Got moral obligations?

[olavisjo]

If you believe that there exists an obligation to behave in a proper way then to whom or what is that obligation to?

[Crazy Ivan]

lol, well, as funny as that was do you care to point out the logical fallacy.

Or do you only have jokes to contribute?

Just a joke, really. I can't make heads or tails of that sequence, so I'll just back away from it slowly, avoiding direct eye contact and sudden movements...

[WinePusher]

lol, well, as funny as that was do you care to point out the logical fallacy.

Or do you only have jokes to contribute?

Just a joke, really. I can't make heads or tails of that sequence, so I'll just back away from it slowly, avoiding direct eye contact and sudden movements...

lol, if you study the syllogism very closly you'll find that what I just wrote is very profound.

[bernee51]

1) It is morally rephrehensible to kill someone just for the fun of it

2) Person A kills Person B just for the fun of it

3) Person C (sees the murder) and says the action is wrong, Person A (who committed the murder) doesn't think there was anything wrong with the action

Therefore:

4) If Morality is merely subjective to our personal opinion, we could not tell what is right from wrong

5) Human beings can tell what is right from wrong

Therefore:

6) There is an objective source for which all morality is based on

Sorry I do not follow how your conclusion arises from your premises. And even if it did what is the point you are trying to make?

People decide, for various and often personal reasons, what they hold to be right or wrong.

So what?

[Goat]

From Post 19:

Sorry for the late reply, and I snip to the relevant parts...

Just out of curiosity, does the use of that word by Richard Dawkins in the title of his best seller bother you as well?

In an open and free society folks oughta be able to say pretty much anything they want. This site is not "free and open", in that there are restrictions on what we can say. I personally consider the restrictions reasonable, but realize others may have compelling reasons to disagree.

...But there is no reason to think that those moral values are correct or it is even possible for a moral value to be correct. It just seems to me to be obvious that we can't just declare something right or wrong and it actually becomes right or wrong. Morality must be discovered, not just declared.

Plenty fair. Where folks would claim a given moral position is "handed down from god", I would challenge them to show such is indeed the case. Lacking this, I contend the reasonable and logical conclusion is that morality is a concept of proper action, and is dependent on the individual on the one level, and society on another level, when such individuals ban together to impose sanctions on behaviors the 'powers that be' has decided to 'ban'.

Is it moral to commit homocide? No, unless someone is trying to kill me. But wait, if it's not moral to kill another, what gives me the right to kill someone that would kill me? Morals are not objective, but subjective because for any circumstance one can imagine there is also another circumstance where the counter argument prevails.

So, my moral obligations are firstly to myself, where I deem a given act im/moral. However, society also imposes a "collective moral obligation" on me, where if I violate such I'm liable to sanctions. Now, when I consider a given moral proposition imposed on me by society, I must square that with my own sense of moral obligation. If I deem the society's moral obligation correct, I will tend or try to abide by it. When I consider that societal obligation a violation of my own morals, then I'm "morally obligated" to not follow it, or to even deliberately violate it to show my displeasure.

Knowing olavisjo, and having many conversations with him on such issues as morality, I perceive an implication in the OP that this "obligation" must be to some entity I personally can't show, nor do I believe exists. My "moral obligation" may indeed ultimately be to this entity, if that entity exists, and decides to impose its own sense of morality onto me. This still doesn't preclude my own inate sense of what is a proper morality. Where I personally disagree with this entity's concept of a proper moral act, I am "morally obligated" to "follow my heart", and this entity's wishes be danged.

My issue with a religious notion of morality is we are told some entity exists, and that this entity will get upset if we violate its moral principles. I ask such folks to show me this entity exists and show me this entity has an opinion regarding proper morality.

1) It is morally rephrehensible to kill someone just for the fun of it

2) Person A kills Person B just for the fun of it

3) Person C (sees the murder) and says the action is wrong, Person A (who committed the murder) doesn't think there was anything wrong with the action

Therefore:

4) If Morality is merely subjective to our personal opinion, we could not tell what is right from wrong

5) Human beings can tell what is right from wrong

Therefore:

6) There is an objective source for which all morality is based on

Word games with unprovable assumptions don't mean a damn thing. If the premise you come up with is incorrect, then your entire logic falls like the a house of cards.

YOu see,

Morality is a social code conditioned by the needs of society. This takes the 'objectivity' out.

If there is an objective code, then all people would agree upon what it was. There are people who feel that abortion is not an issue, there are others that feel it is, therefore Morality is subjective.

[olavisjo]

If there is an objective code, then all people would agree upon what it was. There are people who feel that abortion is not an issue, there are others that feel it is, therefore Morality is subjective.

If there is an objective reality to the Earth, then all people would agree upon what it was. There are people who feel that the Earth is round, there are others who feel it is flat, therefore the reality of the Earth is subjective.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 28:

1) It is morally rephrehensible to kill someone just for the fun of it
2) Person A kills Person B just for the fun of it
3) Person C (sees the murder) and says the action is wrong, Person A (who committed the murder) doesn't think there was anything wrong with the action

Number 1 is negated by number 2 and number 3.

"Just for fun" is a subjective term, and introduces subjectivity into number 1.

If an individual declares something "morally reprehensible", and then goes on to commit that act, they show they don't think it so reprehensible after all.

Therefore:
4) If Morality is merely subjective to our personal opinion, we could not tell what is right from wrong
5) Human beings can tell what is right from wrong

Number 4 is incorrect because many of us make determinations regarding what is right and wrong.

Number 5 is correct for the most part, but is dependent on their own opinions.

Therefore:

6) There is an objective source for which all morality is based on

Faulty premises often lead to faulty conclusions, as you have done here.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 35:

If there is an objective reality to the Earth, then all people would agree upon what it was. There are people who feel that the Earth is round, there are others who feel it is flat, therefore the reality of the Earth is subjective.

Nope. Earth is a physical object. It's physical properties remain in place regardless of our opinions - unanimous or not.

Morality is not a physical object, and is liable to our subjective takes thereof.

[ChaosBorders]

From Post 28:

1) It is morally reprehensible to kill someone just for the fun of it
2) Person A kills Person B just for the fun of it
3) Person C (sees the murder) and says the action is wrong, Person A (who committed the murder) doesn't think there was anything wrong with the action

Number 1 is negated by number 2 and number 3.

"Just for fun" is a subjective term, and introduces subjectivity into number 1.

If an individual declares something "morally reprehensible", and then goes on to commit that act, they show they don't think it so reprehensible after all.

I don't think Person A was declaring it morally reprehensible. If they were and did it anyways it would not necessarily show that it was not morally reprehensible, only that Person A was a hypocrite. That being said, the premise in its entirety cannot be proved from an objective standpoint, so at best the statement should read "Most people agree that it is morally reprehensible to kill someone just for the fun of it". From there, nothing is wrong with 2 or 3 (but the conclusion will still be shown to be a non sequitur).

Therefore:
4) If Morality is merely subjective to our personal opinion, we could not tell what is right from wrong
5) Human beings can tell what is right from wrong

Number 4 is incorrect because many of us make determinations regarding what is right and wrong.

Number 5 is correct for the most part, but is dependent on their own opinions.

Number 4 is correct if 'right and wrong' are indicating an objective position because if morality is merely subjective there is no objective right or wrong to tell.

Number 5 is where the argument completely breaks down. We can give our subjective opinions on what is right and what is wrong, but no one claim with completely justified certainty that they can actually tell what is objectively right and wrong (if an objective right and wrong exist). That is obvious from the large number of people claiming they are doing the right thing, when it is the opposite of large numbers of other people claiming they are also doing the right thing. One group has to be wrong (or both to varying extents), but both groups believe they are right. The simple fact is that human beings cannot tell what is right or wrong past their own subjective opinions on the matter.

Therefore:

6) There is an objective source for which all morality is based on

Faulty premises often lead to faulty conclusions, as you have done here.

And on this I agree with Joey completely. I would phrase the flaws in your argument a little differently than he does, but because Number 1 cannot be proven regarding an objective morality and Number 5 also cannot be proven if speaking of an objective right and wrong, no case can be made that they lead to an objective source for which morality is based on.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 38:

Number 1 is negated by number 2 and number 3.
"Just for fun" is a subjective term, and introduces subjectivity into number 1.
If an individual declares something "morally reprehensible", and then goes on to commit that act, they show they don't think it so reprehensible after all.

I don't think Person A was declaring it morally reprehensible.

Let me pinch off a few of them yellow leaves towards the bottom.

Faulty premises often lead to faulty conclusions, as you have done here.

And on this I agree with Joey completely.

If I was the observer I'd be mighty inclined to agree with Chaosborders on this'n

[olavisjo]

From Post 35:

If there is an objective reality to the Earth, then all people would agree upon what it was. There are people who feel that the Earth is round, there are others who feel it is flat, therefore the reality of the Earth is subjective.

Nope. Earth is a physical object. It's physical properties remain in place regardless of our opinions - unanimous or not.

Morality is not a physical object, and is liable to our subjective takes thereof.

Since "2+2=4" is not a physical object, it too is liable to our subjective take.