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]

You didn't answer the question. Is murder/genocide immoral or not? There are many places in the world where slavery is legal, does that make it moral? If the South had won the war, slavery would have remained legal and moral, as it was before the war?

Subjective morality is as much of a moral tangle as time travel would be a paradoxical nightmare.

The question you never answer is "moral according to who"? According to the people who keep slaves, slavery is moral. According to Southern slave owners, slavery was not only moral, it was commanded by God. Murder is kind of a sticky subject because, by definition, murder is killing not sanctioned by law and thus, automatically immoral, but killing certainly isn't necessarily immoral, we do it all the time.

Just because you want there to be a single set of moral standards, that doesn't mean there actually is.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 8 by Goat]



You didn't answer the question. Is murder/genocide immoral or not? There are many places in the world where slavery is legal, does that make it moral? If the South had won the war, slavery would have remained legal and moral, as it was before the war?

Subjective morality is as much of a moral tangle as time travel would be a paradoxical nightmare.

Sure it did. It is immoral.. to US. However, you can be darn sure that gorillas or chimps don't care what we do to each other. It is immoral subjectively to us.

[ThePainefulTruth]

There is no such thing as objective morality, something that is true everywhere and across all historical boundaries. There are common themes that we come back to because we're all human and have similar wants and desires, but that's as close as one can get.

Common themes like what, it's immoral to murder or commit genocide? Are they ever justified?

Personally, I think someone needs to go look up what "objective" means. I do not thing it means what they think it means.

Back at ya.

[Goat]

There is no such thing as objective morality, something that is true everywhere and across all historical boundaries. There are common themes that we come back to because we're all human and have similar wants and desires, but that's as close as one can get.

Common themes like what, it's immoral to murder or commit genocide? Are they ever justified?

Personally, I think someone needs to go look up what "objective" means. I do not thing it means what they think it means.

Back at ya.

From a personal subjective point of view, yes, it is immoral to commit murder or genoside... particularly when it comes from the viewpoint of the victim. It only has meaning because of what we personally FEEL about it. That makes it subjective.

[Cephus]

There is no such thing as objective morality, something that is true everywhere and across all historical boundaries. There are common themes that we come back to because we're all human and have similar wants and desires, but that's as close as one can get.

Common themes like what, it's immoral to murder or commit genocide? Are they ever justified?

Are they ever justified to who? You've made it clear that you think your moral views are correct, but everyone does that. If there was a group of people who thought murder was fine, then to them, murder would be moral. You need to learn to see beyond your own opinions, there's a whole wide world out there.

[ThePainefulTruth]

There is no such thing as objective morality, something that is true everywhere and across all historical boundaries. There are common themes that we come back to because we're all human and have similar wants and desires, but that's as close as one can get.

Common themes like what, it's immoral to murder or commit genocide? Are they ever justified?

Are they ever justified to who?

That question is a red herring. We're talking about genocide and murder. Who do you think? What to you think subjective morality is?

You've made it clear that you think your moral views are correct, but everyone does that.

All I've done is remove the mountains of "moral" clutter that's been piled on top of the GR over the millennia, and I've even identified some gray areas which should keep academia happy, having something to wrestle with. Is there some moral behavior that's been left out of my working model for the GR above, or something we should add? If so what? If not, what do you want? What argument could you possibly use to get something prohibited or permitted?

f there was a group of people who thought murder was fine, then to them, murder would be moral. You need to learn to see beyond your own opinions, there's a whole wide world out there.

So say a state, let's say Illinois, secedes from the union, the liberal government in Washington lets them. Then they pass a law with overwhelming popular support that all capitalists and religious fundamentalists should be shot on sight. According to your statement, that would be moral and just. No trial required under the same principle. Morality is nothing more than putting yourself in your victims shoes. Ergo, the reverse would be "moral" as well, leaving you up against the wall. Killing homosexuals and atheists could be justified under this scenario too.

Chaos would be the result, because anarchy is exactly what subjective morality is all about--intentionally or not.

[Cephus]

There is no such thing as objective morality, something that is true everywhere and across all historical boundaries. There are common themes that we come back to because we're all human and have similar wants and desires, but that's as close as one can get.

Common themes like what, it's immoral to murder or commit genocide? Are they ever justified?

Are they ever justified to who?

That question is a red herring. We're talking about genocide and murder. Who do you think? What to you think subjective morality is?

No, it's not a red herring, it's an honest question and one that you don't want to answer. The people who want to murder and/or commit genocide certainly don't think it's immoral or they wouldn't want to do it. The issue here is that you're casting your own cultural biases as universal truth and nothing could be further from reality. You need to be able to take a step or two back and recognize your own cultural biases and your own cultural indoctrination.

You've made it clear that you think your moral views are correct, but everyone does that.

All I've done is remove the mountains of "moral" clutter that's been piled on top of the GR over the millennia, and I've even identified some gray areas which should keep academia happy, having something to wrestle with. Is there some moral behavior that's been left out of my working model for the GR above, or something we should add? If so what? If not, what do you want? What argument could you possibly use to get something prohibited or permitted?

No, you've just gotten rid of the things that disagree with the cultural moral views that you've been indoctrinated into. The Golden Rule isn't a very good single-stop moral tool if you think about it, it assumes that everyone has the same wishes and desires that you do and that's certainly not necessarily the truth.

f there was a group of people who thought murder was fine, then to them, murder would be moral. You need to learn to see beyond your own opinions, there's a whole wide world out there.

So say a state, let's say Illinois, secedes from the union, the liberal government in Washington lets them. Then they pass a law with overwhelming popular support that all capitalists and religious fundamentalists should be shot on sight. According to your statement, that would be moral and just. No trial required under the same principle. Morality is nothing more than putting yourself in your victims shoes. Ergo, the reverse would be "moral" as well, leaving you up against the wall. Killing homosexuals and atheists could be justified under this scenario too.

Chaos would be the result, because anarchy is exactly what subjective morality is all about--intentionally or not.

You could probably find places in the Deep South that would be all too happy to reinstate slavery if they could get away with it. They don't see anything wrong with slavery, certainly, they don't consider it immoral.

However, you do hit on one thing that is correct, morality, in general, relies on the principle of enlightened self interest. It's based around treating people the way you'd like to be treated, hence hoping that your good treatment will be reciprocated. However, as I said earlier, that assumes that people necessarily share your views, wants and desires and want to be treated as you do, or that they might want to treat you the way they wish to be treated, which may disagree with your own views, wants and desires. You are just assuming a universal set of morals and that simply isn't the case. There are other cultures out there with demonstrably different sets of morals, who think that what we believe to be moral in the United States is absolutely immoral. Take a lot of Muslim countries where it's thought to be immoral if a woman isn't covered up like a sack of potatoes. You think that's immoral, I would think anyhow, they think you're immoral. Who is right? How do you know?

[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.

[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.

[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.