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.)

[Goat]

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.

Can you explain how and why it is 'universal and objective'? How can you tell?

I mean , it looks to me like the golden rule is very subjective. It has to do with what YOU feel is hateful to you.. it's all about YOU YOU YOU.

All ethics and morality has to do with people's interactions with other people.. and I don't see how to make it non-personal and objective.

[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.

Can you explain how and why it is 'universal and objective'? How can you tell?

I mean , it looks to me like the golden rule is very subjective. It has to do with what YOU feel is hateful to you.. it's all about YOU YOU YOU.

All ethics and morality has to do with people's interactions with other people...

Yes, that's what I said.

...and I don't see how to make it non-personal and objective.

Well being moral is very personal since it takes character, integrity and often courage.

Morality is objective by necessity because it does involve interactions among people, otherwise everyone would make it subjective to serve their own purposes, which they try to do anyway, but they know they aren't being moral. Subjective morality, the opposite of the Golden Rule (see above) is chaos. Our self-awareness makes being moral self-evident because we automatically understand what it's like to be the victim of the violation we're about to inflict.

The impetus for a universal morality is the desire for good order by almost everybody--except despots and anarchists. And we can all lead by example if we adhere to the idea of enlightened self-interest, which is putting yourself first, while following the Golden Rule and keeping the rights of everyone else equal with yours.

[Goat]

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.

Can you explain how and why it is 'universal and objective'? How can you tell?

I mean , it looks to me like the golden rule is very subjective. It has to do with what YOU feel is hateful to you.. it's all about YOU YOU YOU.

All ethics and morality has to do with people's interactions with other people...

Yes, that's what I said.

...and I don't see how to make it non-personal and objective.

Well being moral is very personal since it takes character, integrity and often courage.

Morality is objective by necessity because it does involve interactions among people, otherwise everyone would make it subjective to serve their own purposes, which they try to do anyway, but they know they aren't being moral. Subjective morality, the opposite of the Golden Rule (see above) is chaos. Our self-awareness makes being moral self-evident because we automatically understand what it's like to be the victim of the violation we're about to inflict.

The impetus for a universal morality is the desire for good order by almost everybody--except despots and anarchists. And we can all lead by example if we adhere to the idea of enlightened self-interest, which is putting yourself first, while following the Golden Rule and keeping the rights of everyone else equal with yours.

But, having interactions between people makes it subjective by definition... that is my point.

[ThePainefulTruth]

But, having interactions between people makes it subjective by definition... that is my point.

It depends on the interaction, since there are moral interactions and immoral interactions. If you love somebody, that's subjective, and no law should tell you who to love or not love. But if you murder somebody, you've broken an objective moral code against murder by violating his right to his life. That's why morality is applicable only to those four objective rights.

If you say morality is subjective, you've set up a double standard where the elite have the right to murder, rob or enslave others or prohibit them from defending themselves. The problem is churches and states clouding the issue when they make other activities immoral/illegal when they shouldn't be.

[Goat]

But, having interactions between people makes it subjective by definition... that is my point.

It depends on the interaction, since there are moral interactions and immoral interactions. If you love somebody, that's subjective, and no law should tell you who to love or not love. But if you murder somebody, you've broken an objective moral code against murder by violating his right to his life. That's why morality is applicable only to those four objective rights.

If you say morality is subjective, you've set up a double standard where the elite have the right to murder, rob or enslave others or prohibit them from defending themselves. The problem is churches and states clouding the issue when they make other activities immoral/illegal when they shouldn't be.

And that's the point. It's not objective moral code against murder.. because it's dealing with people and society. The universe doesn't care. It is only because WE care that it matters. That makes it subjective.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 6 by Goat]

So people who declare morality, including murder, to be subjective, can commit murder without consequence of conscience or under the law?

Is the law whatever the majority dictates, thus justifying genocide under Hitler?

And I'm not saying the universe dictates universal morality, only that objective morality is applied universally to all sentient creatures with full self-awareness.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 6 by Goat]

So people who declare morality, including murder, to be subjective, can commit murder without consequence of conscience or under the law?

Is the law whatever the majority dictates, thus justifying genocide under Hitler?

And I'm not saying the universe dictates universal morality, only that objective morality is applied universally to all sentient creatures with full self-awareness.

The law and such always gets written by the winner. I , personally , am thankful Hitler didn't get to write the law.

And of course, when it comes to executions, and murder, the law and murder is always sujectivtly wrong for the victim, and the victims family

[ThePainefulTruth]

[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.

[Cephus]

[Replying to post 6 by Goat]

So people who declare morality, including murder, to be subjective, can commit murder without consequence of conscience or under the law?

Is the law whatever the majority dictates, thus justifying genocide under Hitler?

And I'm not saying the universe dictates universal morality, only that objective morality is applied universally to all sentient creatures with full self-awareness.

The law and such always gets written by the winner. I , personally , am thankful Hitler didn't get to write the law.

And of course, when it comes to executions, and murder, the law and murder is always sujectivtly wrong for the victim, and the victims family

In WWII Germany, Hitler did write the law to some degree and putting Jews in gas chambers was not against the law. The Nazis were not put in prison under German law, when they were tried at Nuremberg, it was a different legal standard that was applied.

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.

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