"assuming that [they believe] objective morality is true, which I don't think so"

[Moira]

I also don't have trouble imagining someone who doesn't believe 2+2=4 (they actually exist).

Yes, I meant they'd answer yes (I just rechecked my post and that is made clear in it). Believe it or not, there's a lot of empirical evidence for the fact that sociopaths do have a sense of right or wrong, but just don't care about it.

If I were to rephrase I could understand how someone thinks x isn't wrong, but I can't comprehend someone not believing 2+2=4(not that I'm saying they don't exist or are wrong) It is surprising to me that have right and wrong and don't care, because to me caring is a fundamental part of my morals. My morals are based around what I personally care about, and when I do something against my morals, I'll have guilt, which I don't think sociopaths have.I can see them having instinctual morals but not caring about them. I think instinctual morals talked about before with natural selection?

Also, your post says "even sociopaths and serial killers would answer no to this question." the question being is it wrong to rape, kill, and eat some children." which is where my confusion arose.

edit: going to bed but I'll be back tomorrow. thanks for responding.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Moiraine

[Chiki]

If I were to rephrase I could understand how someone thinks x isn't wrong, but I can't comprehend someone not believing 2+2=4(not that I'm saying they don't exist or are wrong) It is surprising to me that have right and wrong and don't care, because to me caring is a fundamental part of my morals. My morals are based around what I personally care about, and when I do something against my morals, I'll have guilt, which I don't think sociopaths have.I can see them having instinctual morals but not caring about them. I think instinctual morals talked about before with natural selection?

Also, your post says "even sociopaths and serial killers would answer no to this question." the question being is it wrong to rape, kill, and eat some children." which is where my confusion arose.

edit: going to bed but I'll be back tomorrow. thanks for responding.

I think this article will interest you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3347383/Amazon-tribe-has-no-words-for-different-numbers.html

If I said would, I meant to say wouldn't answer no. My bad. I'm too lazy to look again.

[Makaze]

No, something is only objectively true if it is backed up by rationality. Otherwise, it is charlatanry.

I meant to say that we have a natural inclination to that which is ethically correct, not that our majority should decide what is moral arbitrarily. ie, most people naturally condemn killing, rape and theft. We owe this to evolutionism.

Rationality can only be applied when a goal is specified. If my goal is to survive as an individual, then I might end up having to kill everyone else do it. If my goal is for the group to survive, I might have to sacrifice my individual survival to do it. If I don't care either way, then the rational thing is to do nothing.

We have a natural inclination, yes, but why does that matter? Even if every human had it (which they don't), it's irrational to assume that the way things are is the way things should be (formally known as the is-ought fallacy/problem). When I explained morality's existence and how it came about due to evolution, I was describing how it is, not how it ought to be.

When it comes down to it, all statements of 'ought' facts are statements of desires. If not your desires, then a god's or someone else's. The universe doesn't have desires or purpose. People do.

If we were to look to the universe for our purpose or desire, our purpose and desire is death. Our desires seek self-removal. We eat to no longer be hungry. We breed so that we no longer lust. We eliminate threats so that we no longer feel afraid. The ultimate goal of desires is to want for nothing; to have no reason to make any changes to our environments. That is ego death. Some would say the death of the soul. In the physical world, we live an extremely short while and are soon destroyed by time. Ironically, if we lived to extreme long life we would reach ego death by sating all desires to the point that of dull anhedonia. Physical death saves us from that fate. According to our nature we should all die. Many paths to the same end. People fight futility against this. Ought they? It seems irrational. They ought to accept their fate and go extinct.

According to society, our morals should mirror those of our ancestors or peers. By extension, your rights are relative to your social status and the society you live in. Racism exists partially as an effect of this. Races have their own social standings within a society, so while they may occupy the same space, they have different moral codes and ecology among people of different races. They get around their moral qualms by mentally and emotionally placing other people outside of their society. The Italian mafia in the US were an example of people of one race enforcing their own moral standards within a larger society that was hostile to them. They protected their own. Societies within societies. The smallest unit within a society is the individual. There are many, many cases where individual people are cast out of society and it is believed that killing them is alright because they are outside of the society. There is no such thing as 'human' rights when you can marginalize a party as 'criminal' and therefore 'undeserving'. Similarly many believe it is alright to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians overseas but become morally outraged when ten are killed in their homeland by outsiders. It should be obvious that social mores are relative on all kinds of scales.

What is left? What you, personally, want. If you want a particular type of social order, enforce it. Make it a reality. You can apply rationality to this philosophy. If society is against your desires, it is rational to disassemble that society and rebuild it to your liking. Giving up will not make what you want happen. It is irrational to deny what you want to suit society, or the universe. If you want to become immortal, do so. If you want to end the species, do so. You make right or die trying.

Here's the distinction. The truth of moral realism, as you say, may be subjective. But what morality is, on moral realism, is not something that is subjective. If moral realism is true, then morality is objective, and ethics is the study of moral objects.

I don't understand. Isn't that begging the question? "If moral realism is true then morals are objective." Why are we assuming that it's true when all evidence points to subjectivity? Basically I'm saying why should I believe such a positive claim?

If you aren't saying I should accept a positive claim to objective truth when there are equally credible alternatives, then I'm not sure why you object to my claim that it is subjective. Am I incorrect in assuming that subjectivism or relativism are the default positions in the absence of a provable positive claim? Or is there a third position that is neither anti-realist nor realist?

[Chiki]

I don't understand. Isn't that begging the question? "If moral realism is true then morals are objective." Why are we assuming that it's true when all evidence points to subjectivity? Basically I'm saying why should I believe such a positive claim?

If you aren't saying I should accept a positive claim to objective truth when there are equally credible alternatives, then I'm not sure why you object to my claim that it is subjective. Am I incorrect in assuming that subjectivism or relativism are the default positions in the absence of a provable positive claim? Or is there a third position that is neither anti-realist nor realist?

We're not assuming it's true. That's why the "if" is there. IF moral realism is true, then morality is objective.

I'm not objecting to your claim that morality is subjective (I ultimately think it is) but I also don't think it's right to define morality as subjective. Morality is not by definition subjective. You can only show that it is by reasoning, not by definition like those confused webpages you gave me which weren't even written by ethicists.

[Makaze]

We're not assuming it's true. That's why the "if" is there. IF moral realism is true, then morality is objective.

I'm not objecting to your claim that morality is subjective (I ultimately think it is) but I also don't think it's right to define morality as subjective. Morality is not by definition subjective. You can only show that it is by reasoning, not by definition like those confused webpages you gave me which weren't even written by ethicists.

If reason suggests that subjectivism or relativism are the default (negative) claim, what do we gain by defining morality as something so arbitrary as to make discussion impossible?

[Chiki]

If reason suggests that subjectivism or relativism are the default (negative) claim, what do we gain by defining morality as something so arbitrary as to make discussion impossible?

Erm, you can define anything you want as anything you want. For example, I could define morality as the ability to clean my butt after pooping. But obviously that's not the concept people have in mind for morality.

A lot of people have objectivity in mind when they define morality, and it's not at all trivial (by reason) to show that morality is subjective. It's not at all settled or uncontroversial. In fact, most ethicists (maybe 60%) think morality is objective.

[Makaze]

Erm, you can define anything you want as anything you want. For example, I could define morality as the ability to clean my butt after pooping. But obviously that's not the concept people have in mind for morality.

A lot of people have objectivity in mind when they define morality, and it's not at all trivial (by reason) to show that morality is subjective. It's not at all settled or uncontroversial. In fact, most ethicists (maybe 60%) think morality is objective.

I believe it's important to define things in a way that can be comprehended and discussed by all parties involved. To an outside observer, it's clear that one moral realist's concept of objective morality only has meaning relative to them. Even other moral realists will differ in some way. The observer will recognize it as either epistemologically subjective or agent-relative. The moral realist cannot possibly accurately communicate such a concept to the observer. Their understandings of what it is are fundamentally different.

If you suggest that moral realists should be able to keep up their incompatible delusions and confuse everyone or that they are right to do so, that would be why I said you sounded like an egoist. It sounds similar to 'enforce your subjective views as objective' as a standard. I'm not sure if you meant to portray this, but I don't understand why you would defend moral realism only because it still exists en masse. That seems like an is-ought confusion.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Makaze

[Chiki]

I believe it's important to define things in a way that can be comprehended and discussed by all parties involved. To an outside observer, it's clear that one moral realist's concept of objective morality only has meaning relative to them. Even other moral realists will differ in some way. The observer will recognize it as either epistemologically subjective or agent-relative. The moral realist cannot possibly accurately communicate such a concept to the observer. Their understandings of what it is are fundamentally different.

If you suggest that moral realists should be able to keep up their incompatible delusions and confuse everyone or that they are right to do so, that would be why I said you sounded like an egoist. It sounds similar to 'enforce your subjective views as objective' as a standard. I'm not sure if you meant to portray this, but I don't understand why you would defend moral realism only because it still exists en masse. That seems like an is-ought confusion.

Erm, that's not true at all. I'm not trying to be offensive here, but if you can't understand the meaning of "if, then" then the problem is with you. IF moral realism is true, THEN morals are objective. You don't have to accept moral realism to understand this. That's not relative at all. I really can't explain this any more because it's so basic. No philosopher or ethicist has a problem with this statement.

For example, take the sentence IF 1+1=3 THEN unicorns will also exist. This sentence has a necessarily false antecedent (1+1=3 will never be true no matter what situation) so it's something that will never be true, yet we can still completely make sense of it.

[Makaze]

Erm, that's not true at all. I'm not trying to be offensive here, but if you can't understand the meaning of "if, then" then the problem is with you. IF moral realism is true, THEN morals are objective. You don't have to accept moral realism to understand this. That's not relative at all. I really can't explain this any more because it's so basic. No philosopher or ethicist has a problem with this statement.

For example, take the sentence IF 1+1=3 THEN unicorns will also exist. This sentence has a necessarily false antecedent (1+1=3 will never be true no matter what situation) so it's something that will never be true, yet we can still completely make sense of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the moral realist and the observer will have these conflicting definitions of morality:

MR: Morality: The objective standard for right and wrong.

O: Morality: MR's concept of the objective standard for right and wrong.

Then, if another moral realist with another standard comes along:

MR2: Morality: Another objective standard for right and wrong.

O: Morality: MR or MR2's concepts of the objective standard for right and wrong.

The more concepts the observer comes in contact with, the more confusing the word 'morality' becomes to use in conversation, until:

O: Morality: Any standard for right and wrong that is believed to be objective by some MR.

Or some such equally all-encompassing understanding that amounts to subjectivism or relativism. I hope this question helps illustrate my confusion: If moral realism is true, then when is killing immoral?

[Moira]

I think this article will interest you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3347383/Amazon-tribe-has-no-words-for-different-numbers.html

I read the article and it was really interesting to learn that there are people like this. It seems like such a natural part of the thought process that I'm surprised basic math hasn't been picked up by the community.

[Chiki]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the moral realist and the observer will have these conflicting definitions of morality:

MR: Morality: The objective standard for right and wrong.

O: Morality: MR's concept of the objective standard for right and wrong.

Then, if another moral realist with another standard comes along:

MR2: Morality: Another objective standard for right and wrong.

O: Morality: MR or MR2's concepts of the objective standard for right and wrong.

The more concepts the observer comes in contact with, the more confusing the word 'morality' becomes to use in conversation, until:

O: Morality: Any standard for right and wrong that is believed to be objective by some MR.

Or some such equally all-encompassing understanding that amounts to subjectivism or relativism. I hope this question helps illustrate my confusion: If moral realism is true, then when is killing immoral?

You're thinking too much about having definitions in one's head. I can define to you coherently what moral realism is. I just think it's false. Just because I think it's false doesn't mean there's any trouble in me understanding the concept behind it.

Second, there are different versions of moral realism. If utilitarianism is true, then killing is wrong when it decreases the net utility (it could be much more complicated than that, though) of happiness in the world. And so on.

This isn't really that difficult: don't think too deeply into it.

[Makaze]

According to society, our morals should mirror those of our ancestors or peers. By extension, your rights are relative to your social status and the society you live in. Racism exists partially as an effect of this. Races have their own social standings within a society, so while they may occupy the same space, they have different moral codes and ecology among people of different races. They get around their moral qualms by mentally and emotionally placing other people outside of their society. The Italian mafia in the US were an example of people of one race enforcing their own moral standards within a larger society that was hostile to them. They protected their own. Societies within societies. The smallest unit within a society is the individual. There are many, many cases where individual people are cast out of society and it is believed that killing them is alright because they are outside of the society. There is no such thing as 'human' rights when you can marginalize a party as 'criminal' and therefore 'undeserving'. Similarly many believe it is alright to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians overseas but become morally outraged when ten are killed in their homeland by outsiders. It should be obvious that social mores are relative on all kinds of scales.

Since slavery was mentioned, I want to expand on this assertion with something that was pointed out to me:

When large numbers of black slaves were freed by the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation, one of the commonly heard complaints from the surrounding population was that the former slaves continued to behave as they had done during the previous period of captivity. In this regard, one of the behaviors that people found most irksome was the way in which the former slaves conducted sexual relations among themselves. They were in the first place completely oblivious to the insistence that they should be monogamous. They understood that demand perfectly well, but felt it was ridiculous and unreasonable. This was the way they had lived throughout the period of slavery, and throughout that time nobody had found reason to object. Now that they were free, however, their former sexual behavior raised the hackles of the surrounding community.

What happens when two communities are suddenly put in proximity that are different in this way: one is monogamous and the other is not. When the non-monogamous people are slaves to the monogamous ones, there is no problem simply because the monogamous people can easily confine the men of that group in a way which removes any threat to their own women. Once the slaves are freed, however, the situation changes completely. Now it is the case that any man in the non-monogamous group, whether married or not, constitutes a possible threat to the chastity of women in the monogamous group. Hence there arises from the monogamous group a great hue and cry about the behavior of the non-monogamous people. After all, monogamy functions primarily as a way of keeping men and women apart, of confining any sexual congress to at most one other individual. It is little wonder then that there were such vicious reprisals directed at the former slaves in these circumstances. This, I expect, is when the practice of lynching became horrifically common and acceptable.