cycling over the same points we've made. One thing to understand is that you can believe anything you want in life. I've asked some pretty pointed questions and these one sentence answers show me you're not interested in exploring it further.

    If you ever want to consider the topic seriously, private message me or open it up somewhere again. Until then, good luck with yourself and I'll chat with you another time. :)
  • MoK
    972
    Why must knowledge of moral facts be universal and infallible?Count Timothy von Icarus
    I challenge the belief of those who think that moral facts are universal and infallible. All people who believe in an eye for an eye for example. All people who believe that killing a serial killer is right. And I don't think that the knowledge of moral facts must be universal since we could have a healthy life following our common feelings that are subjective.

    The person committed to the idea that there are no facts about values is committed to the implausible position that the statements above lack any truth value, that they are, in a sense, undecidable.Count Timothy von Icarus
    I don't disagree with the truth value of those statements. I however think we have to be very cautious about the truth value of the statements that are accepted as facts related to morality.

    I'd argue that moral anti-realism and nihilism only seem as plausible as they do because people try to scope it down to "moral values," making "moral good" a sort of sui generis good that is divorced from all other notions of goodness, choiceworthyness, desirability, etc. But is this a proper distinction? I don't think it is, since it is unclear what such a distinct "moral good" is supposed to consist in once it has been isolated from all other questions of value.Count Timothy von Icarus
    I am not a moral nihilist. However, I think that moral anti-realism is correct. All our values are subjective. What we call good or evil is subjective. Don't take me wrong. I think that the subjective values and features of our experience, good and evil, are important when it comes to morality, without them, we cannot be functional and have a healthy life.
  • MoK
    972
    And here is the objectional premise driving the slide to moral nihilism in much thought.Count Timothy von Icarus
    I think it leads to moral anti-realism. Why do you think that it leads to moral nihilism?

    "If something has to do with desirability or choiceworthyness it always has to do with feelings (i.e., the passions and the appetites) and never involves reason directly."Count Timothy von Icarus
    Well, reason requires facts as its premises. I am wondering what are the facts when it comes to objective morality. I am not saying that reason or fact is divorced from subjective morality though. A thief for example has a reason or fact not to steal since he knows he may be arrested. So I distinguish between reasons that are involved in subjective morality (the thief example) and facts that lead to objective morality.

    Why can't the desire to know the truth, or the desire to know what is truly best, be ascribed to reason?Count Timothy von Icarus
    I think that knowing the truth or what is truly the best can be based on both reason and feeling. We know for sure that advancing in science is good by reason. Reason as I mentioned in the example of the thief plays an important role in a stable and healthy society as well. I just don't think that there are reasons or facts for objective morality.
  • MoK
    972

    I am wondering what is the argument for objective morality. As I mentioned Kant's argument is false. Hume's argument is based on specific feelings that are not common between human beings.
  • MoK
    972

    I am not stuck. I hope we can chat on another topic sometime soon. :)
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    I am wondering what is the argument for objective morality. As I mentioned Kant's argument is false. Hume's argument is based on specific feelings that are not common between human beings.MoK

    Please read the SEP article on Kant's Moral Philosophy. Here is an article about Hume's Morality as well. And this is Kant vs. Hume on Morality.

    After your reading, please let us know the reason why you think they are false. You cannot say they are false, if you don't know what they are.
  • MoK
    972

    Ok, I will read them when I have time.
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    Ok, I will read them when I have time.MoK

    :ok: :wink:
  • MoK
    972

    Let's focus on Kant's first formulation of morality since the article is long and he has several formulations. We can discuss other formulations after I have time to read and think about them. Here is the first formulation: "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law". My main objection to this formulation is why I should accept to only act according to a maxim that I can will when it becomes a universal law.

    It is discussed in the article that four steps must be taken to find out whether an action is right or wrong. These four steps are: "First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your proposed plan of action. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this new law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible." We of course cannot conceive a world in which a specific maxim, like killing is permissible, but my question is why we should generalize a maxim to become a universal law.

    Think of a person with locked-in syndrome. He suffers from being in such a condition greatly. He wishes to die desperately. Isn't it right to assist him to die? Is it right to keep him in such a condition? Accepting that we only can find the rightness of a maxim by generalizing it to become a universal law has this danger of putting people in an undesirable and unfair situation such as people with locked-in syndrome.
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    but my question is why we should generalize a maxim to become a universal law.

    Think of a person with locked-in syndrome. He suffers from being in such a condition greatly. He wishes to die desperately. Isn't it right to assist him to die? Is it right to keep him in such a condition? Accepting that we only can find the rightness of a maxim by generalizing it to become a universal law has this danger of putting people in an undesirable and unfair situation such as people with locked-in syndrome.
    MoK

    Universal law doesn't mean some legislative codes or official declaration.  It means the way moral good and bad is judged.   It is judged by our practical reasoning on the actions, decisions on the moral situations.

    In Kant, reason is an objective and universal way of thinking.   Everyone on the planet says 1+1=2 (by analytic reason), and killing is morally bad (by practical reason).  This is what Kant means by universal and objective.

    Moral good is not something God tells you what to do, and it is not an absolute concept existing somewhere in space, in Kant's view.

    OK there are some controversial cases in real world, where decisions and judgements could be controversial or contradictory such as your example of the locked-in man.  Even in that case, the judgement and decision on the situation are to be made from practical reasoning, so that the result is thought to be best for achieving moral good (not by God's instruction or the absolute moral Good as some folks seem to think).

    Moral good is not about what some folks feels different on certain situations. It is about the actions which have been performed, and decisions which have been made. It is not about the feelings. It is about the actions. In that sense moral judgements are reflective and analytical which are made via practical reasoning.

    You may feel about something totally different in moral judgements from the rest of the folks in the universe. That is not morality. That is just a psychological disposition or beliefs which can change through time and by rethinking. But when you performed a certain act on the moral situation, it will then be judged morally good or bad.
  • MoK
    972
    Universal law doesn't mean some legislative codes or official declaration. It means the way moral good and bad is judged.Corvus
    According to Kant, accepting a maxim as a universal law is a way to determine whether an action is right or wrong. Once people agree that an action is right or wrong, they can establish the legislative code accordingly.

    OK there are some controversial cases in real world, where decisions and judgements could be controversial or contradictory such as your example of the locked-in man.  Even in that case, the judgement and decision on the situation are to be made from practical reasoning, so that the result is thought to be best for achieving moral good (not by God's instruction or the absolute moral Good as some folks seem to think).Corvus
    Could you derive whether killing a person with locked-in syndrome is morally right or wrong using Kant's first formulation? How about people who are terminally ill? How about when your country is at war with another country and the enemy is about to occupy your country?

    Moral good is not about what some folks feels different on certain situations. It is about the actions which have been performed, and decisions which have been made. It is not about the feelings. It is about the actions. In that sense moral judgements are reflective and analytical which are made via practical reasoning.Corvus
    If morality is based on reason only then it is objective.
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    According to Kant, accepting a maxim as a universal law is a way to determine whether an action is right or wrong. Once people agree that an action is right or wrong, they can establish the legislative code accordingly.MoK
    If a community or society come to agreement on certain moral codes, they could make them into the objective and universal law. Then the moral code becomes the legal legislation. For example, in some countries of South Asia such as Singapore and Indonesia, drug trafficking offenses are punishable by death. Where does the legislation come from? It must have from the moral code which they have agreed to make into their universal law.

    Note here "universal" doesn't mean for the whole universe, but for all cases in the country or society or group.

    Anyhow, it would be a result of their practical reasoning on the cases which drug uses and trades cause harm to the population in the countries. And it must have been derived from the universal law that harming others is morally evil.

    Could you derive whether killing a person with locked-in syndrome is morally right or wrong using Kant's first formulation? How about people who are terminally ill? How about when your country is at war with another country and the enemy is about to occupy your country?MoK
    If you or the society you belong to, have accepted the maxim that killing is bad under all circumstances, then it would be morally wrong to assist the locked-in man to die.

    However, in some countries in Europe, assisted killing is legal in such cases. Hence it would depend on the society the situation has risen. Again here, "universal" doesn't mean the whole universe. It means for all cases in the country or society or group.

    If morality is based on reason only then it is objective.MoK
    Not just reasoning, but humans also share similar emotions in the form of sympathy according to Hume. But Hume was, I gather, a moral nihilist. He said, you cannot derive "ought from is", hence there is no obligation for one to be expected to perform moral good out of the maxims or universal law.

    From what you have been saying on morality, Hume seems to be on the same side as your idea.
  • MoK
    972
    If a community or society come to agreement on certain moral codes, they could make them into the objective and universal law. Then the moral code becomes the legal legislation.Corvus
    Quite the opposite. If an action is proven to be objectively right or wrong then any society must accept it as right or wrong.

    For example, in some countries of South Asia such as Singapore and Indonesia, drug trafficking offenses are punishable by death. Where does the legislation come from? It must have from the moral code which they have agreed to make into their universal law.Corvus
    That is a matter of their opinion that is different from the opinion of people in other countries.

    Note here "universal" doesn't mean for the whole universe, but for all cases in the country or society or group.Corvus
    If it is so then morality is not objective.

    Anyhow, it would be a result of their practical reasoning on the cases which drug uses and trades cause harm to the population in the countries.Corvus
    But practical reasoning is different from pure reasoning. I think that Kant believed that morality is objective based on pure reasoning. Don't you think?

    If you or the society you belong to accepted the maxim that killing is bad under all circumstances, then it would be morally wrong to assist the lock-in man to die.Corvus
    That does not answer my question. I asked whether you can derive that killing is wrong under all circumstances using the first formulation of Kant.

    Not just reasoning, but humans also share similar emotions in the form of sympathy according to Hume.Corvus
    But people have different opinions, beliefs, feelings,... How could we agree on a maxim if we want to derive rightness or wrongness from opinions, beliefs, feelings,...? How could morality be objective then?

    But Hume was, I gather, a moral nihilist. He said, you cannot derive "ought from is", hence there is no obligation for one to be expected to perform moral good out of the maxims or universal law.Corvus
    Indeed, that is quite ironic!

    From what you have been saying on morality, Hume seems to be on the same side as your idea.Corvus
    No, I believe in subjective morality.
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    Quite the opposite. If an action is proven to be objectively right or wrong then any society must accept it as right or wrong.MoK
    It is the same meaning as " Any society prove an action is objectively right or wrong, they must accept it as right or wrong.", but you just changed the sentence from active to passive form, and then wrote it is quite the opposite.

    That is a matter of their opinion that is different from the opinion of people in other countries.MoK
    Different countries and societies could have their own objective and universal laws in morality.

    If it is so then morality is not objective.MoK
    It is objective within the countries, and societies.

    But practical reasoning is different from pure reasoning. I think that Kant believed that morality is objective based on pure reasoning. Don't you think?MoK
    Practical reason is what deals with the moral judgements, not pure reason.

    That does not answer my question. I asked whether you can derive that killing is wrong under all circumstances using the first formulation of Kant.MoK
    The answer is "It depends on which country you are residing, when the killing took place." It will be judged by the universal law in the country where the action had been taken.

    But people have different opinions, beliefs, feelings,... How could we agree on a maxim if we want to derive rightness or wrongness from opinions, beliefs, feelings,...? How could morality be objective then?MoK
    Hume was a moral relativist. He said, you cannot derive "ought from is". But still human beliefs, feelings and emotions are common in most times in the form of sympathy.

    Indeed, that is quite ironic!MoK
    Hume has his points.

    No, I believe in subjective morality.MoK
    Subjective morality means a moral nihilist.
  • MoK
    972
    It is the same meaning as " Any society prove an action is objectively right or wrong, they must accept it as right or wrong.", but you just changed the sentence from active to passive form, and then wrote it is quite the opposite.Corvus
    Sorry, I should have written all societies instead of any society.

    Different countries and societies could have their own objective and universal laws in morality.Corvus
    The fact that countries or societies have different laws means that morality is not objective but relative.

    Practical reason is what deals with the moral judgements, not pure reason.Corvus
    Therefore, morality cannot be objective.

    The answer is "It depends on which country you are residing, when the killing took place." It will be judged by the universal law in the country where the action had been taken.Corvus
    Therefore, morality cannot be objective.

    Subjective morality means a moral nihilist.Corvus
    That is not correct. There is no moral truth in moral nihilism. Moral subjectivism is however based on a person's perspectives so moral truth depends on the individual subjective perspective.
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    That is not correct. There is no moral truth in moral nihilism. Moral subjectivism is however based on a person's perspectives so moral truth depends on the individual subjective perspective.MoK

    Well, that is exactly same thing as saying the other folks judgements on the morality don't count or matter at all. Morality itself implies objectivity and universality in the judgements. When you deny that you are denying morality itself. There is no such thing as subjective morality. That would just mean a psychological state or disposition, nothing to do with morality.
  • MoK
    972
    Well, that is exactly same thing as saying the other folks judgements on the morality don't count or matter at all.Corvus
    I say that morality is personal. A person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his/her life for example.

    Morality itself implies objectivity and universality in the judgements.Corvus
    I don't think that there is such a thing as objective morality. I gave you time to defend objective morality. You mentioned Kant's formulations that are based on pure reason, at least his first formulation to the best of my understanding. You on the one hand believe in objective morality and on the other hand believe that different societies are allowed to have different beliefs on the rightness and wrongness of an action.

    When you deny that you are denying morality itself.Corvus
    I just deny objective morality. To me, each individual has all rights to his/her life and has no right to the lives of others.

    There is no such thing as subjective morality.Corvus
    Of course, there is. People as you mentioned yourself have different opinions about an action, whether it is right or wrong. That means that morality is subjective and not objective.

    That would just mean a psychological state or disposition, nothing to do with morality.Corvus
    Opinion, belief, feeling, and like play an important role in morality to me. These are however personal, therefore I believe in moral subjectivism.
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    I don't think that there is such a thing as objective morality. I gave you time to defend objective morality. You mentioned Kant's formulations that are based on pure reason, at least his first formulation to the best of my understanding. You on the one hand believe in objective morality and on the other hand believe that different societies are allowed to have different beliefs on the rightness and wrongness of an action.MoK

    I think your problem seems to come from not understanding what "universal" means. Universal doesn't mean the whole universe in here. It means in all occasions. Please consult the Oxford Dictionary on the meaning. A word has different meanings, and here it is being used for the specific meaning. Hence the universal law can be effective in one country or the society you live in.

    For Kant's morality, he was talking about the way moral judgements are made. Not what the morality is.
    I wasn't defending objectivity of morality. I was just trying to clarify your misunderstandings.

    I am busy on doing other stuff the now, but will get back to you with the other points. But this is just a quick post to point out the main problem you seem to have on the topic.
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    I say that morality is personal. A person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his/her life for example.MoK

    Morality is value judgements on the actions of humans by the other humans, hence saying morality is personal is negating morality. Life is precious, and should be prolonged no matter what circumstances the life is in.

    That is the moral code from the ancient times which is accepted by the majority of the civilized countries even now. Hence it would be morally wrong to assist in terminating life of the locked-in man. That would be a judgement from morality. TBC~
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    I just deny objective morality. To me, each individual has all rights to his/her life and has no right to the lives of others.MoK

    Of course, there is. People as you mentioned yourself have different opinions about an action, whether it is right or wrong. That means that morality is subjective and not objective.MoK
    Think of this example. It is a fact, and truth that there is a book titled "General Logic" on my desk right now. But you wouldn't have known the fact until you read what I typed up above. You would have never believed that the book existed on my desk until you read the sentence. What does it tell you?

    Even if some folks don't believe a fact or truth, that doesn't mean the fact or truth don't exist.
    Likewise, moral rights or wrong is objective whether some folks have different ideas, feelings, beliefs or judgements. Just because you have different morality doesn't mean morality is subjective.

    Opinion, belief, feeling, and like play an important role in morality to me. These are however personal, therefore I believe in moral subjectivism.MoK
    Well, they are just your psychological state, which has nothing to do with morality. People can have different feelings, beliefs and opinions, but that doesn't mean morality is subjective. If you say morality is subjective, and what you feel and believe is morality, then it is no longer morality. It is just your feelings and beliefs on certain aspects of human actions to other humans.
  • MoK
    972
    I think your problem seems to come from not understanding what "universal" means. Universal doesn't mean the whole universe in here. It means in all occasions. Please consult the Oxford Dictionary on the meaning. A word has different meanings, and here it is being used for the specific meaning. Hence the universal law can be effective in one country or the society you live in.Corvus
    I rather consult the SEP webpage that you cited to see what Kant means with the universal laws.

    For Kant's morality, he was talking about the way moral judgements are made. Not what the morality is.
    I wasn't defending objectivity of morality. I was just trying to clarify your misunderstandings.
    Corvus
    Morality is about whether an action is right or wrong. Our judgment is however based on, opinion, feeling, belief, practical reasoning, or pure reasoning. Morality is objective only if it is based on pure reason. Otherwise, it is subjective.
  • MoK
    972
    Morality is value judgements on the actions of humans by the other humans, hence saying morality is personal is negating morality. Life is precious, and should be prolonged no matter what circumstances the life is in.Corvus
    Don't you think that there are societies that have different opinions on whether an action is right or wrong? Doesn't that negate what morality is?
  • MoK
    972
    Likewise, moral rights or wrong is objective whether some folks have different ideas, feelings, beliefs or judgements. Just because you have different morality doesn't mean morality is subjective.Corvus
    Then give me an argument for morality being objective. I think we have been through this.

    Well, they are just your psychological state, which has nothing to do with morality. People can have different feelings, beliefs and opinions, but that doesn't mean morality is subjective. If you say morality is subjective, and what you feel and believe is morality, then it is no longer morality. It is just your feelings and beliefs on certain aspects of human actions to other humans.Corvus
    Morality is objective only if it is based on pure reason. I claim that there is no such thing as pure reasoning when it comes to morality. Therefore, morality is subjective.
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    I rather consult the SEP webpage that you cited to see what Kant means with the universal laws.MoK
    The SEP articles are written in standard English. To understand them, you need to understand the standard definition of the words in English.

    Morality is objective only if it is based on pure reason. I claim that there is no such thing as pure reasoning when it comes to morality. Therefore, morality is subjective.MoK
    If everyone was saying, what they feel and believe is morality, then there would no point talking about morality. It would be better to say, what everyone feels and believes is right. That would be same as saying there is no morality.

    Saying morality is subjective is denying morality, but also at the same time denying the fact that morality is being denied.
  • MoK
    972
    The SEP articles are written in standard English. To understand them, you need to understand the standard definition of the words in English.Corvus
    The SEP article you cited states what universal means: "Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances."

    If everyone was saying, what they feel and believe is morality, then there would no point talking about morality. It would be better to say, what everyone feels and believes is right. That would be same as saying there is no morality.Corvus
    You already mentioned that societies have different moral codes based on their opinions, beliefs, and practical reasoning, yet you claim morality is objective.

    Saying morality is subjective is denying morality, but also at the same time denying the fact that morality is being denied.Corvus
    It is what it is. Morality is subjective when there is no solid ground, the pure reason, that all rational agents can agree on.
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    The SEP article you cited states what universal means: "Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances."MoK
    Within the country you live in, by the law and by the judgements of the society, they are the universal law.

    You already mentioned that societies have different moral codes based on their opinions, beliefs, and practical reasoning, yet you claim morality is objective.MoK
    Please read above.

    It is what it is. Morality is subjective when there is no solid ground, the pure reason, that all rational agents can agree on.MoK
    Practical reason deals with the moral judgements on your moral actions. Pure reason deals with reflections on your reasoning itself. But if one denies the objectivity of reasoning, then reason cannot help to guide you into truth. As Hume said, "Reason is a slave of passion." Passion and emotions on your beliefs on the wrong ideas and falsity could blind your faculty of reason.
  • MoK
    972
    Within the country you live in, by the law and by the judgements of the society, they are the universal law.Corvus
    No, they are not. At least according to Kant.

    Please read above.Corvus
    How do you define objective and subjective when it comes to morality?
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    No, they are not. At least according to Kant.MoK
    You need to be able to read between the lines on his writings to be able to apply them into your own circumstances wisely.

    How do you define objective and subjective when it comes to morality?MoK
    I think I repeated on them numerous times, even with the examples. You need to go back and reread them if you missed the points.
  • MoK
    972
    You need to be able to read between the lines on his writings to be able to apply them into your own circumstances wisely.Corvus
    Circumstances define a situation. According to Kant, we need to universalize a maxim to determine whether it is right or wrong. By universalizing, he is very clear that the maxim must be accepted by all rational agents.

    I think I repeated on them numerous times, even with the examples. You need to go back and reread them if you missed the points.Corvus
    You have never defined objective and subjective when it comes to morality. The examples you provided support morality to be subjective. So, the tension in our discussion arises from the fact that we don't use the same definition for objective and subjective. To me, as I defined it, morality is objective if it is based on pure reason. It is subjective if it is based on opinions, beliefs, interests, and the like. Do you agree with these definitions? If not what are your definitions?
  • Corvus
    4.2k
    It is subjective if it is based on opinions, beliefs, interests, and the like.MoK

    If a guy comes to Mok's house, and steals everything, then what would MoK say about the stealing?

    The guy says to MoK, he is morally right to steal MoK's life saving possessions, because he and his mates were thirsty and had to buy some beer and whisky for him and his friends in the pub from the money he made stealing MoK's life time savings.

    In fact he was not just morally right in stealing but he must be also awarded for his bravery breaking into MoK's house risking his life in order to save him and his mates lives from dying of thirst in the global warming apocalypse. And then he sent you an invoice of 1 million dollars to MoK for the compensation for making it challenging for him to break into the house by installing various security devices and security alarms, which made his stealing more difficult than it would have been.

    Would MoK approve the guy's moral judgement and agree to compensate him, because according to MoK, morality is subjective, and his moral judgement is true?
1234568
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.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.