Biologically programmed to.... hmmm.... Doesn't that mean it's objective by definition? As in it's a fact inherent in the object, in this case, humans. And since it applys to all humans, it has nothing to do with being subjective? It's true out side of independent thought. Just dying off, goes against our natural makeup, and would only be found at the individual level as a personal choice, or in some cases a defect in their chemistry. I don't think all are though.
LJoll how subjective amongst humans is the desire to drink water? If the desire is inherent in our biological makeup does that not make the thing 'objective' as far as the human race goes?
But in this case we are the subject and the object. It is us as the subject that decides that it is good to live. A person with no mind would not be able to make a distinction between whether it is right and wrong to live, but would just go on living anyway.
Even though it is shared amongst the human race, we still decide through subjective means. For instance, "I feel like drinking", "I want to live". Even if due to our biology we could not feel any other way, the truth of the statement would still be determined by our, the subject's, reaction to it.
If everyone shares the same subjective impulse why is it not fair to call that an across-the-board impulse? Leave out the word objective if that is what is causing you problems. The fact is though we don't subjectively require water... we objectively need it to survive.
I agree that there are things we all need to survive. A moral action is not defined as one that helps the individual survive. There are many people that would argue that it is appropriate to die for a cause, or that more generally some things are right and wrong regardless of their affect on the person that does them. If morality is something that is objectively right and wrong, and can include things that don't benefit us personally, we surely need to have a ultimate justification for any reaction. That we need it is not good enough, as is shown by the fact that there are many people that consider actions moral or immoral regardless of the perpetrator, showing that morality is not defined by the effect on the person acting. I think it is impossible to have any ultimate objective justification.
I think your jumping around too much on this topic. The kind of morality your discussing is related to a complex society which could promote things like 'dieing for a cause' what I and I think the others are arguing is that if morality ultimately related to needs being fulfilled and we all ultimately share at very least the same basic needs then it's probably fair to say that their is a kind of 'objective' morality inherent to all humans who want to live. It doesn't exist outside humans making it non-objective in that sense but the human bodies need for water doesn't exist outside of humans either and yet I still think its pretty fair to call that a universal or objective need of the human race.
Yeah. If morality is fulfilling human needs. But I don't think that is what people mean by a moral action.
Aren't we speaking abstractly here? We are taking an "Objective approach" to discussing the nature of humans. Defining a moral is a construct of the human mind, sure. But, morality/ethics is "supposed" to be a logical attempt to solve a dilemma based on facts. I believe some of those facts to be objective. That's why I said an "objective morality" is based on objective facts and applied in a logical fashion. Morality can either be true or false, not both. Every action to achieve a goal, isn't correct But anyway, I think ckava hit it on the head so to speak. We merely defined the word, we then apply it as needed. Kind of like the word objective and for that matter subjective. (But I don't see the former word being avoided. ) Without our intellect right? (I'm sure that's what you mean, but gotta check.) Not "mind" as in, no brain? (Lol, I always wanted to be a tree.)
Alot of stuff floating around as right/just/good/"moral" is crap. But the big ones, like, murder, rape...etc.. Have a pretty good footing.
I don't think the way you are using the word moral is the same most people. Basically. I meant making a conscious choice.
If what you mean by good is that it causes you personal benefit or makes society a nicer place for you to live in personally. That is not necessarily what most people mean by moral.
"The systematic study of morality is a branch of philosophy called ethics. Ethics seeks to address questions such as how a moral outcome can be achieved in a specific situation (applied ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), which morals people actually hold to (descriptive ethics), what is the fundamental nature of ethics or morality itself, including whether it has any objective justification (meta-ethics), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and its nature (moral psychology). From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality Moral: "1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL < :.....c... conforming to a standard of right behavior " From http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/moral
Not me personally. It allows us humans to exist without dooming any one individual. It places rules so that ones subjective desires can be considered "wrong" if it threatens the collective. And in turn keeps us the individuals, from placing our selves in danger. And in that way, it's good in a general sense, not just to me. I think this is where the role of applied ethics takes place, in an attempt to solve a problem....... But, I suppose most people don't really give it much thought, beyond self anyway....
The universe is made up of matter and energy. It does not care what order it is in. It doesn't have human desires and emotions. Us being happy or sad or dead don't matter objectively. The universe is indifferent. We can give subjective values to the world. We can give our own subjective view of right and wrong. But there is no objective base. Your idea of morality is not morality at all. No action is right and wrong in itself. It goes beyond the ends justifying the means; there is no value judgment on the means, other than the success at which it attains the desired ends. Your ends are just what you want. What you call morality is just acting as you're compelled to; as is natural. The only reason for any action is the fulfillment of a desire, however far detached from the action it may be. The universe doesn't care whether you get what you want, it isn't an objective desire. It is something you want, naturally but subjectively. When most people talk of morality, they mean what is right regardless of their desires. Some think that abortion is wrong, because the taking of a life is always wrong, regardless of the desires of the mother. Some believe testing on animals is wrong because animals deserve to live, regardless of the help it may give us. Some people believe blasphemy is wrong, not because we'll go to hell, but vice versa. What you're saying is that nothing in itself has any value. The only value it has is the value we give it. Our subjective value. There is not right or wrong. Only right for me and wrong for me. That's more nihilistic than any Christian morality, but is it a worse world?
We to are made up of matter and energy, and are a part of this universe. But No, it doesn't matter rather we are dead or alive, but the fact is, we are alive. We are also a material object existing in this universe. Are we not the objective basis? Or do humans not exist as a part of the material universe? If the idea is based on us and what is inherent in us, is that not objectively based? It's not? Someone should inform wiki and the dictionary. I mean, what is morality? It's not? So baking a ham is the right action to get a boiled egg? Actions don't exist in a vacuum. If they don't achieve the goal, they were wrong/incorrect by definition, wouldn't you say? No, it's not just what I want, it's just the way things are. This is the best way for the system to work, humans aren't much more than complex systems. I am not giving any value to our existence out side of said existence, but unlike you, I'm acknowledging that we do exist. I also acknowledging that we have a material existence... It is a part of the object. (Humans being the object.) You are trying to deny that we are an existing object in this universe, that's not the case. Surviving is an inherent quality in humans. Morality in and of itself, is not objective, but it can have an objective basis. Morality is a logical and reasoned attempt at solving issues. [edit] Morality may very well go against an indvidual desire, but only in an attempt to achieve a fundemental need. Sure, I can see that. [/edit] This has been addressed by strafio. I don't care what these people think. Rather they are right or wrong depends. It is a messy subject, and that's why there is no definitive answer. Umm, they may very well be wrong, holding that kind of moral as anything more than what they "personally feel," may be flawed.... (Again, I don't really care what these people think. Read above.) No, what I'm saying is, this is a matter of how things work. Cause and effect. I have not given value to the universe or the things in it at all, as it has no reason to be here outside of it's self. But, I aknowledge that it is here..... I'm not saying right for "me" wrong for "me," I'm linking this to humanity as a whole. But yes, the idea of "do as you want" would be worse. It almost seems you are attempting to imply that language has no defined meaning, in which case, neither does your argument. Even if I agreed with you, and said morality didn't have an objective base. I still wouldn't agree with rejecting one system on the soul bases that it is subjective, only to except another idea that is based on that same premise.
All your objections completely missed the original point. I don't deny that we exist. I don't know where you got that idea from. The examples of what people consider to be moral weren't supposed to show that these things are actually morally right or wrong, it was to show that the word moral is used to desribe an action that is good regardless or the personal benefit of the person acting. To use the word in a way that other people do not use it just incorrect.
Not under normal circumstances. It would take something extreme for them to wish to starve, e.g. something so tragic that they lose all will to live. In normal conditions they will most certainly not want to starve. If someone desires to starve then we know that something is very wrong, that they are very ill, either medically or psychologically. In such cases, their 'need' would to be cured of this illness. It seems circular because it's definitional. Happiness is contentment, our way of knowing that our most fundamental desires are being satisfied. Happiness is a symptom of how important a desire is. So happiness is a symptom of our most important desires being fullfilled. If one desire makes you happier than another desire then that's a symptom that this first desire is more important. Our needs are the most important desires of all. Your question shows a misunderstanding. We don't defend acheiving happiness as morally correct. We defend moral correctness through acheiving happiness. Achieving happiness is more or less the definition of rational action. Remember that when I say happiness, I don't necessarily mean the feelings of joy or elation, I mean the satisfaction of desires being achieved. Morally good is what is good from the perspective of society. If you take a third person look at society, what is good for it as a whole, that it when you are thinking morally. From there, I claim that because of our needs it is in our best interests to upkeep society in this way. So to summarise: 1) Morality is doing what's good for society. 2) We rationally work out what we 'ought' to do based on whether it fits our needs. 3) Our needs require a good society. Conclusion) So we ought to act morally. Some Philosophers deny premise 3. They are called externalists, that not everyone has reason to value society so whether someone is moral depends on whether they are a 'good person' i.e. have virtuous values contingently. The other premises are also deniable but I think it's the third one that you have the most issue with.
To be honest, I think your objections miss the point. You agreed with, I think it was, number 2 on strafios nihilism article. I think it was a rejection of all morals or maybe it said morality, not sure. At some point you asserted it was do to it being completely subjective. I dissagree. I also agreed that religious morals would be better than a nihilistic society. You go on to imply it wouldn't. I dissagree. If that isn't the point, then what may I ask, was your point? Was it that morals have to do with right and wrong? (If so, nobody objected to that. ) If it was that morals have no cosmic meaning, "I" never objected to that. If it was that most people just except morals as right or wrong without ever questioning them, I agree. That doesn't mean that those unquestioned morals, don't have a legit place in our lives... Then how can you deny that morality "can have" an objective basis? If the idea is based on us, how can it not be objectively based? That is where, to me atleast, it apears you are implying anything based on us doesn't count. Or even stranger that we don't exist as a material object. (I'm glad we agree that we do infact exist..) Where did that moral arise from? What is the basis for the moral? That was my point. Not all morals arise out of thin air. Some seemingly do, I'll admit, but not all... Most people just don't question how these morals actually developed. A moral has to do with what is right and wrong, this is where ethics steps in. Alot of people grow up excepting these morals as correct, but not why they are correct. No. It is defined by the dictionary and wiki just the way I put it. I'm sure those definitions didn't come out of thin air. Most christians equate "atheism" to being a religion, are they right? Again, a moral has to do with what is right and wrong, this is where ethics step in. I never said it didn't have to do with right and wrong. I just pointed to where certain morals come from. I, like others, pointed to an objective basis. I never said that all people looked into why these morals exist. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- You say that morality is not linked to society, and what is best to survive. Why?
