Objective morality, Virtue, and Gray areas

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think objective, universal, morality exists and is basically a refined statement of the Golden Rule--which, BTW, is expressed in some form by every major religion, even though it's swamped by extraneous, non-applicable add-ons which inevitably draw most of the attention.

Morality should deal ONLY with our interactions with each other. All else is subjective, individually determined virtue. Not working or going to church on the sabbath are not moral issues, but if you think they're virtuous behavior, that's entirely up to you. Virtue should never be legislated, although it will always be subject to social pressure, though some will pay a price if they buck the pressure.

As for the fine tuned Golden Rule, it is: "Honoring the equal rights of all adult humans of sound mind, to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud".

That's it. Subjective morality doesn't exist, but there are some gray areas lurking in the qualifiers (adult, human, of sound mind) that have to be dealt with.

Specifically, I'm referring to cases such as the differing degrees of humane treatment given to animals, when does an embryo acquire the right to life, and when do children/adolescents, the mentally handicapped or criminals, come to possess (or loose) their rights. These gray areas deal with the degree of consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness possessed by a given individual; and they're gray because there is rarely a specific time, or stage of evolution between point A when they don't have a particular right, to point B when they do. For example, children acquire the right to liberty gradually, yet we use a specific age when they're suddenly no longer considered a minor and have full legal rights as adults. The point is to recognize that picking a specific, arbitrary point for legal purposes can obviously have negative consequences. How can we allow for extenuating circumstances yet maintain equal protection under the law? Should, say, an arbitrary first trimester limit on abortion be lengthened if, for instance, the fetus has developmental problems? When does the right to life of a fetus override the right to life and liberty of the mother? For animals, is humane treatment for a dog the sames as for a chicken, or a lizard or cockroach? It isn't immoral to put (lock up) a child in playpen, restrict an adolescent from selling his TV, drinking alcohol, or making them do chores, and you don't give a child a gun to handle bullies, etc., but when do they acquire those liberties?

When we look at the extremes, 1 day old vs. 9 mo. old fetus, dog vs. cockroach, healthy adult vs. one with Alzheimers, we have little trouble making judgements. This isn't an argument against arbitrary limits, but the transition can be very problematic for deciding what's moral, and how we should deal with these issues legally. Sometimes we just don't have the information we need to make an informed judgement, and the first step is to recognize that. Some fundamentalists believe that the right to life begins at conception, but that's strictly a matter of arbitrary faith. Should a 13 year-old girl who is one day pregnant as the result of being raped by her father be forced to carry the baby to term? Others believe we can abort a healthy baby even when it's in the process of being born, but that's just as much a matter of blind faith, and should actually be considered murder.

These gray areas are gray because we don't have definitive answers for them, and the point is we need to recognize them for what they are and deal with them calmly as much as we can in our laws. All we know for sure is if a crime can have no victims, it isn't a crime. All absolute immorality stems from an adult establishing a moral double standard for himself or his family, clique, group, race, religion or country.

(I know there are questions such as under what assumptions do we adopt the Golden Rule, what would motivate society to adhere to it, and how do we enforce justice with objective morality but subjective punishment. But this is a long post already so I'll deal with those as they arise.)

[Cephus]

[Replying to post 17 by Cephus]


You think genocide like the Holocaust is moral as long as the Germans thought it was, and you want me to take a step pack. Either that or you're playin' me, so I will be taking a step back and then be movin' on.

To the Germans, sure. But you can't answer that, you're just assuming that what you believe must be true and when someone suggests that it isn't necessarily so, you don't know how to react so you're backing away. That's fine, it just proves how unsure you are of your own position and how little you've thought about it.

[Cephus]

[Replying to post 17 by Cephus]


You think genocide like the Holocaust is moral as long as the Germans thought it was, and you want me to take a step pack. Either that or you're playin' me, so I will be taking a step back and then be movin' on.

That, of course, is not what he said. However, he said some Germans thought it was moral. Not only that, some Arabs think it would be moral to eliminate the infidels.., and at least in rhetoric, the idea of eliminating the Muslims is alive and well in some parts of our society.

Forget what the Germans and Arabs and Muslims said, HE SAID,,,, they, that is we all, within our national local groups, determine what is moral....that it's subjective. It's reasonably indefensible.

How is it indefensible when it's demonstrably true? Every culture determines what is right and wrong, good an evil, moral and immoral, within it's particular group. The rules that apply in one place do not necessarily apply in another. You're just uncomfortable with morality being subjective so you insist that it is not but you still cannot demonstrate that your ideas are actually true or accurate.

Just asserting a thing doesn't make it so.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 17 by Cephus]


You think genocide like the Holocaust is moral as long as the Germans thought it was, and you want me to take a step pack. Either that or you're playin' me, so I will be taking a step back and then be movin' on.

That, of course, is not what he said. However, he said some Germans thought it was moral. Not only that, some Arabs think it would be moral to eliminate the infidels.., and at least in rhetoric, the idea of eliminating the Muslims is alive and well in some parts of our society.

Forget what the Germans and Arabs and Muslims said, HE SAID,,,, they, that is we all, within our national local groups, determine what is moral....that it's subjective. It's reasonably indefensible.

Could you restate that to be coherent please?

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 22 by Cephus]

Just asserting a thing doesn't make it so.[/quote]

Yet that's exactly what you're asserting the Germans and the like can do. It's the definition of subjective morality.

How is subjective morality determined, by the majority, by the ones with the power, the ones with the guns, or.....the ones with the money? Anything but reason it appears, because subjective reason is impossible--which, btw, undercuts any argument you make. Chaos is a bitch.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 17 by Cephus]


You think genocide like the Holocaust is moral as long as the Germans thought it was, and you want me to take a step pack. Either that or you're playin' me, so I will be taking a step back and then be movin' on.

That, of course, is not what he said. However, he said some Germans thought it was moral. Not only that, some Arabs think it would be moral to eliminate the infidels.., and at least in rhetoric, the idea of eliminating the Muslims is alive and well in some parts of our society.

Forget what the Germans and Arabs and Muslims said, HE SAID,,,, they, that is we all, within our national local groups, determine what is moral....that it's subjective. It's reasonably indefensible.

Could you restate that to be coherent please?

Certainly, if you'll please identify the incoherent part.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 22 by Cephus]

Just asserting a thing doesn't make it so.

Yet that's exactly what you're asserting the Germans and the like can do. It's the definition of subjective morality.

How is subjective morality determined, by the majority, by the ones with the power, the ones with the guns, or.....the ones with the money? Anything but reason it appears, because subjective reason is impossible--which, btw, undercuts any argument you make. Chaos is a bitch.[/quote]

How is subjective morality determined?? Partly by the majority and partly by what works. That which doesn't' work gets filtered out.

Now, there is no evidence what so ever of an 'objective morality'. All morality has to deal directly with people.. and how they feel out it. Without the human factor, the rules mean nothing.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 22 by Cephus]

Just asserting a thing doesn't make it so.

Yet that's exactly what you're asserting the Germans and the like can do. It's the definition of subjective morality.

How is subjective morality determined, by the majority, by the ones with the power, the ones with the guns, or.....the ones with the money? Anything but reason it appears, because subjective reason is impossible--which, btw, undercuts any argument you make. Chaos is a bitch.

How is subjective morality determined?? Partly by the majority and partly by what works. That which doesn't' work gets filtered out.

You want me to compile a list of the crap that hasn't been "filtered out" since before the dawn of civilization, like genocide, human sacrifice and slavery. And the most successful places in prohibiting these practices have done so by recognizing them them as objectively, universally, immoral. But of course you believe (apparently, you haven't said) that the powers that be can make these practices moral by declaring them to be so. I expect almost all violence is committed by people who deem themselves to be moral, if they ever think about it at all. I doubt they even appreciate the eggheads with tenure who come to their defense.

All morality has to deal directly with people.

Of course! I even led off my Objective Morality thread with this, "Morality should deal ONLY with our interactions with each other. All else is subjective, individually determined virtue." ](*,)

Morality is very limited in scope. But it's simpler to just say all morality is subjective rather than try to advocate the understanding that morality and virtue are completely separate.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 22 by Cephus]

Just asserting a thing doesn't make it so.

Yet that's exactly what you're asserting the Germans and the like can do. It's the definition of subjective morality.

How is subjective morality determined, by the majority, by the ones with the power, the ones with the guns, or.....the ones with the money? Anything but reason it appears, because subjective reason is impossible--which, btw, undercuts any argument you make. Chaos is a bitch.

How is subjective morality determined?? Partly by the majority and partly by what works. That which doesn't' work gets filtered out.

You want me to compile a list of the crap that hasn't been "filtered out" since before the dawn of civilization, like genocide, human sacrifice and slavery. And the most successful places in prohibiting these practices have done so by recognizing them them as objectively, universally, immoral. But of course you believe (apparently, you haven't said) that the powers that be can make these practices moral by declaring them to be so. I expect almost all violence is committed by people who deem themselves to be moral, if they ever think about it at all. I doubt they even appreciate the eggheads with tenure who come to their defense.

All morality has to deal directly with people.

Of course! I even led off my Objective Morality thread with this, "Morality should deal ONLY with our interactions with each other. All else is subjective, individually determined virtue." ](*,)

Morality is very limited in scope. But it's simpler to just say all morality is subjective rather than try to advocate the understanding that morality and virtue are completely separate.

I see two errors with your post. 1) The response is an emotional reaction to a straw man understanding of what is said to you about subjective morality.

2) Despite the emotional attacks on subjective morality, there is a strong lack of evidence for objective morality. Emotionalism is not evidence for objective morality.

[Bust Nak]

How is subjective morality determined, by the majority, by the ones with the power, the ones with the guns, or.....the ones with the money?

None of the above. Morality is determined by me, according to my subjective opinion.

Anything but reason it appears, because subjective reason is impossible--which, btw, undercuts any argument you make. Chaos is a bitch.

I would argue that a) I put a great deal of importance on reason and b) my opinion is anything but chaotic.

Forget what the Germans and Arabs and Muslims said, HE SAID,,,, they, that is we all, within our national local groups, determine what is moral....that it's subjective. It's reasonably indefensible.

That depends on what said opinion is. Some opinion can be defended very easily.

And the most successful places in prohibiting these practices have done so by recognizing them them as objectively, universally, immoral.

The word "recognizing" implies morality is objective and is a matter of observation, something to be discovered. Care to demostrate that?

you believe (apparently, you haven't said) that the powers that be can make these practices moral by declaring them to be so.

That's not what subjective morality is, no one is making something moral by declaring them so, any more than a taster is making a pizza delicious by declaring how much he likes it.

[Cephus]

Yet that's exactly what you're asserting the Germans and the like can do. It's the definition of subjective morality.

We can only go by what the evidence says and all of the evidence supports the claim that the Germans, Hitler in particular, was driven by his religious beliefs to act as he acted. If you have actual evidence to present to the contrary, by all means do so.

How is subjective morality determined, by the majority, by the ones with the power, the ones with the guns, or.....the ones with the money? Anything but reason it appears, because subjective reason is impossible--which, btw, undercuts any argument you make. Chaos is a bitch.

It's determined by the majority in a particular society and grows and changes organically. It's not imposed, it develops. You really need to go look at some sociology and cultural anthropology, this is all very well understood.