Is there an objective morality?

[Blaze The Great]

I reiterate my statement: there isn't an objective morality.

Enlighten us.

[Phoenix Wright]

On the moral realist view, it's very mathematical and objective, and it is not about people's subjective thoughts about happiness. We have a theoretical tool, a happiness calculator tool, that measures the overall amount of happiness each person in the world has at the time of measurement. It calculates the overall happiness of each and every person on the globe and adds them up. Let me over simplify this view. We have an axiom for morality: the action that maximally increases (maximal by definition means that, compared to all other possible actions an agent can take, this action increases happiness the most) happiness is the righteous one. By this axiom, eating innocent children is wrong since innocent children experience happiness too and can become very upset by being fattened up and eaten.

None of this has anything to do with what people think is moral.

a "happiness calculator tool"? how reliable is it to measure happiness? how does the tool itself work?

[Augestein]

Enlighten us.

This topic itself is a perfect example. Various backgrounds and cultures are going to add more or less weight to certain actions and principles and considering that a person cannot determine a value to them. It's not as simple as "standard logic." As even when arguing logic, there must be complete agreement on base definitions to even begin to discuss anything. Considering that societies don't necessarily equate everything of equal value, there cannot be an objective morality. Logical conclusions are drawn by situations and necessities of the society around them. So what you end up with is a different set of moralities with neither being inherently more just than the next.

You want an example? Homosexuality. This is a subject that has flopped back and forth over the course of history with it being "okay" and "not okay" at various moments. Some places, like Nigeria, homosexual unions is a crime. In the United States, it's not a crime. Can they both be objectively morally just when they are polarizing opinions?

[Blaze The Great]

You made the exact same mistake I did earlier. You're talking about PERCEPTIONS of morality, not morality itself. Just because we view morality differently doesn't mean that morality isn't objective.

[Rapier]

You made the exact same mistake I did earlier. You're talking about PERCEPTIONS of morality, not morality itself. Just because we view morality differently doesn't mean that morality isn't objective.

As an addendum, it is not because we can't quite define if x is morally right or wrong that moral realism doesn't exist; it just means we aren't capable of knowing at the time. It is also related to our perceptions, like what you cited.

So, since neither realism nor anti-realism can be proven, at the end of the day we just follow our intuitions? It's what I've understood so far...

[Chiki]

That axiom is directly linked to what people want. It literally is satisfying the most desires possible. It may be only indirectly linked to their personal definition of morality, but what makes them happy and what they consider moral are closely linked. That axiom leads to the logical conclusion that the majority's moral compass ranks highly in calculating the best move.

It does not follow that morality is also subjective on the moral realist view because an objectively true choice depends on people's own views on ethics. That is just an invalid argument.

Under some definition of moral realism, it may be moral for humans to be eradicated. Say, if the axiom is: "That which sustains or improves the overall equilibrium in ecosystems is good." Why isn't that the axiom used for moral realism?

Because it's not intuitive?

a "happiness calculator tool"? how reliable is it to measure happiness? how does the tool itself work?

It's just a theoretical tool.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Chiki

[Rapier]

The only relativist argument that I can't find an answer for is the one that says doing an evil for x might be good for y. For example, they claim that it is certainly good for the lion hunting the gazelle to reach its prey, while it is bad for the gazelle to be preyed upon. The alternative is also correct, it is bad for the lion to lose his prey and good for the gazelle to effectively avoid the lion. In basis of this, they claim that good and evil are relative. Could anyone more experienced clarify?

Under an error theory view, I guess there is no issue there, since moral claims are false. The lion/gazelle should earn their prize for being quicker and more fit than their prey/hunter, and that's it.

Under a moral realist view, I guess it is both evil for the lion to starve and let his offspring die and for it to prey on the gazelle, so both choices lead to an evil. Another criteria might be necessary to handle this issue.

[Blaze The Great]

As an addendum, it is not because we can't quite define if x is morally right or wrong that moral realism doesn't exist; it just means we aren't capable of knowing at the time. It is also related to our perceptions, like what you cited.

So, since neither realism nor anti-realism can be proven, at the end of the day we just follow our intuitions? It's what I've understood so far...

Yeah, I think you are right.

As far as intuitions, they are a good starting point, in my mind. For instance, as we've already used, the typical human being won't fly a plane into a class of kindergarteners for fun, because it is intuitively wrong to us. But where you go from there seems to be up to your own personal moral/ethical preference.

[Phoenix Wright]

It's just a theoretical tool.

then why mention it's "objective and mathematical" if it's only theoretically so?

how would the tool work, if it did exist? is there no information beyond, "this tool could exist"?

Edited July 18, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Chiki]

then why mention it's "objective and mathematical" if it's only theoretically so?

how would the tool work, if it did exist? is there no information beyond, "this tool could exist"?

Because theoretical tools are also objective and mathematical since they're defined that way.

It's completely irrelevant how the tool would work, it was really just a simple way to explain a basic concept to Makaze. We can stipulate the levels of happiness in each worlds however much we want, since ethical truths are supposed to be true in every logically possible world, whether real or imaginary, according to moral realism. You can literally make up anything you want to defend your argument as long as it's logically possible.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Chiki

[Irysa]

i feel that my statement is the opposite - too narrow - because it can only describe a very small group of ethical constructs, e.g. is it okay to murder another member of one's in-group for no reason at all. but i'm not concerned about applying this statement to all of ethics; i'm simply trying to find an example of an ethical construct that is universally present and necessarily exists.

I said it was too broad because each individual construct has to be defined before I would accept them. I get where you're coming from though, in that "do not murder your children" is kind of a neccessary behaviour for any species to flourish, but I don't think that quite equates to proof of an ethical truth. If it is one, I think you could say it's a coincedence. It has weight to an argument though.

This tribe doesn't represent the intuitions of every cannibal out there in the world. But it would be a very interesting finding if all of these cannibals had intuitions that were rooted in misunderstanding.

If you're looking for more examples, the Mongol Empire had no problem massacring millions and millions of innocent people. They likely had no understanding of the value of innocent human lives. People had no problem with slavery up until recent times; it seems like this intuition was a major change that developed recently.

I understand that, but I think I adequately covered this in my last post to you. I'm simply of the belief that it is the misunderstanding/lack of knowledge that leads people to commit these acts. "God decrees that there must be human sacrifices" is the justification neccessary for them to kill an innocent, because god can justify anything due to his power. The act of human sacrifice is meant to prove their devotion to their god, because a human sacrifice is so potent. The near sacrifice of Issac by Abraham is a good example. Extreme (ethnic) nationalism dehumanises those not within an in group so that said innocents are not even regarded as equals. It can be comparable to how many of us will not give second thought to swatting annoying flies - the death of the fly does not bother us, to us it is a hugely insignificant lesser being.

I repeat, if these people really did have no respect or morality towards other humans whatsoever, they would have died out and all killed each other. They were not entirely ammoral.

Again, I never claimed moral sense to be infallible, it must be cultivated appropriately. The fact that moral progress is recent doesn't disprove it either, because the same conclusions could be reached by earlier humans if they dwelt on the thoughts for long enough. Bentham himself reached the level of strong empathy for animals whilst he was developing utilitarianism, and wanted them to be factored into his rules about increasing utility; something rather controversial at the time. Ashoka's policy of Dhamma is even older, and also indicates that people were fully capable of reaching understandings of equality and compassion even in ancient times.

Under a moral realist view, I guess it is both evil for the lion to starve and let his offspring die and for it to prey on the gazelle, so both choices lead to an evil. Another criteria might be necessary to handle this issue.

Things get muddy when you bring beings without higher functions into the mix. The Lion cannot think about what it does, it acts on instinct. The same applies to the gazelle. Whilst they are certainly both alive, to me this is like assigning that a simplistic computer system the capability of comitting an "evil" act if activates a bomb that kills innocents once it's timer runs out. It is simply what it is programmed to do, there is no understanding or will about what it is doing. In the case of the bomb, we would assign blame back to the person who created/set the bomb, but for animals there is no such thing. They simply exist.

So, since neither realism nor anti-realism can be proven, at the end of the day we just follow our intuitions? It's what I've understood so far...

Sort of. You should believe what you have good reason to believe. Consider basic understanding of 1 + 1 = 2. We don't really need the symbols or the names of the numbers, but the mere intuition of the fact that something and something make two of something. It makes sense and there doesn't appear to be any reason to think otherwise. Additionally, think back to an epistemic norm I outlined earlier; You cannot believe p and not-p. Again, it just makes sense, and there doesn't appear to be any reason to think otherwise. I believe that moral norms and epistemic norms are extremely similar, and there doesn't appear to be any reason to think otherwise in the case of some, such as "do not kill innocents". As such, you should believe in them.

It's like saying I have no reason not to believe I am a human being who is currently sitting typing in front of a computer screen right now. Anti-realism applies extreme skepticism to everything, to the point where you can't trust anything even if you don't have a good reason for not trusting it, which you will never have, as the only thing you can be sure of is Cogito Ergo Sum.

On the moral realist view, it's very mathematical and objective, and it is not about people's subjective thoughts about happiness. We have a theoretical tool, a happiness calculator tool, that measures the overall amount of happiness each person in the world has at the time of measurement. It calculates the overall happiness of each and every person on the globe and adds them up. Let me over simplify this view. We have an axiom for morality: the action that maximally increases (maximal by definition means that, compared to all other possible actions an agent can take, this action increases happiness the most) happiness is the righteous one. By this axiom, eating innocent children is wrong since innocent children experience happiness too and can become very upset by being fattened up and eaten.

This is slightly misleading because not all moral realists are consequentialists. A deontological view would simply say the act of killing is wrong, rather than having to expand and demonstrate that killing reduces the happiness in the world. The result does not matter to us.

Moral realism just asserts that there is/are objective moral fact/s. The exact facts themselves do not have to be agreed on for people to be moral realists. For example, Christianity is a religion that has a moral realist view; some acts are wrong, as decreed by God. A non religious moral realist cuts god out of the equation and relies on his reasoning and intuition, and likely disagrees with some of the assertions that Christianity as a religion makes about what is morally wrong.

makaze appears to be arguing against the axiom of "increase happiness" rather than neccessarily the claim of moral realism.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Irysa

[Erdall]

Cutting to the chase:

A man once tried to change the world. Therefore, he tried, he did, he dared to be the oppressor, the savior of the whole word, putting all kind of good and badass people aside, yet he tried to do all of that so hard ...

He gained nothing but continuous sacrifices, pain, suffering ... the loose of many dear friends. And yet ... nothing but more misery to his heart despite of his own goodness to make things better.

Then he looked to a son that he thought he could loose forever, one he once chose to ignore because he simply believed that he didn't deserve to be his father. However, when he met him one last time before passing away, he was glad to tell him that he's truly sorry for all what he pretended to do: being nothing but a hero.

Heroes don't exist by the way. Only people willing to sacrifice themselves in order to change things in a big deal. Now those are great, real and respectable people, but only when it really has to come for something right.

The father then told to his so now dearly son:

"Son, don't fight. My Boss ... The Boss. She was right. It was never about changing the world. It's about doing our best to leave the world... the way it is. It's about respecting the will of others, and believing in your own."

Moral: Just leave and f@#$!ing let it be. You can't change the world, rather to preserve it for the best or leave it for the worst, but never tempt you can do that entirely. Just live for your best and for those around you.

The End.

Just wanted to share my opinion though.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Erdall

[Chiki]

I'm simply of the belief that it is the misunderstanding/lack of knowledge that leads people to commit these acts.

So what did Chenghis Khan misunderstand that led him to kill like 40 million innocents?

This is slightly misleading because not all moral realists are consequentialists. A deontological view would simply say the act of killing is wrong, rather than having to expand and demonstrate that killing reduces the happiness in the world. The result does not matter to us.

Like I've said multiple times, there are different axioms for each ethical view. By far, the easiest one to explain is consequentialism. Defining axioms for deontological ethics is much more complicated, since to them it is an axiom that killing is wrong, stealing is wrong and whatever, etc. but you can define utilitarianism in terms of just one axiom.

[Irysa]

So what did Chenghis Khan misunderstand that led him to kill like 40 million innocents?

I'm not extremely familiar with the exploits of the Mongols, but I'm pretty sure there are letters from Genghis Khan that outline how he devoutely believed he was the supreme leader of the entire world, and thus had a divine mandate to conquer it. Following from that, the Mongols viewed the people of the lands they were conquering to be beneath them, mere resources for their conquest. That's why the skilled artisans and such were usually taken prisoner whilst others were put to death. By slaughtering so many innocents, they struck fear into the hearts of their enemies, and they would even use the corpses of their foes as ammunition for their seige weaponry. It ties back into what I said with dehumanisation, when you fail to recognise other beings as equal to you, the justification becomes uneccessary and moral intuition is undermined. They weren't killing "people" they were killing "lesser beings".

Like I've said multiple times, there are different axioms for each ethical view.

I am aware of this. I was trying to point out that makaze appeared to more be arguing against the particular axiom rather than moral realism itself.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Irysa

[Blaze The Great]

Cutting to the chase:

A man once tried to change the world. Therefore, he tried, he did, he dared to be the oppressor, the savior of the whole word, putting all kind of good and badass people aside, yet he tried to do all of that so hard ...

He gained nothing but continuous sacrifices, pain, suffering ... the loose of many dear friends. And yet ... nothing but more misery to his heart despite of his own goodness to make things better.

Then he looked to a son that he thought he could loose forever, one he once chose to ignore because he simply believed that he didn't deserve to be his father. However, when he met him one last time before passing away, he was glad to tell him that he's truly sorry for all what he pretended to do: being nothing but a hero.

Heroes don't exist by the way. Only people willing to sacrifice themselves in order to change things in a big deal. Now those are great, real and respectable people, but only when it really has to come for something right.

The father then told to his so now dearly son:

"Son, don't fight. My Boss ... The Boss. She was right. It was never about changing the world. It's about doing our best to leave the world... the way it is. It's about respecting the will of others, and believing in your own."

Moral: Just leave and f@#$!ing let it be. You can't change the world, rather to preserve it for the best or leave it for the worst, but never tempt you can do that entirely. Just live for your best and for those around you.

The End.

Just wanted to share my opinion though.

And this is relevant to the topic of objective vs. subjective morality how? We are talking about morality here, not changing the world. Kinda a big difference between the two.

[Erdall]

And this is relevant to the topic of objective vs. subjective morality how? We are talking about morality here, not changing the world. Kinda a big difference between the two.

Becuase any sort of problem / moral dilemma is always tied somehow about pure subjectivism.

Even I am being subjective w/e I am trying to do, like writing this post and trying to make understandable my point about what I intented to express (reality versus emotions = objectivism versus subjectivism), but I guess is totally irrelevant because you believe to say so ... and that's it?

Okay, then. Here, have a snickers for ya.

Important P.S: (Get the idea why I was talking about changing the world? Everyone wants to change it for any sort of reason, but it's simply impossible, no matter what. Yeah, if everyone accepts that, I can't tell if this could be XXI century, but maybe XXII if possible ...).

In two words, damnit: Humbleness and Respect.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Erdall

[Makaze]

Because it's not intuitive?

[to people]

The only relativist argument that I can't find an answer for is the one that says doing an evil for x might be good for y. For example, they claim that it is certainly good for the lion hunting the gazelle to reach its prey, while it is bad for the gazelle to be preyed upon. The alternative is also correct, it is bad for the lion to lose his prey and good for the gazelle to effectively avoid the lion. In basis of this, they claim that good and evil are relative. Could anyone more experienced clarify?

Under an error theory view, I guess there is no issue there, since moral claims are false. The lion/gazelle should earn their prize for being quicker and more fit than their prey/hunter, and that's it.

Under a moral realist view, I guess it is both evil for the lion to starve and let his offspring die and for it to prey on the gazelle, so both choices lead to an evil. Another criteria might be necessary to handle this issue.

That is the entire moral relativist argument. Doesn't need clarifying.

There are a few kinds of moral relativism. What you described is descriptive moral relativism, which simply states that there is dissonance (a noun describing the situation). I subscribe to meta-ethical moral relativism, which holds that because the dissonance exists, neither is right nor wrong (a position about moral epistemology). Lastly, normative moral relativism asserts that because neither is right nor wrong, it is moral to tolerate actions that are intuitively immoral for us (a position about the right thing to do).

It's a middle ground position in all cases.

"Not all descriptive relativists adopt meta-ethical relativism, and moreover, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism. Richard Rorty, for example, argued that relativist philosophers believe "that the grounds for choosing between such opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought", but not that any belief is equally as valid as any other."

Edited July 19, 2015 by Makaze

[Blaze The Great]

Becuase any sort of problem / moral dilemma is always tied somehow about pure subjectivism.

Even I am being subjective w/e I am trying to do, like writing this post and trying to make understandable my point about what I intented to express (reality versus emotions = objectivism versus subjectivism), but I guess is totally irrelevant because you believe to say so ... and that's it?

Okay, then. Here, have a snickers for ya.

Important P.S: (Get the idea why I was talking about changing the world? Everyone wants to change it for any sort of reason, but it's simply impossible, no matter what. Yeah, if everyone accepts that, I can't tell if this could be XXI century, but maybe XXII if possible ...).

In two words, damnit: Humbleness and Respect.

People having subjective perceptions of morality does not mean that morality itself is subjective. Secondly, being moral =/= trying to change the world? Unless you are the type of person who thinks every little kind act is changing the world, I fail to see the relevance here.

Again, subjective perceptions of something does not mean that said thing itself is subjective. If someone says that colors are a fabrication of the Illuminati, and I say that they are not; they are just colors, that does not mean that that is subjective. Whether or not they are is fact, and that doesn't change just because someone says they otherwise.

Seriously, have a snickers? Where did you even get that?

Also, you sound more like a cynicist who is done with the world than someone who is interested in debating morality.

[Erdall]

People having subjective perceptions of morality does not mean that morality itself is subjective. Secondly, being moral =/= trying to change the world? Unless you are the type of person who thinks every little kind act is changing the world, I fail to see the relevance here.

Never said being moral means to change the world, even for a suppuosed "utter goodism" reason (aw, doesn't seem you played MGS4 ... gonna explain about that later). True morality is like ... a sort of agreement between two different ethnicities (yin yan anyone?), when you reach for the best option for everyone. One has it's own ways to live and see life itself, some ways are tolerant as long as you're not suppuosed to cut down / mess the freedom of anyone else in the end. Others that are not, are somehow questionable (nazism again?). Like, say (not good at examples today, lmao), homosexuality. Is it wrong cause seem natural perversion? From the beggining seem for many kinda of awkard (like me, honestly), but in the end, doesn't really matter. It's damn fine, doesn't directly hurt to anyone after all.

Again, subjective perceptions of something does not mean that said thing itself is subjective. If someone says that colors are a fabrication of the Illuminati, and I say that they are not; they are just colors, that does not mean that that is subjective. Whether or not they are is fact, and that doesn't change just because someone says they otherwise.

Yeah, pretty basic. Life is more colorfoul than all that crappy greyish morale, which, in reality, leads to divide things, in the end, between a discriminatory black and withe morale way too much. At least a more kind of positive attitude leads to appreciate more simple things in reality and you'll feel more cheerful, that's a safe bet. A happy person always will tell ya how colorful even are the buildings, even if they're kinda rusty, old and dirty.

The problem is how people are too much accommodated with a semi-wealthy life and then compalining they're not seriously happy at times. Why do you ask? Ask them in their bottom of their desires, heh.

Seriously, have a snickers? Where did you even get that?

It's called sarcasm, but you seem quite serious today.

(I only wanted to tell a story with certain morale ... anyone likes it or not at all, it's fine, but going anywhere to say "this I don't like, I rage" expect a rain of snickers, if not a mountain of them, lol)

Also, you sound more like a cynicist who is done with the world than someone who is interested in debating morality.

What I know if that I can't change anyone's minds and hearts, no matter what. But there are ways to improve that (it's called a some kind of persuasion and gaining the trust of others) rather than discussing moralities or philosophizing way too much. Sounds moar like whining around the same matter, seriously (that's why I have in my signature the "talk is cheap" line, :P).

It's all in the heart of the battle, you know. Well, the feelings, you know ... they are 'there'. And while maybe I didn't clearly explain myself (sorry for that part), calm down and eat (drink) ... a lemonade, like I did few hours ago. Refreshing, I know this summer heat sucks, but it will always help, :3

Edited July 19, 2015 by Erdall

[Augestein]

People having subjective perceptions of morality does not mean that morality itself is subjective. Secondly, being moral =/= trying to change the world? Unless you are the type of person who thinks every little kind act is changing the world, I fail to see the relevance here.

Again, subjective perceptions of something does not mean that said thing itself is subjective. If someone says that colors are a fabrication of the Illuminati, and I say that they are not; they are just colors, that does not mean that that is subjective. Whether or not they are is fact, and that doesn't change just because someone says they otherwise.

Seriously, have a snickers? Where did you even get that?

Also, you sound more like a cynicist who is done with the world than someone who is interested in debating morality.

No, it doesn't. However, a subject that is addressed as a principles of "right and wrong," cannot be objective, because quite literally, morals are based on agreements of what people say are right and wrong. You have a set of morals that you believe in based off of your own logical conclusions based on your experiences or not. Perceptions are essentially what make morals. Without perceptions of situations and various ways that a person feels/wants things to be, there isn't morality. It requires one to actually *care* about a situation. Objective morality just sounds like madness to be honest.

Note, I merely quoted this because I was responding to an earlier response from you, AND this first portion of the post I found kinda interesting.

[Blaze The Great]

Again, too lazy to format this properly. This first part is my response to Erdall:

Err...morality is not an agreement between people. Try "pact" or "contract". Morality is one's personal beliefs about right and wrong. Now, morality can be USED to try and find the best solution between parties (i.e. if I believe it is immoral to steal something from my friend but I really want it anyway, we could hypothetically reach a solution). I can kinda see where you're going with this, but your English is a little rough. No offense meant, as I see you are from Spain, so unless you were a born English speaker, I don't expect you to have it totally down.

Your second part seemed to miss my point entirely, so I will ignore it. As for the snickers thing, I knew what you were saying, but it seemed somewhat out of context. I may come across as kind of stern, but this is Serious Discussion after all. :P

I'm confused about your last part, but it seemed that you were acting cordially, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

No, it doesn't. However, a subject that is addressed as a principles of "right and wrong," cannot be objective, because quite literally, morals are based on agreements of what people say are right and wrong. You have a set of morals that you believe in based off of your own logical conclusions based on your experiences or not. Perceptions are essentially what make morals. Without perceptions of situations and various ways that a person feels/wants things to be, there isn't morality. It requires one to actually *care* about a situation. Objective morality just sounds like madness to be honest.

Note, I merely quoted this because I was responding to an earlier response from you, AND this first portion of the post I found kinda interesting.

I feel like you keep beating around the bush on this, so to speak. You keep addressing the fact of conflicting moral beliefs, and no one, myself included, is debating you on that. But how do you know there is no objective morality? Is there any proof that there is not a definitive list of right and wrong? No. Now, that may sound like an argument from ignorance, but I think our intuitions/conscience may be rooted in some objective morality. Of course, that statement in itself is a gateway into a whole different debate, so I will leave it alone. My point is that I've yet to see someone address morality instead of perceptions of such.

[Erdall]

True there are many kind of moralities, but I always pretend to think about the bigger picture. I was simply talking about a kind of best morality for everyone, :> It's a must to respect anyone how feels, that's to begin with, then trying to understand people is another key factor.

And about my MGS4 reference post, well, there was this guy, Snake Eater (Big Boss), who wanted to change the world when it was quite cruel to him while in the harsh times of the Cold War. For many politicial reasons, he participated in an infiltrating mission that involved his mentor who was like a mother figure for himself. She was then unfairly killed by Snake, though necessary cause was a double agent in reality and had to mess up many things between the big factions (USA vs Russia) in order to stop nuclear conflict. She quite sacrificed herself to let a better future for his pupil as he could live a better life only for himself and those around him.

One very importat thing I also needed to add before is that Big Boss strongly advised to leave the mercenary fight to Solid Snake (his son), since it never had any real sense his little personal vendetta against the whole world. When the global conflict he let to be raised up was ended thanks to his son, he pledged him to live nor as a 'Snake', but rather as a real man for the rest of his life.

So, in short: just live for your own godamnit business. Everythig subjective is important, but at the same time, it isn't at all, really.

May it sounds kind of cynical, but my point is to be fair between subjectivism and objectivism, because BOTH aren't right at all times. Never. And Snake Eater wanted to change too much things, wanted to see the world as a whole somehow as his mentor envisioned, but what both couldn't understand is, while they may feel right to seek for the best of everyone, is that they simply can't change the world. Ironic you may have the power to do that, but even so, what about you then? Do you really need to do that? That's the real problem of subjectivism, it may makes you feel allright, but at the same time, there is more than that, you know what I mean. And Snake Eater truly was obsessive to prove that the world was wrong cause of its own unfairness, yet all what he did is to make worst the matter, messing up things where he didn't need to.

You may understand all of this a little better if you check the amazing story from Metal Gear Solid. It Has some great morale behind it, as you can see.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Erdall

[Chiki]

[to people]

That is the entire moral relativist argument. Doesn't need clarifying.

There are a few kinds of moral relativism. What you described is descriptive moral relativism, which simply states that there is dissonance (a noun describing the situation). I subscribe to meta-ethical moral relativism, which holds that because the dissonance exists, neither is right nor wrong (a position about moral epistemology). Lastly, normative moral relativism asserts that because neither is right nor wrong, it is moral to tolerate actions that are intuitively immoral for us (a position about the right thing to do).

It's a middle ground position in all cases.

"Not all descriptive relativists adopt meta-ethical relativism, and moreover, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism. Richard Rorty, for example, argued that relativist philosophers believe "that the grounds for choosing between such opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought", but not that any belief is equally as valid as any other."

Moral relativism is a joke view that absolutely no good thinker should subscribe to. You think it's ok for Germans from Nazi Germany to kill Jews?

[Makaze]

Moral relativism is a joke view that absolutely no good thinker should subscribe to. You think it's ok for Germans from Nazi Germany to kill Jews?

I think it is neither right nor wrong until you look at it relative to a goal.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Makaze

[Blaze The Great]

True there are many kind of moralities, but I always pretend to think about the bigger picture. I was simply talking about a kind of best morality for everyone, :> It's a must to respect anyone how feels, that's to begin with, then trying to understand people is another key factor.

And about my MGS4 reference post, well, there was this guy, Snake Eater (Big Boss), who wanted to change the world when it was quite cruel to him while in the harsh times of the Cold War. For many politicial reasons, he participated in an infiltrating mission that involved his mentor who was like a mother figure for himself. She was then unfairly killed by Snake, though necessary cause was a double agent in reality and had to mess up many things between the big factions (USA vs Russia) in order to stop nuclear conflict. She quite sacrificed herself to let a better future for his pupil as he could live a better life only for himself and those around him.

One very importat thing I also needed to add before is that Big Boss strongly advised to leave the mercenary fight to Solid Snake (his son), since it never had any real sense his little personal vendetta against the whole world. When the global conflict he let to be raised up was ended thanks to his son, he pledged him to live nor as a 'Snake', but rather as a real man for the rest of his life.

So, in short: just live for your own godamnit business. Everythig subjective is important, but at the same time, it isn't at all, really.

May it sounds kind of cynical, but my point is to be fair between subjectivism and objectivism, because BOTH aren't right at all times. Never. And Snake Eater wanted to change too much things, wanted to see the world as a whole somehow as his mentor envisioned, but what both couldn't understand is, while they may feel right to seek for the best of everyone, is that they simply can't change the world. Ironic you may have the power to do that, but even so, what about you then? Do you really need to do that? That's the real problem of subjectivism, it may makes you feel allright, but at the same time, there is more than that, you know what I mean. And Snake Eater truly was obsessive to prove that the world was wrong cause of its own unfairness, yet all what he did is to make worst the matter, messing up things where he didn't need to.

You may understand all of this a little better if you check the amazing story from Metal Gear Solid. It Has some great morale behind it, as you can see.

Ok, I kinda understand where you are coming from. I'm familiar with the MGS series, but not well-acquainted with it.

I don't agree with your statement that a morality that is best for everyone should be pursued, because a morality that is great for one person might be terrible for the next. Otherwise, I see what you're saying.