Objective Morality

[Mako]

Is morality objective?

[Towlie]

Not according to most Christians.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4983095&postcount=130

[slingblade]

Is morality objective?

Yes.

[Mako]

Yes.

Please elaborate

[lionking]

Is morality objective?

Is there a point to this question?

The reason I ask is that a lot of god-botherers have started threads like this recently with the aim of saying "see, you evil atheists have no morals" or words to that effect.

[Mako]

Is there a point to this question?

The reason I ask is that a lot of god-botherers have started threads like this recently with the aim of saying "see, you evil atheists have no morals" or words to that effect.

I have no intention to do so and would sincerely like to consider your opinion.

[thaiboxerken]

How can morality be objective? It's like asking if it is an objective fact that chocolate is the best flavor.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Is morality objective?

How incompatible are incompatible moral prescriptions?

[Piggy]

Is morality objective?

No.

If you think it possibly could be, please explain how that would be possible.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Since Mako isn't around at the moment, let me ask what those who have posted so far what they take the question to mean.

[Piggy]

Since Mako isn't around at the moment, let me ask what those who have posted so far what they take the question to mean.

I take it to mean what it says.

Seems fairly obvious to me.

For morality to be objective, there would have to be some sort of invariable (or regularly variable) standard to measure it by.

Height is objective, for instance. Relative, but for everyday purposes objective.

If a building measures 102 feet high, well, I can't up and say, no, I feel that it is 56 feet high.

Of course, you can get into evolutionary biology and comparative anthropology and attempt to identify common moral issues that all cultures deal with in some way or another, and perhaps even identify ways in which they vary according to certain circumstances.

But at the end of the day, morality is personal. Each individual has a unique variant of morality, if they have one at all.

Language is similar. Words are like currency -- they mean what we agree that they mean, just as a dollar is worth what we agree that its worth. But it is unlike currency in that each of us has a unique idiolect -- a vocabulary of words and phrases with particular ranges of meaning, and habits of syntax.

So even if you identify how morality varies across cultures, there is still within each person a unique variant, a personal morality, with its own combination of influences that includes not only tradition and evolution, but also life experience.

Anyway, I think the more interesting question regarding the OP is not "what" but "why".

[Malerin]

Since Mako isn't around at the moment, let me ask what those who have posted so far what they take the question to mean.

To me, it's a question of the justification of assigning a truth value to a moral proposition, e.g.,: a woman should never be stoned to death because she was seen with another man.

That is either true or false. If it is false, then that leads to an abhorrent conclusion. But if it's a true proposition, that begs the question how is it true and why is it true? Why is the converse not true?

[quixotecoyote]

That is either true or false. If it is false, then that leads to an abhorrent conclusion. But if it's a true proposition, that begs the question how is it true and why is it true? Why is the converse not true?

Rather avoids the question.

It is either true or false according to an objective standard or according to a subjective standard. Objective vs subjective is the relevant question. True vs false is getting ahead of ourselves.

[slingblade]

Please elaborate

You asked too simplistic a question, one that could be answered by a simple yes or no.

If you want a more elaborate answer, you will need to ask a more elaborate question.

[Mako]

You asked too simplistic a question, one that could be answered by a simple yes or no.

If you want a more elaborate answer, you will need to ask a more elaborate question.

Many yes or no questions necessitate elaboration. I thought it was implied that you should also provide an explanation of why you answered that way. Can you?

[slingblade]

Many yes or no questions necessitate elaboration. I thought it was implied that you should also provide an explanation of why you answered that way. Can you?

Well, you thought wrong.

I thought I was implicit that your question needs elaboration. Can you?

[Mako]

Well, you thought wrong.

I thought I was implicit that your question needs elaboration. Can you?

Geesh, this is like pulling teeth. There must be some reason why you answered "yes," so why can't you share that?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Geesh, this is like pulling teeth. There must be some reason why you answered "yes," so why can't you share that?

Well, it's up to slingblade to reply to you, of course.

But, as you can see from what I posted above, it's not obvious what your OP means.

[Piggy]

Geesh, this is like pulling teeth. There must be some reason why you answered "yes," so why can't you share that?

If you're gonna ask a 3 word question, you're really in no position to complain about a 1 word answer.

[Mako]

Well, it's up to slingblade to reply to you, of course.

Clearly, but explaining your answer is still a nice courtesy to the person asking the question.

But, as you can see from what I posted above, it's not obvious what your OP means.

What are you unclear about? As Piggy noted, it's pretty straightforward.

[Piggy]

As Piggy noted, it's pretty straightforward.

So is "No".

[Iconoclast08]

Is morality objective?

I think Sam Harris makes a decent argument headed in that direction. Check out The Science Network website Beyond Belief videos. Jonathan Haidt and Joshua Greene strongly disagree with him, though.

I'm a bit caught in the middle but lean a tad more toward Harris' view on this one. But things admittedly get foggier in utilitarian/consequentialist cost-benefit analysis contexts.

Do we or do we not push the fat man off the footbridge?

[Piggy]

Do we or do we not push the fat man off the footbridge?

You'll have a fight on your hands, buster!

[Mako]

So is "No".

Answering "yes" or "no" is quite meaningless unless you provide an explanation of why you feel that way.

[Piggy]

Answering "yes" or "no" is quite meaningless unless you provide an explanation of why you feel that way.

No, it's not.

"Would you like a sandwich?"
"No."

[Mako]

No, it's not.

"Would you like a sandwich?"
"No."

In the context of this discussion, I think you know what I mean. Am I really asking too much?

[Hokulele]

In the context of this discussion, I think you know what I mean. Am I really asking too much?


No, the problem is that you asked too little.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

What are you unclear about?

Fair enough.

When you ask whether morality is objective, what do you mean?

Are you asking whether moral questions are just, or pretty much like, questions of fact?

Are you asking whether disagreement about moral questions implies that there are no answers to these questions?

Are you asking whether it makes sense to say that there can true or false answers to moral questions?

Are you asking whether moral questions could be settled by reference to authority?

[Mako]

What factors must one consider when determining objectivity? Does morality satisfy the requirements for objectivity?


Better?

[Mako]

Lord Muck oGentry


Those are all great questions that I'd like to include in the discussion.

[Piggy]

In the context of this discussion, I think you know what I mean. Am I really asking too much?

Ok, let me spell it out.

You're objecting to a curt answer when you posted a 3 word OP.

Where's That From?

Look, if you want to have some sort of legitimate discussion, post a legitimate OP with some meat on it.

If you want to know why another poster says "No", perhaps you should first pony up and explain why you're interested in whether or not morality is objective.

Capiche?

[Piggy]

No, the problem is that you asked too little.

Oh, that was good. Nice.

[Mako]

Piggy


Did you just ignore my last two posts? Feel free to respond...

[Piggy]

Piggy


Did you just ignore my last two posts? Feel free to respond...

No, it's just that they got posted while I was composing.

Thanks for including the elaborations into the discussion.

I think my earlier response dealt with these.

Feel free to respond to that post, too, if you like.

Cheers.

[Mako]

Here's a stumbling block, for me, with regards to moral subjectivity:

Can't any action be justified if morality isn't objective?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

What factors must one consider when determining objectivity? Does morality satisfy the requirements for objectivity?


Better?

Well, no, that's not really very helpful. It doesn't tell me what you mean by objectivity in this context. It just puts the question back to me, as if it were for me to answer.

[arthwollipot]

Here's a stumbling block, for me, with regards to moral subjectivity:

Can't any action be justified if morality isn't objective?Now we're getting somewhere.

No, it can't.

Non-objective morality does not mean no morality at all. It just means that there is no absolute standard against which any act can be measured. Certain acts can be moral under some circumstances and immoral under others.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

What factors must one consider when determining objectivity? Does morality satisfy the requirements for objectivity?


Better?

Well, no, that's not really very helpful. It doesn't tell me what you mean by objectivity in this context. It just puts the question back to me, as if it were for me to answer.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Apologies for the double post.

* under attack by a crack team of Resistentialist gremlins *

[Yoink]

Here's a stumbling block, for me, with regards to moral subjectivity:

Can't any action be justified if morality isn't objective?

Morality isn't objective, but all moral agents are required to regard their moral judgments as absolute.

That is, I know that much of what I regard as morally "right" and morally "wrong" is the result of a certain upbringing in a certain place and time. However, there is no way for me to get "outside" or "behind" that upbringing so as to fundamentally restructure my moral outlook (of course, particular moral judgments are always capable of being revised--one might be brought up to think it "right" that, say, blacks are second class citizens and learn to think otherwise; but I think this is a matter of changing our understanding of the world such that moral judgments come to apply differently rather than a fundamental moral change. That is, I think people who move from being racist to non-racist have reevaluated, say, the category of "who is fully human" rather than reevaluated their ideas on "what is the respect due to a fellow human being").

I think the world presents itself to us as fundamentally (or, in Kantian terms, "categorically") moral terms. That something is morally wrong is, subjectively, an absolute fact about that action. The most we can do with further analysis is clarify exactly how the action should best be framed so as to make our moral judgment as clear to ourselves as possible, but no reduction to a discourse of utility (for example) can serve to ground that judgment.

[SezMe]

In the context of this discussion, I think you know what I mean. Am I really asking too much?
See, there you nailed the problem. Your OP provided no context so the first half of this thread is spent trying to put some meat on your bone. And don't anybody dare run with that metaphor. :)

Even your further posts don't help much. Why are you asking? Was your thread prompted by something that happened that, say, put you in a quandary? Were you reading a book that raised in interesting question. And so on.

[SezMe]

No, it can't.

Non-objective morality does not mean no morality at all. It just means that there is no absolute standard against which any act can be measured. Certain acts can be moral under some circumstances and immoral under others.
I agree 100% with your second paragraph...in fact, well said. However, doesn't that mean that the first paragraph should read, "Yes, they can."?

[arthwollipot]

I agree 100% with your second paragraph...in fact, well said. However, doesn't that mean that the first paragraph should read, "Yes, they can."?No. It means that any action cannot be justified simply because of a non-objective moral framework.

Unless you're of the "yes, we have no bananas" school of language :)

[Dogdoctor]

If you're asking if all of morality is objective then the answer is no but if you're asking if it can be then the answer is yes. It requires understanding things to a degree that we often don't. The way I see it the perception of morality depends on the values of people perceiving it.

[Piggy]

Here's a stumbling block, for me, with regards to moral subjectivity:

Can't any action be justified if morality isn't objective?

Yeah. That's the world for you. Reality ain't always pretty or convenient.

[Rairun]

Ugh, you guys. This isn't a hard question to answer. Morality has no objective existence. That's all there is to it.

I realize some theists like to distort secular views. If you say you don't believe in objective morality, some of them are capable of claiming you eat kittens, rape little children, and kill men and women alike. But I don't think obfuscating the issue is the answer here. I think it's much better to say that no, morality (as conceived by a theist) does not exist, and we do not believe in it.

If a theist asks us what gives us the moral authority to condemn murder, our answer should be: absolutely nothing. Murder isn't inherently "wrong". We condemn murder because we think it's a horrible thing, and we don't like the idea of seeing another human being suffer. And when they ask why we think our likes and dislikes are better than those of a sociopath, I think it's good policy to be honest. Our likes and dislikes aren't any better than anyone else's, not in any objective sense.

Basically, we display behavior that many would classify as moral, but not because such behavior is "right" or "wrong". We behave this way because of our feelings, and our feelings have many causes: genetics, upbringing, etc. We have empathy for others because that's who we are, not because we think the universe approves of our actions.

[SezMe]

No. It means that any action cannot be justified simply because of a non-objective moral framework.

Unless you're of the "yes, we have no bananas" school of language :)
No. Any action can be justified because of a non-objective moral framework. Gawd, what a dumb subdiscussion. We completely agree but cannot agree on how to agree.

ETA: See Piggy in #45

[PaulJ]

Whether morality is objective or absolute or otherwise - for any particular person - must depend, I think, on where that person believes morality originates. If morals are derived from an evolutionary process favouring those groups whose 'moral' actions lead to the survival of populations over time, then morality may be very different for different people.

If morals are handed down from on-high, in a holy book or whatever, then 'objective' would seem to be an apt description (as in, independent of the person on which the morals bear).

But apart from the above distinction, maybe it would be more correct to say that since both of the above scenarios exist, morality cannot be objective, because for some it isn't independent. Morality can only be objective if it's objective for everyone.

This isn't a hard question to answer. Morality has no objective existence.

Agreed. Morality as a concept is just that - a concept. But there are those who believe that it also exists independent of human minds, and that those who disagree are mistaken. This seems to be the root of disagreement between theists and non-theists.

(Apologies for the ramblings of a rank newbie, who often doesn't know what he thinks until he's written it down....)

[Piggy]

Whether morality is objective or absolute or otherwise - for any particular person - must depend, I think, on where that person believes morality originates.

Which, of course, makes it non-objective.

[arthwollipot]

No. Any action can be justified because of a non-objective moral framework. Gawd, what a dumb subdiscussion. We completely agree but cannot agree on how to agree.

ETA: See Piggy in #45No, actually I think in this case we are disagreeing, but in the best possible way. :)

I feel that morality is dictated by society. In the fundamentalist-islamic society, suicide bombing is a moral act. It is held in the highest regard as the ultimate expression of faith. That - for them - is moral. Of course, it isn't for me or you, but we're not part of that society. So we see it as morally evil.

Here's another example. Say a 14-year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant by her father. Is it moral for her to have an abortion? Now what about a 27-year old rich heiress who gets an abortion because raising a child would be too much bother?

There are differing degrees of morality even within a society. Some would say that both cases above are immoral. Some would say only the second. Others, neither.

That's my point - that some things can still be morally wrong, even if other societies, or even other groups within the same society, collectively "decide" that it's immoral.

This is, of course, not an active decision, but an emergent property of society in general.

[porch]

Here's a stumbling block, for me, with regards to moral subjectivity:

Can't any action be justified if morality isn't objective?


Justified to whom? Some madman that gets a sexual high from torturing children is just plain wrong. When I say "wrong", I mean "DO NOT WANT!" There is nothing he could do to justify his actions to me. I want for him to be removed from society. When he goes to jail, maybe he's lucky enough to have a cellmate who shares his proclivities. They get to talking about how they felt desire so strong that they weren't able to control themselves, and they each declare, "Finally, I've found someone who understands me." Good for them, I suppose. They've justified themselves to one another. I'm just glad they're both behind bars.

So, one individual has the power to act on his interests, and molests children; His interests are counter to those of the vast majority of his tribe, who have the power to lock him up, so they do. Morality is useless to me. I want what I want and I don't want what I don't want. What is gained by looking at this situation from a moral perspective? What changes if we say the child molester is objectively wrong? I suppose I would get to feel justified. No indignation beats righteous indignation. What if we say the molester is subjectively wrong and immoral? For me, that's just another way of saying that I don't want what I don't want, and I don't want his terrible behaviour. I don't see how anyone that holds that morality is subjective could mean anything else.

[Iconoclast08]

I think the world presents itself to us as fundamentally (or, in Kantian terms, "categorically") moral terms. That something is morally wrong is, subjectively, an absolute fact about that action. The most we can do with further analysis is clarify exactly how the action should best be framed so as to make our moral judgment as clear to ourselves as possible, but no reduction to a discourse of utility (for example) can serve to ground that judgment.

Sounds like you're emphasizing the deontological (absolute rule-based) conception of morality, which was of the Kantian "rationalist" tradition.

I think it's important to account for the Humean consequentialist tradition as well. Context and cost-benefit analyses bear upon the argument here, as we might agree that it is immoral to kill anyone (categorically speaking) but may get a different sense of what is "most" moral in a situation where killing one person (or pushing someone from a footbridge spanning trolley tracks) might save five the lives of five others.

[Yoink]

Sounds like you're emphasizing the deontological (absolute rule-based) conception of morality, which was of the Kantian "rationalist" tradition.

I think it's important to account for the Humean consequentialist tradition as well. Context and cost-benefit analyses bear upon the argument here, as we might agree that it is immoral to kill anyone (categorically speaking) but may get a different sense of what is "most" moral in a situation where killing one person (or pushing someone from a footbridge spanning trolley tracks) might save five the lives of five others.

I think consequentialist arguments can only help us tinker with hierarchies of moral judgment (or clarify to us exactly what aspect of a real-world situation presents itself to us for a particular moral judgment). That is, from a strict "cost-benefit" analysis there is no reason for life to exist at all. There's really no "rational" basis for viewing the world in moral terms to begin with.

Take the case of killing one person to save many. We can use consequentialist analysis to ask "what outcome will offend my moral sense the least" but we can't use it to ask "should I care one way or the other." From a purely consequentialist point of view, that is, there is no moral dilemma: why not kill the individual AND the other five because you like the funny noises people make when they die?

[Iconoclast08]

I think consequentialist arguments can only help us tinker with hierarchies of moral judgment (or clarify to us exactly what aspect of a real-world situation presents itself to us for a particular moral judgment). That is, from a strict "cost-benefit" analysis there is no reason for life to exist at all. There's really no "rational" basis for viewing the world in moral terms to begin with.

But life does exist. And we do have this concept of morality. I'm glad, too. I'm glad many people think it's immoral, for example, to rape, pillage, kill, and maim with wild abandon.

I'm not particularly fussy about defining morality in an overly strict fashion. I'd even be happy defining it using a primarily hedonistic, self-preservationist, survivalist formulation. The manner I think it might be "objective" in any sense would be from an outcome perspective (Harris explains this much more eloquently that I ever could-- watch the videos on this on The Science Network website).

Take the case of killing one person to save many. We can use consequentialist analysis to ask "what outcome will offend my moral sense the least" but we can't use it to ask "should I care one way or the other."

What if one person in the crowd that would otherwise die were about to cure cancer?

[Yoink]

But life does exist. And we do have this concept of morality. I'm glad, too. I'm glad many people think it's immoral, for example, to rape, pillage, kill, and maim with wild abandon.

I'm not particularly fussy about defining morality in an overly strict fashion. I'd even be happy defining it using a primarily hedonistic, self-preservationist, survivalist formulation. The manner I think it might be "objective" in any sense would be from an outcome perspective (Harris explains this much more eloquently that I ever could-- watch the videos on this on The Science Network website).

What if one person in the crowd that would otherwise die were about to cure cancer?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how either of the things you said here address what I wrote. Again, I'm happy to enter into consequentialist reasoning so as to arrive at the judgment that seems to best fit my moral framework (so "do I save the cancer curer or the cute baby?" seems to me a reasonable question and we can reasonably talk about consequences and best outcomes and so on and so forth). But in none of this are we getting to the fundamental root of what makes a judgment "moral." If I say "well, I think we should save the cancer curer because ultimately the happiness of the millions spared such suffering is more important than the lives of these other people" (we're assuming here, of course, impossible knowledge--which may already ruin this example as a practical test of moral wisdom) then I'm still making a moral judgment about the "happiness of the millions spared" which is a priori.

As for your first point: my whole argument is that we have no choice, as moral beings, but to see the universe in moral terms. So of course we "have this concept of morality"--that's my central claim.

[ImaginalDisc]

I take it to mean what it says.

Seems fairly obvious to me.

For morality to be objective, there would have to be some sort of invariable (or regularly variable) standard to measure it by.

Height is objective, for instance. Relative, but for everyday purposes objective.

Technically no. The meter is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Since lightspeed is a constant in the universe, even if you were shortened by traveling close to the speed of light by reletivisitic effects, you'd measure light at the same speed and the length of whatever you're measuring would be equally distorted.


. . .or did I miss a step?

[fromdownunder]

It would be interesting if anybody who accepts objective morality as a premise could post just one thing that they believe is morally objective, rather than subject to circumstances (i.e., it applies to everybody under all circumstances), and defend it. I doubt that this can be done.

Norm

[SezMe]

Technically no. The meter is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Since lightspeed is a constant in the universe, even if you were shortened by traveling close to the speed of light by reletivisitic effects, you'd measure light at the same speed and the length of whatever you're measuring would be equally distorted.


. . .or did I miss a step?
Yes, you did. Piggy was not playing around with relativistic effects in his comment. Your technicality is beside the point he is making about objective judgments.

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes, you did. Piggy was not playing around with relativistic effects in his comment. Your technicality is beside the point he is making about objective judgments.

I was wondering specifically about the "height is relative" bit.

[quadraginta]

Is there a difference between "morals" and "ethics"?

What I mean is , I guess, is there a quantifiable, commonly accepted distinction?

Not trying to cause trouble. I really am interested in opinions from this group. I always find myself wrestling with the idea of a distinction between the two, and as I read the comments in this thread I find myself doing it again, and wonder if it might be germane.

[Rairun]

It would be interesting if anybody who accepts objective morality as a premise could post just one thing that they believe is morally objective, rather than subject to circumstances (i.e., it applies to everybody under all circumstances), and defend it. I doubt that this can be done.

I'm not sure I understand this dichotomy (morally objective/subject to circumstances). Morals aren't subjective because they can't be applied to everybody under all circumstances. It goes a little deeper than that. Morals are subjective because you can't derive a "should" from an "is."

We can employ consequentialist reasoning to define whether an action is good or bad in different circumstances. It would be a mistake to claim morality is subjective just because different circumstances yield different moral judgments. Like Yoink pointed out, morality is subjective because each one of our moral judgments is grounded in a priori assumptions. They are subjective because ultimately they aren't substantiated by any empirical means.

[Rairun]

Is there a difference between "morals" and "ethics"?

What I mean is , I guess, is there a quantifiable, commonly accepted distinction?

Not trying to cause trouble. I really am interested in opinions from this group. I always find myself wrestling with the idea of a distinction between the two, and as I read the comments in this thread I find myself doing it again, and wonder if it might be germane.

I can't see a meaningful difference. I've met people who claim they are different, but their cases were never very convincing. It was usually a case of "morals are subjective, but (my) ethics aren't."

Do you think there are any differences?

[SezMe]

I was wondering specifically about the "height is relative" bit.
Again, I don't speak for Piggy but here's how I took it.

A person's height is objective. I am 5'-9" tall. That is an objective measure that any independent person can verify.

A person's height is relative. To Shaq, I'm pretty short. To a midget, I'm a giant.

That is how he used relative. Not in the "relative to the speed of light" sense.

That I have to explain this is disturbing unto itself.

[quadraginta]

I can't see a meaningful difference. I've met people who claim they are different, but their cases were never very convincing. It was usually a case of "morals are subjective, but (my) ethics aren't."

Do you think there are any differences?

Not in any recognizably sensible fashion.

I think maybe I'd like for there to be.

I know. I'm babbling. I guess I've always looked for a way to distinguish between "correct behavior" as defined within individual cultural (or religious, etc.) constraints, (morals?) and "correct behavior" which can transcend such local perceptions (ethics?).

Every time I try to, though, at least within my own mind, I run into problems pinning down what is local and what isn't. The whole tottering mess always tumbles down into a pile of semantic ambiguity.

I'm not explaining myself very well. Sorry.

That's why I brought it up here, where all the wizards and mystics are hanging out.

[fromdownunder]

I'm not sure I understand this dichotomy (morally objective/subject to circumstances). Morals aren't subjective because they can't be applied to everybody under all circumstances. It goes a little deeper than that. Morals are subjective because you can't derive a "should" from an "is."

We can employ consequentialist reasoning to define whether an action is good or bad in different circumstances. It would be a mistake to claim morality is subjective just because different circumstances yield different moral judgments. Like Yoink pointed out, morality is subjective because each one of our moral judgments is grounded in a priori assumptions. They are subjective because ultimately they aren't substantiated by any empirical means.

Perhaps I just used too many words. My point was that I do not believe that anybody, who accepts the premise, can cite an example of "objective" morality which cannot be refuted.

Norm

[Yoink]

Is there a difference between "morals" and "ethics"?

What I mean is , I guess, is there a quantifiable, commonly accepted distinction?

Not trying to cause trouble. I really am interested in opinions from this group. I always find myself wrestling with the idea of a distinction between the two, and as I read the comments in this thread I find myself doing it again, and wonder if it might be germane.

Some people make a distinction between "ethics" as the philosophical study of certain norms of behavior while "morals" are what we encounter out there in the wild. Other people distinguish between "morals" as those codes we treat as if they were "objective" (i.e. unreflective) and "ethics" as more elaborated (and, often, rather weaker) institutional codes. That is I'm acting on "morals" when I write a letter to the newspaper decrying the filth that's overwhelming the television these days but I'm acting on "ethics" when I file a complaint with the supervisory board at my place of work alleging improper research practices on the part of a colleague.

It's perfectly possible to propose (and even maintain) some such distinction, but you'll rarely find two people who agree about where, exactly, to draw the line and you'll almost never find someone who is actually consistent in making the distinction.

[quadraginta]

Some people make a distinction between "ethics" as the philosophical study of certain norms of behavior while "morals" are what we encounter out there in the wild. Other people distinguish between "morals" as those codes we treat as if they were "objective" (i.e. unreflective) and "ethics" as more elaborated (and, often, rather weaker) institutional codes. That is I'm acting on "morals" when I write a letter to the newspaper decrying the filth that's overwhelming the television these days but I'm acting on "ethics" when I file a complaint with the supervisory board at my place of work alleging improper research practices on the part of a colleague.

It's perfectly possible to propose (and even maintain) some such distinction, but you'll rarely find two people who agree about where, exactly, to draw the line and you'll almost never find someone who is actually consistent in making the distinction.


That's pretty much what I come up with.

I can't account for my completely unfounded sense that there ought to be a distinction, but I always seem to have it. I guess I'll just have to work out that personal hangup on my own. :)

[Mark6]

Ugh, you guys. This isn't a hard question to answer. Morality has no objective existence. That's all there is to it.

I realize some theists like to distort secular views. If you say you don't believe in objective morality, some of them are capable of claiming you eat kittens, rape little children, and kill men and women alike. But I don't think obfuscating the issue is the answer here. I think it's much better to say that no, morality (as conceived by a theist) does not exist, and we do not believe in it.

If a theist asks us what gives us the moral authority to condemn murder, our answer should be: absolutely nothing. Murder isn't inherently "wrong". We condemn murder because we think it's a horrible thing, and we don't like the idea of seeing another human being suffer. And when they ask why we think our likes and dislikes are better than those of a sociopath, I think it's good policy to be honest. Our likes and dislikes aren't any better than anyone else's, not in any objective sense.

Basically, we display behavior that many would classify as moral, but not because such behavior is "right" or "wrong". We behave this way because of our feelings, and our feelings have many causes: genetics, upbringing, etc. We have empathy for others because that's who we are, not because we think the universe approves of our actions.
Very well put. I would elaborate on "what we are" -- we are social mammals. All behaviors humans generally consider "moral" are consistent with survival of a social mammal group, and have equivalents among primates, wolves, etc. We have genentic predisposition for these behaviors, which is why they "feel right". That's all there is to it.

[Yoink]

Very well put. I would elaborate on "what we are" -- we are social mammals. All behaviors humans generally consider "moral" are consistent with survival of a social mammal group, and have equivalents among primates, wolves, etc. We have genentic predisposition for these behaviors, which is why they "feel right". That's all there is to it.

Surely a strictly "maximalist" morality would universally endorse, say, the culling of "unfit" children and the selective breeding of "fit" adults. I mean, I know there have been periods in which eugenics was accepted as morally "right" by some groups, but it seems odd to suggest that they represent some kind of essential "norm."

As to whether our moral positions are genetic--they may be (and there's good evidence that bits of them are--c.f. primate experiments on 'fairness' and so forth)--but you're going way beyond any available evidence in asserting flatly that they are.

[quadraginta]

Surely a strictly "maximalist" morality would universally endorse, say, the culling of "unfit" children and the selective breeding of "fit" adults. I mean, I know there have been periods in which eugenics was accepted as morally "right" by some groups, but it seems odd to suggest that they represent some kind of essential "norm."

As to whether our moral positions are genetic--they may be (and there's good evidence that bits of them are--c.f. primate experiments on 'fairness' and so forth)--but you're going way beyond any available evidence in asserting flatly that they are.


I have to agree. We could run out of server space cataloging all of the things that are only moral or immoral within the context of certain cultures and times.

(E.g. only!!!) Is it moral for a woman to expose her face? Her breast? Her ankle?

Someone has already asked this. What would be an example of some universally immoral act, one which cuts across all human cultures and eras?

[Piscivore]

Can't any action be justified if morality isn't objective?

By someone, somewhere, in some specific situation- yeah, probably.

[Piscivore]

Morality isn't objective, but all moral agents are required to regard their moral judgments as absolute.

That's nonsense. I am perfectly happy to let other people do things I don't choose to do myself (hard drugs, murder), and I have no problem forbidding others to do what I myself choose to do ( I'm a parent :)).

Further, I recognise that what would be "wrong" for me personally in one situation might not in another.

[Piscivore]

(and there's good evidence that bits of them are--c.f. primate experiments on 'fairness' and so forth)
Link?

[Hokulele]

Link?


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050212191635.htm

There was a PBS special on this recently, as well.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/humanspark/about/about-the-series-introduction/35/

[gnome]

My own take:

"ethics" being somewhat objective, as mentioned before can be defined as the study of norms of behavior and the logical basis of them. I call it somewhat objective in that it can be a factual observation of what norms exist and why; and an analytical approach to the logic. It is NOT objective in the sense that a particular ethic is "RIGHT" or "WRONG".

"morals" I would say as being particular social mores that someone is advocating as universally desired behavior. It is not objective, but calling it subjective isn't the end of the story. As in aesthetics, there are patterns to what humans agree on. I think it is possible to define a good many morals that are nearly universally agreed to (even if on a subjective basis)... among these being those against murder, or the unjustified seizure of property.

So, not objective, but perhaps close enough for a viable civilization.

[Yoink]

That's nonsense. I am perfectly happy to let other people do things I don't choose to do myself (hard drugs, murder), and I have no problem forbidding others to do what I myself choose to do ( I'm a parent :)).

Further, I recognise that what would be "wrong" for me personally in one situation might not in another.

If you're "perfectly happy" for other people to do these things then I assume your choice not to do them yourself is not a "moral" choice. You don't think it's "morally wrong" to do it, you just think it's inadvisable.

As for the parent who forbids others to do what s/he does himself, that's because we do not regard children as fully-formed moral agents. That is, we do not consider children as fully responsible for their actions or as fully entitled to govern their own behavior. To say "it's o.k. for this adult to drink, but not o.k. for this child to drink" is not having "two moral codes" it is having one moral code and exercising it in two different circumstances. The one moral code is that "children shouldn't drink and adults may if they wish."

[Piggy]

Technically no. The meter is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Since lightspeed is a constant in the universe, even if you were shortened by traveling close to the speed of light by reletivisitic effects, you'd measure light at the same speed and the length of whatever you're measuring would be equally distorted.


. . .or did I miss a step?

I just meant that height is always relative to a standard. But as long as you agree on the standard, whatever it may be, it makes no sense to have "opinions" about the height of a thing that you can measure.

[Piggy]

Is there a difference between "morals" and "ethics"?

What I mean is , I guess, is there a quantifiable, commonly accepted distinction?

Not trying to cause trouble. I really am interested in opinions from this group. I always find myself wrestling with the idea of a distinction between the two, and as I read the comments in this thread I find myself doing it again, and wonder if it might be germane.

I do make the distinction, personally.

I say I have ethics, but no morals.

The way I see it, ethics are more rationally based. It's not ethical to steal because if theft were allowed we couldn't maintain a civil society. That, and evolution has given us a tendency to feel anger at those who steal and shame when we feel that we have stolen something.

So I don't steal because it I don't like it when others steal, I feel negative emotions if I do it (I remember taking home a toy in kindergarten and I felt overwhelming shame so I took it back the next day), and communities with high rates of theft are less pleasant to live in than ones with low rates of theft.

But when people talk about morals -- to be honest I don't really understand what they're talking about -- it seems to have a different flavor to it. There seems to be this feeling that people "shouldn't" do whatever simply because it's "bad" or "wrong", or maybe because a deity has forbidden it, or it will degrade the soul.

I simply don't grasp morality.

[Piscivore]

If you're "perfectly happy" for other people to do these things then I assume your choice not to do them yourself is not a "moral" choice. You don't think it's "morally wrong" to do it, you just think it's inadvisable.
Quite so. I have very little use for morality personally.

As for the parent who forbids others to do what s/he does himself, that's because we do not regard children as fully-formed moral agents.
Not so much that as they do not have the experience or training necessary to reliably make decisions that will produce consequences that work out the way they expect them to- or indeed to have realistic expectations of what the consequences from their actions may be in the first place.

That is, we do not consider children as fully responsible for their actions
Not a bit of it. My children have always been responsible for their actions. To me (and of course my wife). I may (and often) choose to interpose myself between them and the larger world as far as the brunt of the consequences go, but that's just a transference of the agent to which they are responsible, not an absolution.

or as fully entitled to govern their own behavior.
Again, because of a lack of experience or training in possible consequences, just the same as they cannot be expected to program a computer or rebuild an engine. It has bollocks-all to do with "morality".

To say "it's o.k. for this adult to drink, but not o.k. for this child to drink" is not having "two moral codes" it is having one moral code and exercising it in two different circumstances. The one moral code is that "children shouldn't drink and adults may if they wish."
In every case there the notion of a "moral code" is a meaningless addition- Cutting to the chase you get the kid wanting a sip of alcohol and the parent saying "No, it can damage your brain" or "No, you won't like it" or "No, I don't want to deal with the disapproval of the neighbors" or "No, this is mine" or even "Yeah, sure, why not?" The "moral code" is a delusion, a fiction that the adult uses to fool himself the decision is not his own.

[quadraginta]

I do make the distinction, personally.

I say I have ethics, but no morals.

The way I see it, ethics are more rationally based. It's not ethical to steal because if theft were allowed we couldn't maintain a civil society. That, and evolution has given us a tendency to feel anger at those who steal and shame when we feel that we have stolen something.

So I don't steal because it I don't like it when others steal, I feel negative emotions if I do it (I remember taking home a toy in kindergarten and I felt overwhelming shame so I took it back the next day), and communities with high rates of theft are less pleasant to live in than ones with low rates of theft.

But when people talk about morals -- to be honest I don't really understand what they're talking about -- it seems to have a different flavor to it. There seems to be this feeling that people "shouldn't" do whatever simply because it's "bad" or "wrong", or maybe because a deity has forbidden it, or it will degrade the soul.

I simply don't grasp morality.


That's pretty much what I was trying to say. Especially, but not only, the highlighted parts.

Glad it's not just me.

[Piscivore]

...that's because we do not regard children as fully-formed moral agents.

I keep re-reading this phrase and I can't help but take "not... fully-formed moral agents" as "insufficiently indoctrinated into the behaviour patterns desired by those that wish to dominate".

I'm not raising my children to serve others. YMMV.

[Piscivore]

I do make the distinction, personally.

I say I have ethics, but no morals.

The way I see it, ethics are more rationally based. It's not ethical to steal because if theft were allowed we couldn't maintain a civil society. That, and evolution has given us a tendency to feel anger at those who steal and shame when we feel that we have stolen something.

So I don't steal because it I don't like it when others steal, I feel negative emotions if I do it (I remember taking home a toy in kindergarten and I felt overwhelming shame so I took it back the next day), and communities with high rates of theft are less pleasant to live in than ones with low rates of theft.

But when people talk about morals -- to be honest I don't really understand what they're talking about -- it seems to have a different flavor to it. There seems to be this feeling that people "shouldn't" do whatever simply because it's "bad" or "wrong", or maybe because a deity has forbidden it, or it will degrade the soul.

I simply don't grasp morality.

Thirded.

[Hokulele]

Ethics are what apply to me, morality is what should apply to everyone else.



[/wry sarcasm]

[quadraginta]

Ethics are what apply to me, morality is what should apply to everyone else.



[/wry sarcasm]


How about ... Ethics are what should apply to everybody, morals are what somebody wants to apply to everyone else?

[Brainache]

How about ... Ethics are what should apply to everybody, morals are what somebody wants to apply to everyone else?

How about... Ethics were invented by philosophers, Morals by Theologians...?

[Hokulele]

How about ... Ethics are what should apply to everybody, morals are what somebody wants to apply to everyone else?


I agree with the second half, but I certainly do not expect anyone else to live to my code of ethics. If there is anything I have learned over the years, it is that making assumptions about other people's morals/ethics and what they should be is certain to cause trouble.

I just avoid the people whose ethics diverge too far from my own. Not because I think they are necessarily wrong, but because I value my sanity.


ETA: Brainache, I like that one.

[quadraginta]

How about... Ethics were invented by philosophers, Morals by Theologians...?

I can go with that.

[quadraginta]

I agree with the second half, but I certainly do not expect anyone else to live to my code of ethics. If there is anything I have learned over the years, it is that making assumptions about other people's morals/ethics and what they should be is certain to cause trouble.

I just avoid the people whose ethics diverge too far from my own. Not because I think they are necessarily wrong, but because I value my sanity.


ETA: Brainache, I like that one.


I can go with that, too.

[quadraginta]

How about... Ethics were invented by philosophers, Morals by Theologians...?


This is probably the most succinct way of expressing the gist of what I was trying to say.

Thank you. I may borrow it.

[Brainache]

This is probably the most succinct way of expressing the gist of what I was trying to say.

Thank you. I may borrow it.

Would that be ethical?

You have my permission to use it only if you preface it with: "This absolutely brilliant and devastatingly handsome guy I met online once said..."

If you don't, God will punish you!!!!

:hypnodisk:bunpan:hypnodisk

[quadraginta]

Would that be ethical?

You have my permission to use it only if you preface it with: "This absolutely brilliant and devastatingly handsome guy I met online once said..."

If you don't, God will punish you!!!!

:hypnodisk:bunpan:hypnodisk


Would that be ethical?

[Rairun]

I do make the distinction, personally.

I say I have ethics, but no morals.

The way I see it, ethics are more rationally based. It's not ethical to steal because if theft were allowed we couldn't maintain a civil society. That, and evolution has given us a tendency to feel anger at those who steal and shame when we feel that we have stolen something.

So I don't steal because it I don't like it when others steal, I feel negative emotions if I do it (I remember taking home a toy in kindergarten and I felt overwhelming shame so I took it back the next day), and communities with high rates of theft are less pleasant to live in than ones with low rates of theft.

But when people talk about morals -- to be honest I don't really understand what they're talking about -- it seems to have a different flavor to it. There seems to be this feeling that people "shouldn't" do whatever simply because it's "bad" or "wrong", or maybe because a deity has forbidden it, or it will degrade the soul.

I simply don't grasp morality.

Good post--if I had to make that distinction, that's what I'd say too. The only problem is that the word ethics sounds kind of tainted to me. It bothers me when it's used by people who have "killed God" but haven't got rid of the baggage that comes along with him. It's almost like ethics are morals for people who have realized it's not cool to believe in God, but still enjoy being self-righteous.

I'm not saying you're self-righteous, though. Like I said, your definition sounds sensible to me. But I do prefer to use more descriptive words. I'd rather say an act is dishonest, unprofessional or just plain sh*tty than resort to "unethical".

[Yoink]

Quite so. I have very little use for morality personally.

Then you're not a counter-instance to my point. Your moral claims are also absolute: "there is no morality." Of course, I strongly doubt that your position is as you represent it. Unless you're a psychopath.

Not a bit of it. My children have always been responsible for their actions. To me (and of course my wife). I may (and often) choose to interpose myself between them and the larger world as far as the brunt of the consequences go, but that's just a transference of the agent to which they are responsible, not an absolution.

Again, you're either pointlessly splitting hairs here or saying something untrue. When a baby punches you on the nose you do not hold that baby "responsible for its actions" unless--again--you're a psychopath.

Again, because of a lack of experience or training in possible consequences, just the same as they cannot be expected to program a computer or rebuild an engine. It has bollocks-all to do with "morality".

And, again, if that's not part of your moral code then your attitudes in this case are not relevant to the issue. You were the one who brought up parents saying "one rule for me, one rule for the children" as supposed proof that moral judgments are not absolute. If you didn't think it was a moral judgment at all then I have no idea why you brought it up.

In every case there the notion of a "moral code" is a meaningless addition- Cutting to the chase you get the kid wanting a sip of alcohol and the parent saying "No, it can damage your brain" or "No, you won't like it" or "No, I don't want to deal with the disapproval of the neighbors" or "No, this is mine" or even "Yeah, sure, why not?" The "moral code" is a delusion, a fiction that the adult uses to fool himself the decision is not his own.

Again, unless you're a psychopath I'm reasonably sure that you don't actually believe this. If I gave you a button to push and said "this button will kill thirty random people on the planet--their deaths will never affect you in any way, or affect the lives of anyone you know; if you push it, I'll give you $30" I'm pretty sure you'd say "piss off, jerk." That would be a moral reaction, not a "calculate the consequences" one. (And please, don't come back with a "well, I wouldn't want someone else to do that if they were offered the choice because that might affect me" response; A. that other person's decision won't be affected one way or the other by your decision and B. you can always change the hypothetical situation so that it doesn't apply: I offer you the button with an ironclad assurance that it will never be offered to another person, for example).

[Piscivore]

Then you're not a counter-instance to my point. Your moral claims are also absolute: "there is no morality."
That's as specious as claiming that atheism is a religion becuase atheists have "faith" there is no god. I didn't say "there is no morality." I said morality is an irrelevant and uneccesary concept.

Of course, I strongly doubt that your position is as you represent it. Unless you're a psychopath.
My position is exactly as I represent it. By what reasoning do you think it "psychopathic"?

Again, you're either pointlessly splitting hairs here or saying something untrue. When a baby punches you on the nose you do not hold that baby "responsible for its actions" unless--again--you're a psychopath.
A baby cannot punch anyone in the nose. That takes muscle and volition control that it does not possess. If a baby's tiny little balled up hand contacts another's nose it is because that person got too close to the baby's involuntary movements- just the same as if the person stuck his face in the way of a ceiling fan.

A toddler can punch someone in the nose, and yes, I do (and have done, my son was a very angry child) hold it responsible for that action. If you want to imagine that "responsibility for its actions" means some harsh and draconian "eye for an eye" retribution, that's your mistake.

And, again, if that's not part of your moral code then your attitudes in this case are not relevant to the issue. You were the one who brought up parents saying "one rule for me, one rule for the children" as supposed proof that moral judgments are not absolute.
I'm sorry, I was not clear. I can see how you could take "forbid" as "having a absolute rule against." None of my "rules" (and when I use that term, it is only one of convenience) with our kids are absolute- they are always negotiable, frequently flexible, and always subject to change as needed. "They're more like guidelines", to coin a phrase.

Within the household, there are no "rules" for me or my wife, we are adults.

If you didn't think it was a moral judgment at all then I have no idea why you brought it up.
Because of your strange and error-ridding statement that "but all moral agents are required to regard their moral judgments as absolute"- which seems to include the assumption that all sentient beings are moral agents.

Again, unless you're a psychopath I'm reasonably sure that you don't actually believe this.
I absolutely do. "Morals" to me are nothing more than deciding (or, more accurately, having some authority- parents, religious leaders, "society"- making the decision for you) what the "right" thing to do is in a situation before you know anything about the situation- in other words, cherishing a preconceived notion without evidence. Maybe you can see how that sort of thing doesn't jibe with skepticism, to me.

ETA: Further- "Morals" seem to me to be an ill-conceived attempt to make complex human interaction "simpler", sort of like rounding Pi off to an even 3 to make math easier.

If I gave you a button to push and said "this button will kill thirty random people on the planet--their deaths will never affect you in any way, or affect the lives of anyone you know; if you push it, I'll give you $30" I'm pretty sure you'd say "piss off, jerk." That would be a moral reaction, not a "calculate the consequences" one. (And please, don't come back with a "well, I wouldn't want someone else to do that if they were offered the choice because that might affect me" response; A. that other person's decision won't be affected one way or the other by your decision and B. you can always change the hypothetical situation so that it doesn't apply: I offer you the button with an ironclad assurance that it will never be offered to another person, for example).
I don't do nonsense hypotheticals. Especially one where the positor tries to dictate the answers.

But a dollar isn't enough to kill someone, as a general rule guideline, in my opinion. Especially if there is no other evident benefit to it. Convicted pedophiles, Ann Coulter- maybe. :)

[Yoink]

That's as specious as claiming that atheism is a religion becuase atheists have "faith" there is no god. I didn't say "there is no morality." I said morality is an irrelevant and uneccesary concept.

Learn to read.

My position is exactly as I represent it. By what reasoning do you think it "psychopathic"?

It's a typical marker of the psychopath that they do not feel the force of moral restraints.

A baby cannot punch anyone in the nose. That takes muscle and volition control that it does not possess. If a baby's tiny little balled up hand contacts another's nose it is because that person got too close to the baby's involuntary movements- just the same as if the person stuck his face in the way of a ceiling fan.

Babies can punch people in the nose, and they frequently do; they also pee on people, vomit on people, pull people's earrings hard enough to rip the earlobe etc. etc. etc.; the fact that you're arbitrarily defining "punch" as "punching with intent to punch" just makes your argument circular ("we hold infants responsible for the things for which they are responsible").

A toddler can punch someone in the nose, and yes, I do (and have done, my son was a very angry child) hold it responsible for that action. If you want to imagine that "responsibility for its actions" means some harsh and draconian "eye for an eye" retribution, that's your mistake.

The fact that we hold children responsible for some things does not disprove the claim that we do not hold them to the same standards of behavior as adults. Even in this case, while you might punish your child for punching, you would regard it as absurd to place him on trial for assault--even though the facts of the case might be identical to behavior that would see an adult reasonably tried for assault. Care to explain why?

I'm sorry, I was not clear. I can see how you could take "forbid" as "having a absolute rule against." None of my "rules" (and when I use that term, it is only one of convenience) with our kids are absolute- they are always negotiable, frequently flexible, and always subject to change as needed. "They're more like guidelines", to coin a phrase.

Great: I said that moral judgments are absolute. If you are making judgments that are not moral then they are not relevant to my claim.

Within the household, there are no "rules" for me or my wife, we are adults.

Well, actually, there are lots of rules. There are many things neither you nor your wife are allowed to do in your house by law.

Because of your strange and error-ridding statement that "but all moral agents are required to regard their moral judgments as absolute"- which seems to include the assumption that all sentient beings are moral agents.

"Seems to include" how? Are you seeing some pixels that are invisible to me? I said "all moral agents": you claim that you are not a "moral agent"--how, then, does the claim apply to you? How, if what you say were true, could any of your behaviors affect the truth of the claim?

I absolutely do. "Morals" to me are nothing more than deciding (or, more accurately, having some authority- parents, religious leaders, "society"- making the decision for you) what the "right" thing to do is in a situation before you know anything about the situation- in other words, cherishing a preconceived notion without evidence. Maybe you can see how that sort of thing doesn't jibe with skepticism, to me.

Great. I think your position is a load of hooey, but you are once again saying that nothing you do or think is of relevance to an argument about how moral actors act. Again you claim not to be a moral agent. If that is true, then your actions are irrelevant to any question of how moral agents act.

I don't do nonsense hypotheticals. Especially one where the positor tries to dictate the answers.

But a dollar isn't enough to kill someone, as a general rule guideline, in my opinion. Especially if there is no other evident benefit to it. Convicted pedophiles, Ann Coulter- maybe. :)

I think you meant to write "I don't answer hypotheticals that demonstrate the falsity of my position."

How is the hypothetical nonsense? If you are being honest about having no moral codes of any kind and only caring about consequences, why would you turn down a chance to earn $30 for an act that is guaranteed to have no consequences to you or your loved ones?

[Piscivore]

Learn to read.
Perhaps instead of resorting to insult the discussion will proceed better if you attempt to explain what you think I've misread.

It's a typical marker of the psychopath that they do not feel the force of moral restraints.
I see. And any restraint on behaviour must be a moral restraint?

Babies can punch people in the nose, and they frequently do; they also pee on people, vomit on people, pull people's earrings hard enough to rip the earlobe etc. etc. etc.; the fact that you're arbitrarily defining "punch" as "punching with intent to punch" just makes your argument circular ("we hold infants responsible for the things for which they are responsible").
That's not an argument, it is simply a tautological statment: A=A, which is perfectly logically valid. It is also an attempt to use the word "punch" consistantly. The fact that you are trying to equate an invoulntary action of an infant with a voluntary action of an adult on the basis that they can both be described with the word "punch" makes your statment a fallacy of equivocation.

The fact that we hold children responsible for some things does not disprove the claim that we do not hold them to the same standards of behavior as adults. Even in this case, while you might punish your child for punching, you would regard it as absurd to place him on trial for assault--even though the facts of the case might be identical to behavior that would see an adult reasonably tried for assault. Care to explain why?
Because in most cases treating the child like an adult will not have the desired effect. Children do not learn like adults. Children do not even learn like other children. The response to the behaviour must be specific to the child's education, experience, personality, and maturity level, to name but a few factors involved. For that matter, it would be ludicrous in the extreme to suggest that even every adult must be treated exactly the same way for the same action. And adult punching another in the nose may be because of horseplay, assault, self defense, sport, extreme sexual activity, moshing, or illness. Yet that "one size fits all" rule" is exactly the sort of thing "moral codes" try to postulate. It is a substitute for thinking, just the same as racism.

Great: I said that moral judgments are absolute. If you are making judgments that are not moral then they are not relevant to my claim.
Perhaps then you'd best define what you mean by "moral judgements", then, because you've said that "It's a typical marker of the psychopath that they do not feel the force of moral restraints". That seems to imply to me that you feel that anyone not making moral judgments is mental ill.

Is that truly your feeling, or were you just trying to insult me again?

Well, actually, there are lots of rules. There are many things neither you nor your wife are allowed to do in your house by law.
"Rules" we as adults choose to follow or not as it serves our interest. Neither of us follow "rules" for the rules' sake.

"Seems to include" how? Are you seeing some pixels that are invisible to me?
Insults do not serve your argument. It is implied by your assertion that those that are not bound by morals are insane. Perhaps you'd like to define "moral agent" at this time?

I said "all moral agents": you claim that you are not a "moral agent"--how, then, does the claim apply to you? How, if what you say were true, could any of your behaviors affect the truth of the claim?

Great. I think your position is a load of hooey, but you are once again saying that nothing you do or think is of relevance to an argument about how moral actors act. Again you claim not to be a moral agent. If that is true, then your actions are irrelevant to any question of how moral agents act.

I claim that no one is a "moral agent" or "moral actor", that the term "moral agent" itself is disingenous and incorrect. No one serves a "moral code", they serve themselves. They use the notion of a "moral code" to alleviate the burden of complex thinking or to make themselves feel better about what they do. Sometimes both.

I think you meant to write "I don't answer hypotheticals that demonstrate the falsity of my position."
No, I meant to write what I did.

How is the hypothetical nonsense?
To begin with, you presume to offer assurances based on information it is impossible to have- specifically, knowing all possible future consequenses of the act of pushing the button. In short, it is utterly impossible for you to make your "guaranteed [the act will] have no consequences to you or your loved ones".

If you are being honest about having no moral codes of any kind and only caring about consequences, why would you turn down a chance to earn $30 for an act that is guaranteed to have no consequences to you or your loved ones?
Because I value the lives of others- even those I have not met and may never know- as resources worth- even as forever unrealised potential- much more than $1.

[Yoink]

I see. And any restraint on behaviour must be a moral restraint?

There you go with the invisible pixels again. Maybe you should have your screen fixed?

That's not an argument, it is simply a tautological statment: A=A, which is perfectly logically valid. It is also an attempt to use the word "punch" consistantly. The fact that you are trying to equate an invoulntary action of an infant with a voluntary action of an adult on the basis that they can both be described with the word "punch" makes your statment a fallacy of equivocation.

Nobody, ever, has defined "punch" to mean "hit with intent." The phrase "accidentally punched" gets over 54,000 hits on Google. Any competent speaker of English will accept that you can "punch" something or someone "accidentally." You are making a completely idiosyncratic definition of the word simply to try to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

Because in most cases treating the child like an adult will not have the desired effect. Children do not learn like adults. Children do not even learn like other children. The response to the behaviour must be specific to the child's education, experience, personality, and maturity level, to name but a few factors involved. For that matter, it would be ludicrous in the extreme to suggest that even every adult must be treated exactly the same way for the same action. And adult punching another in the nose may be because of horseplay, assault, self defense, sport, extreme sexual activity, moshing, or illness. Yet that "one size fits all" rule" is exactly the sort of thing "moral codes" try to postulate. It is a substitute for thinking, just the same as racism.

Yes, everyone who believes in moral judgements thinks that there is no difference between, say, two competitors in a boxing match and assault. You are by no means making a laughably silly argument. Go you!

Perhaps then you'd best define what you mean by "moral judgements", then, because you've said that "It's a typical marker of the psychopath that they do not feel the force of moral restraints". That seems to imply to me that you feel that anyone not making moral judgments is mental ill.

Yes, anybody who is incapable of making moral judgments is mentally ill. I don't think you are incapable of making moral judgments, by the way. The fact that you're not willing to kill people whose lives are irrelevant to your own is sufficient proof that you do, in fact, make moral judgments. You just lie to yourself about it.

Is that truly your feeling, or were you just trying to insult me again?
What I'm trying to make you understand is that you're trying to have this two ways. You're disputing my claim about the nature of moral judgments by saying "but I don't act that way" and then you're saying "and I'm not making moral judgments." If you're not making moral judgments in these specific cases then it's clearly not relevant to my claim about the way moral judgments work, is it? If I say "when people speak French they purse their lips alot" it's not relevant if you jump up and say "but when I speak German I don't purse my lips at all--so THERE!"

"Rules" we as adults choose to follow or not as it serves our interest. Neither of us follow "rules" for the rules' sake.

So what?

Insults do not serve your argument. It is implied by your assertion that those that are not bound by morals are insane. Perhaps you'd like to define "moral agent" at this time?

[Facepalm]. Please, just read what I wrote, for FSM's sake. Don't read what you wish that I'd wrote or what, in your frenzy to post a rebuttal, you imagined I wrote. READ WHAT I WROTE. You will find no such claim in the post to which you are referring. All I said was that when people make a moral judgment they do so absolutely. I made no comment whatsoever about what people who are not making moral judgments do.

I claim that no one is a "moral agent" or "moral actor", that the term "moral agent" itself is disingenous and incorrect. No one serves a "moral code", they serve themselves. They use the notion of a "moral code" to alleviate the burden of complex thinking or to make themselves feel better about what they do. Sometimes both.

If people only "serve themselves" why would you refuse to push a button killing people whose lives mean nothing to you if you could stand to gain by it? What value do those lives have to you?

In what way was, say, Schindler "self-serving"? In what way were the people who hid Anne Frank "self-serving"? In what way is somebody who runs into a burning building to rescue others "self serving"? If we wince or weep as we hear a story of appalling abuse from the distant past, what reference does that long past crime have to our self-interests?

No, I meant to write what I did.

Yes, I'm quite sure your untruth was a deliberate one.

To begin with, you presume to offer assurances based on information it is impossible to have- specifically, knowing all possible future consequenses of the act of pushing the button. In short, it is utterly impossible for you to make your "guaranteed [the act will] have no consequences to you or your loved ones".

Go look up the word "hypothetical" in the dictionary.

But fine, let's deal with a perfectly "real world" case: you're living in Nazi occupied Holland. Your next-door neighbour is an 80 yr-old Jew in failing health. He comes to you begging for you to hide him in your attic. He is destitute, and you know him to be destitute. He cannot possibly repay you in any way for the appalling risk he is asking you to take. Do you hide him? Are you a "good" man if you do? Are you a "bad" man if you don't? Is the person who does agree to hide him a "better" person than the person who doesn't? How, exactly, does "self-interest" play into these decisions?

Because I value the lives of others- even those I have not met and may never know- as resources worth- even as forever unrealised potential- much more than $1.

"Resources" for what?

Assume that 50 years pass and you learn that none of those 20 people did anything with their lives that could possibly have affected you one way or the other. Would you then regret your decision and say "damn, I wish I'd taken the $30, that would have helped me in a way that these 20 people's lives didn't at all"? Would you regard that as an acceptable sentiment?

[theprestige]

Non-objective morality does not mean no morality at all. It just means that there is no absolute standard against which any act can be measured. Certain acts can be moral under some circumstances and immoral under others.
It seems to me that there's a difference between the conditionality (the claim which I bolded above), and the subjectivity of morality.

Morality could be...

... conditional and objective: Taking life is always moral under certain conditions, and always immoral under others, and any personal opinion that deviates from this is objectively wrong.

... unconditional and objective: Taking life is never moral, regardless of the conditions, and any personal opinion that deviates from this is objectively wrong.

... conditional and subjective: Taking life may or may not be moral, depending on the conditions and your personal opinion; personal opinions are infinite in variety and impossible to judge by any objective rule (only somebody else's personal opinion).

... unconditional and subjective: Taking life is always wrong regardless of the conditions, because that's my personal opinion and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong.

It seems to me that most people profess to believe the third option, and consistently behave as though they believe the fourth option.

It also seems to me that many atheists ascribe the fourth position to the Christian god, probably under the direct or indirect influence of some ancient greek rhetorical gambit the name of which I don't remember and which I can't be bothered to investigoogle at the moment.

As to the OP's question... I'm of the opinion that morality is both conditional and objective.

[JFrankA]

I do make the distinction, personally.

I say I have ethics, but no morals.

The way I see it, ethics are more rationally based. It's not ethical to steal because if theft were allowed we couldn't maintain a civil society. That, and evolution has given us a tendency to feel anger at those who steal and shame when we feel that we have stolen something.

So I don't steal because it I don't like it when others steal, I feel negative emotions if I do it (I remember taking home a toy in kindergarten and I felt overwhelming shame so I took it back the next day), and communities with high rates of theft are less pleasant to live in than ones with low rates of theft.

But when people talk about morals -- to be honest I don't really understand what they're talking about -- it seems to have a different flavor to it. There seems to be this feeling that people "shouldn't" do whatever simply because it's "bad" or "wrong", or maybe because a deity has forbidden it, or it will degrade the soul.

I simply don't grasp morality.

Wow!!!! That was beautiful!

For years I've been saying to people "I have high ethics but very little morals" and always had a good way of explaining that plainly.

How about ... Ethics are what should apply to everybody, morals are what somebody wants to apply to everyone else?


That's close to what I've been trying to tell people, but for me, it's more like:

Ethics are what should apply to myself: how does what do affect other people; Morals are what somebody expects other people to do and how that somebody see how it would affect everyone else.

....sheesh. See what I mean about the way I explain it?

[Piscivore]

There you go with the invisible pixels again. Maybe you should have your screen fixed?
I asked a question. Are you incapable of answering questions with anything but insults?

Nobody, ever, has defined "punch" to mean "hit with intent." The phrase "accidentally punched" gets over 54,000 hits on Google. Any competent speaker of English will accept that you can "punch" something or someone "accidentally." You are making a completely idiosyncratic definition of the word simply to try to avoid admitting that you were wrong.
Your attempting to create "responsibility" for a baby punch is what added intent to the conversation. An adult is no more responsible for an accidental punch than a baby. Perhaps I phrased it poorly.

Yes, anybody who is incapable of making moral judgments is mentally ill. I don't think you are incapable of making moral judgments, by the way. The fact that you're not willing to kill people whose lives are irrelevant to your own is sufficient proof that you do, in fact, make moral judgments. You just lie to yourself about it.
Perhaps you'd better define what you mean by "moral judgements" then.

What I'm trying to make you understand is that you're trying to have this two ways. You're disputing my claim about the nature of moral judgments by saying "but I don't act that way" and then you're saying "and I'm not making moral judgments." If you're not making moral judgments in these specific cases then it's clearly not relevant to my claim about the way moral judgments work, is it? If I say "when people speak French they purse their lips alot" it's not relevant if you jump up and say "but when I speak German I don't purse my lips at all--so THERE!"
I may have misread your statement, I took it to mean that all people make moral judgements, that all moral judgements are based on a moral code, and all moral judgements are absolute. Your subsequent statments have not changed my reading of that. What I was trying to illustrate to you was that each of these assumptions is incorrect.

[Facepalm]. Please, just read what I wrote, for FSM's sake. Don't read what you wish that I'd wrote or what, in your frenzy to post a rebuttal, you imagined I wrote. READ WHAT I WROTE.
That's why I asked you to define your terms. try doing so, instead of resorting to bluster and outrage.

What is a "moral agent"?

You will find no such claim in the post to which you are referring. All I said was that when people make a moral judgment they do so absolutely. I made no comment whatsoever about what people who are not making moral judgments do.
"all moral agents are required to regard their moral judgments as absolute."
"we do not regard children as fully-formed moral agents."
"Yes, anybody who is incapable of making moral judgments is mentally ill."
"The fact that you're not willing to kill people whose lives are irrelevant to your own is sufficient proof that you do, in fact, make moral judgments. You just lie to yourself about it."

You seem to be saying that- if children are not "fully formed moral agents"- then all adults are moral agents, except for those that are mentally ill. Is that incorrect?

You further seem to be saying that either I am not making moral judgments, and are therefore insane, or I am making moral judgements that are somehow absolute- even when they are not. Is that what you are saying?

Perhaps you'd better explain what you mean by "absolute".

If people only "serve themselves" why would you refuse to push a button killing people whose lives mean nothing to you if you could stand to gain by it? What value do those lives have to you?
Because I think that the net effect of their lives will benefit me, even if not directly. let's say one of the thirty is a minimum-wage dishwasher at a fast food joint seven states away. I will probably never directly be impacted by his life, but even the minimal input he adds to the vast interconnected web of humanity means that someone somewhere isn't doing something else instead of that which they would otherwise do that benefits me. Maybe because this kid is cleaning up the restaurant passes its health inspection and stays open, which means that the income the restaurant provides its other owrkers, the profits it provides the owners, the service it provides the community in which it operates bolsters the economy of that community. Becuase of that increase, the community is able to buy school equipment from a company that does business in another state, and that company buys insurance from a company in my state, and that insurance copmany pays corporate taxes that help build a convention centre in my city that brings in customers to my business. all that is worth a hell of a lot more than one measly dollar in my pocket. Just for an example.

In what way was, say, Schindler "self-serving"? In what way were the people who hid Anne Frank "self-serving"?
I suspect they served their own emotional needs. Pity, empathy, outrage, contempt for the persecutors, protection for friends... that sort of thing. Plenty of people were content, in very similar situations, allow the persecuted to be abducted and killed.

In what way is somebody who runs into a burning building to rescue others "self serving"? If we wince or weep as we hear a story of appalling abuse from the distant past, what reference does that long past crime have to our self-interests?
I don't know. I don't know anything about these people. Do you have any actaul examples, or are these more of your "hypotheticals"?

Yes, I'm quite sure your untruth was a deliberate one.
What "untruth" do you allege I made?

Go look up the word "hypothetical" in the dictionary.
Dictinary.com:
hypothetical

–adjective 1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.
2. of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical reasoning.
3. given to making hypotheses.
4. Logic. a. (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.
b. (of a proposition or syllogism) conditional
How does that make the conditions you proposed possible?

But fine, let's deal with a perfectly "real world" case: you're living in Nazi occupied Holland. Your next-door neighbour is an 80 yr-old Jew in failing health. He comes to you begging for you to hide him in your attic. He is destitute, and you know him to be destitute. He cannot possibly repay you in any way for the appalling risk he is asking you to take. Do you hide him?
I think I would, yes. You are assuming that "value" only equates to financial or material gain. the value in hiding him would be in 1) helping someone in distress, which satisfies an emotional need, 2) acting to thwart in some small way an oppresive and murderous regime, which would satisfy a different emotional need, 3) preserving whatever unique knowledge and skill he may be able to share during his stay with me, 4) create obligations and postive emotional ties with whatever friends, family, and any other people with which he may have ties- hell, maybe I get my name on a monument, 5) create an obligation on him- he may not always be destitute- if he survives, he may write a book about his experience and thus keep my name and deeds alive for as long as it is published.

It's not my fault you are so short sighted as to only see value in money.

Are you a "good" man if you do? Are you a "bad" man if you don't?
Such judgements are subjective to the observer, and are largely meaningless to me. People do things that I approve of and disapprove of based on my values.

Is the person who does agree to hide him a "better" person than the person who doesn't?
That is meaningless to me. "Better" according to what standard?

How, exactly, does "self-interest" play into these decisions?
As with everything, one weighs the benefis (immediate and potential) vs. the costs and risks.

"Resources" for what?
As cogs in the economic web. As people I might borrow money from. As workers who do things I might not want to do, in places I wouldn't want to do them. As a food source if civilisation collapses. As the ancestors of my distant offspring's mate. AS greater variety and robustness of the human gene pool. As the potential carrier of a gene that becomes critical to the survival of the species due to an unforseen new evolutionary pressure. As someone that might start a joke that makes me laught some year in the future.

Assume that 50 years pass and you learn that none of those 20 people did anything with their lives that could possibly have affected you one way or the other. Would you then regret your decision and say "damn, I wish I'd taken the $30, that would have helped me in a way that these 20 people's lives didn't at all"?
Nope. Not in the least because that's not knowledge that is even possible to have. And I consider the odds of that being the case very low. See above. Just because we generally live in blissful ignorance of how connected we all are doesn't mean people are useless.

Would you regard that as an acceptable sentiment?
"Acceptable"? I would regard that as a foolish and naive sentiment. Whether that is "acceptable" I leave to the observer.

[Yoink]

Because I think that the net effect of their lives will benefit me, even if not directly. let's say one of the thirty is a minimum-wage dishwasher at a fast food joint seven states away. I will probably never directly be impacted by his life, but even the minimal input he adds to the vast interconnected web of humanity means that someone somewhere isn't doing something else instead of that which they would otherwise do that benefits me. Maybe because this kid is cleaning up the restaurant passes its health inspection and stays open, which means that the income the restaurant provides its other owrkers, the profits it provides the owners, the service it provides the community in which it operates bolsters the economy of that community. Becuase of that increase, the community is able to buy school equipment from a company that does business in another state, and that company buys insurance from a company in my state, and that insurance copmany pays corporate taxes that help build a convention centre in my city that brings in customers to my business. all that is worth a hell of a lot more than one measly dollar in my pocket. Just for an example.

Ah, I see that you're haggling over the price. O.K., great: you are offered $3,000,000 to push a button that will kill 20 unemployed people in a very poor country on the other side of the world. You have to agree that the odds of their lives ever having any effect at all upon you are miniscule. You also must agree that the certainty of $3,000,000 makes any probabilistic calculation of benefit absurdly one-sided. Now...why don't you push the button?

"Because I'll feel bad about myself--money's not the only value"--is that where you want to go?

O.K.--why will you feel bad about yourself? You said that the only thing that motivates us is calculation of self-interest. Why would feel bad about yourself for calculating your self-interest accurately?

I suspect they served their own emotional needs. Pity, empathy, outrage, contempt for the persecutors, protection for friends... that sort of thing.

How are "pity, empathy, outrage, contempt" part of a calculation of self-interest? You've just smuggled moral judgment back in under other terms. They are morally outraged, that is why it "feels good" to do the "right thing." If "avoiding doing something morally repugnant" is part of the calculation of self-interest then the self-interest does not stand in opposition to morality as you claim.

Plenty of people were content, in very similar situations, allow the persecuted to be abducted and killed.

Exactly. And we don't have the same admiration for those people--who did a much better job of calculating what was in their self-interest. I'm not seeing how that helps your case that "morality=calculation of self-interest" however.

I think I would, yes. You are assuming that "value" only equates to financial or material gain. the value in hiding him would be in 1) helping someone in distress, which satisfies an emotional need,

Why do we have an "emotional need" to help others? How is that part of a "calculation of self-interest"? What "self-interest" does it serve to help others at, say, the certain cost of our own life? What possible "calculation of self-interest" could involve the annihilation of the self? Or do you have nothing but contempt for people who gave their lives to save others as "poor calculators"?

2) acting to thwart in some small way an oppresive and murderous regime, which would satisfy a different emotional need,

Again, what part of a "calculating of self interest" is involved in the pleasure we would have in seeing an "oppressive and murderous regime" thwarted? If the "oppressive and murderous regime" is not specifically threatening us, why, according to your view, should we care? Or are you saying that murderous oppressive regimes would be fine if they did actually deliver a decent quality of life to those they didn't murder and repress?

3) preserving whatever unique knowledge and skill he may be able to share during his stay with me,

How does that serve your "self-interest"? Are you saying that if this ailing 80 year old couldn't pitch in around your house or help you run your business or whatever you wouldn't see any value in saving him? Let's say his only "skill" is that he's a reasonably good oboe player, but you don't have an oboe and he wouldn't be able to play one anyone for fear of giving himself away. How does preserving that unused skill for a few more years factor in your "calculation of self interest"?

4) create obligations and postive emotional ties with whatever friends, family, and any other people with which he may have ties- hell, maybe I get my name on a monument,

Why should you care if your name is on a momument? How will that serve your self-interest? If you mean "people will admire me" then the question is "why will they admire you--how does that serve their self-interest?" if you mean "I'll use it somehow to get paid" then obviously we would none of us regard that as morally admirable--which nixes your idea that "morality" is the same thing as "calculation of self-interest."

5) create an obligation on him- he may not always be destitute- if he survives, he may write a book about his experience and thus keep my name and deeds alive for as long as it is published.

I thought you said this was a calculation of self-interest. What kind of calculation would bet on an ailing 80 year old as surviving to write a book over the active risk of your being caught and punished? That's absurd. And why would you care about your name being "kept alive"? How is that in your self-interest?

It's not my fault you are so short sighted as to only see value in money.

Why, Piscivore! And you said you didn't make moral judgments!

Yes, rank materialism is morally objectionable, isn't it?

Such judgements are subjective to the observer, and are largely meaningless to me. People do things that I approve of and disapprove of based on my values.

Wait, values? What do you mean "values"? How are "values" not a moral category?

That is meaningless to me. "Better" according to what standard?

According to the standard of your "values," Piscivore.

As with everything, one weighs the benefis (immediate and potential) vs. the costs and risks.

Well, we've seen that that's not remotely what you'd do. The costs and risks of hiding the 80 yr old ailing neighbour wildly outweigh any possible "benefits" except for the moral benefits (feeling good about yourself, feeling that you've stayed true to your values, feeling that you've defeated a tyrannical power etc. etc.). Take away your moral judgment and it's obvious that you should slam the door shut in the guy's face.

Nope. Not in the least because that's not knowledge that is even possible to have. And I consider the odds of that being the case very low. See above. Just because we generally live in blissful ignorance of how connected we all are doesn't mean people are useless.

But, again, you're refusing precisely to "calculate" (and why? because you are according an absolute value to human life; just as I said people do when they make moral judgments). Yeah, there's very remote possibilities of contingent benefit to you personally (and benefit to the human race etc. is no part of 'self-interest') but they are easily outmatched by the certainty of the benefit to you of any sufficient quantity of cash to make a substantial difference in your life.

If all this was about was "calculation" then you'd be happy to enter into a barter "x much benefit to me for the life of that person"--but nobody but a psychopath feels that such a transaction is a satisfactory or untroubling one. We all of us (again, with the exception of psychopaths) feel guilty at the very thought of there being some upper threshold at which we would say "yes, I'll take the reward--just go kill that innocent person already." And why should even the hypothetical idea of there being such a threshold make us feel guilty if morality is merely a "calculation of self-interest"? The balance of "self-interest" is starkly clear in that hypothetical.

[Piscivore]

Ah, I see that you're haggling over the price. O.K., great: you are offered $3,000,000 to push a button that will kill 20 unemployed people in a very poor country on the other side of the world. You have to agree that the odds of their lives ever having any effect at all upon you are miniscule. You also must agree that the certainty of $3,000,000 makes any probabilistic calculation of benefit absurdly one-sided. Now...why don't you push the button?
I might do. $3M is a lot of money.

How are "pity, empathy, outrage, contempt" part of a calculation of self-interest? You've just smuggled moral judgment back in under other terms. They are morally outraged, that is why it "feels good" to do the "right thing." If "avoiding doing something morally repugnant" is part of the calculation of self-interest then the self-interest does not stand in opposition to morality as you claim.
No, rather you're adding "morality" as a parasite to primal human emotions.

Exactly. And we don't have the same admiration for those people--
What is this "we"? you're doing a lot of assuming that people in general share the same values as you. There ae people who think those people had the right idea, you know.

who did a much better job of calculating what was in their self-interest.
Not necessarily. For many of those people their own survival outwieghed the emotional need to get involved. For many people what was happening was for the public good- probably more than you feel comfortable considering. There is a history of tribalism and slaughter of the "other" running all through history- this "we" you appeal to is a fiction.

I'm not seeing how that helps your case that "morality=calculation of self-interest" however.
That's because I'm not making a case for "morality=calculation of self-interest". Morality is irrelevant. It is a useless add-on. An unecessary postulated entity.

Why do we have an "emotional need" to help others?
There is no "we". Some people do, some don't. For thousands of reasons, based mostly on personal experiences.

How is that part of a "calculation of self-interest"? What "self-interest" does it serve to help others at, say, the certain cost of our own life?
You'd have to ask the person that made that decision. I'm not a mind reader. I can guess, given a specific circumstance.

What possible "calculation of self-interest" could involve the annihilation of the self?
An end to pain and suffering.

Or do you have nothing but contempt for people who gave their lives to save others as "poor calculators"?
Dunno- who are you talking about, specifically?

Again, what part of a "calculating of self interest" is involved in the pleasure we would have in seeing an "oppressive and murderous regime" thwarted?
Again with the "we". There is no "we". What do you not understand about SELF-interest?

For my part, I value personal liberty and civil rights. I enjoy thwarting those who would deny it to anybody, because when anyone's pesonal liberty is threatened it weakens my ability to hang on to my own.

If the "oppressive and murderous regime" is not specifically threatening us, why, according to your view, should we care?[/quote]
As above. When thuggery starts infringing the freedoms of others, my own is on less stable footing. See Niemöller, Martin.

Or are you saying that murderous oppressive regimes would be fine if they did actually deliver a decent quality of life to those they didn't murder and repress?
As long as you are one of the ones benefiting, it can be great. At least, untill those you oppress have had enough of it. See Louis XVI.

How does that serve your "self-interest"?
I already explained that in some detail.

Let's say his only "skill" is that he's a reasonably good oboe player, but you don't have an oboe and he wouldn't be able to play one anyone for fear of giving himself away. How does preserving that unused skill for a few more years factor in your "calculation of self interest"?
When it is over, he may be in demand as an oboeist. Or maybe we just have oboe lessons on the graves of our enemies.

Why should you care if your name is on a momument? How will that serve your self-interest? If you mean "people will admire me" then the question is "why will they admire you--how does that serve their self-interest?"
I'm a little vain. It will satisfy that emotional need. Plus it will improve my chances at being remembered past my own lifetime, satisfying another emotional need.

if you mean "I'll use it somehow to get paid" then obviously we would none of us regard that as morally admirable
'Obviously"? What "us" are you talking about? You have a serious issue to work out if you think everyone agrees with your particular value set.

--which nixes your idea that "morality" is the same thing as "calculation of self-interest."
Like I said, that is not my argument.

I thought you said this was a calculation of self-interest. What kind of calculation would bet on an ailing 80 year old as surviving to write a book over the active risk of your being caught and punished?
What kind of "calculation" would cause someone to invest in a highly risky business venture, when the possiblity of complete financial ruin exists?

Just because you may be highly risk adverse doesn't mean everyone is.

And this is just one factor, a minor factor, among those I gave you. Based only on this one thing, I might very well not do it.

That's absurd. And why would you care about your name being "kept alive"? How is that in your self-interest? asked and answered above.

Why, Piscivore! And you said you didn't make moral judgments!

Yes, rank materialism is morally objectionable, isn't it?
I said nothing of the sort. Indeed, I find a certain level of "rank materialism" prudent. I said it was short sighted to see only that.

Wait, values? What do you mean "values"? How are "values" not a moral category?
I like chocolate. I don't like butter pecan. I value chocolate more than butter pecan. Where is "morality" needed in that?

I like going fast. I dislike the laws that tell me I can't. I value going fast more than I value the law. Where is "morality" needed in that?

I like the people around me to prosper- it helps me prosper. I dislike those that exploit and rob them. i value the rights of others to prosper over the rights of those who would exploit and rob them. Where is "morality" needed in that?

According to the standard of your "values," Piscivore.
Ah, according to my values they are "better" people to the extent they conform to what I myself might have done.

Well, we've seen that that's not remotely what you'd do. The costs and risks of hiding the 80 yr old ailing neighbour wildly outweigh any possible "benefits" except for the moral benefits (feeling good about yourself, feeling that you've stayed true to your values, feeling that you've defeated a tyrannical power etc. etc.). Take away your moral judgment and it's obvious that you should slam the door shut in the guy's face.
None of those things i mentioned are "moral" except as you've stapled the word to the concept.

And I didn't say "feeling good about yourself," that's a different need to the ones I mentioned.

I also didn't say "feeling that you've stayed true to your values". That assumes that my values are inflexible and that I serve them. That is not the case. They are subject to change at any time given sufficent pressure to do so. They have, in fact done so many times in my life.

Were it otherwise, you might have some basis on which to claim I was "moral". That is exactly the sort of dogmatic lack of thought in which that a "moralist" engages.

Neither did I say "feeling that you've defeated a tyrannical power"- I wouldn't think myself such a hero for hiding one old man.

But, again, you're refusing precisely to "calculate" (and why? because you are according an absolute value to human life; just as I said people do when they make moral judgments).
I'm refusing to "calculate" because it is simply not possible for you to offer all the factors that may enter into my decision. I certainly do not hold any "absolute" value to human life. There are people that need killing- the're just not "random strangers".

Yeah, there's very remote possibilities of contingent benefit to you personally (and benefit to the human race etc. is no part of 'self-interest')
It does insofar that I am part of the human race.

but they are easily outmatched by the certainty of the benefit to you of any sufficient quantity of cash to make a substantial difference in your life.
Maybe so.

If all this was about was "calculation" then you'd be happy to enter into a barter "x much benefit to me for the life of that person"--but nobody but a psychopath feels that such a transaction is a satisfactory or untroubling one.
I suggest you take a deeper stroll through history, sir. Those exact calculations have been made time and again by people as sane as you or I. See Robber Barons, (Nineeth Century), Westward Expansion (US), and anything about criminology.

Unless you want to make the curious assertion that anyone who does not adhere to the particulars of your value system are not sane?

We all of us (again, with the exception of psychopaths) feel guilty at the very thought of there being some upper threshold at which we would say "yes, I'll take the reward--just go kill that innocent person already."
There's that sad little "we" again.

And why should even the hypothetical idea of there being such a threshold make us feel guilty if morality is merely a "calculation of self-interest"?
History plainly refutes this assertion. Murder and profit from murder have been with our species as long as we've been writing things down. Unless you are claiming to have read the minds of every murderer (even the dead ones) and have found "guilt" there?

The balance of "self-interest" is starkly clear in that hypothetical.
Only when you presume the answers, as you so clearly do.

[Piggy]

Good post--if I had to make that distinction, that's what I'd say too. The only problem is that the word ethics sounds kind of tainted to me. It bothers me when it's used by people who have "killed God" but haven't got rid of the baggage that comes along with him. It's almost like ethics are morals for people who have realized it's not cool to believe in God, but still enjoy being self-righteous.

I'm not saying you're self-righteous, though. Like I said, your definition sounds sensible to me. But I do prefer to use more descriptive words. I'd rather say an act is dishonest, unprofessional or just plain sh*tty than resort to "unethical".

Well, I'm with you there. But occasionally I get into discussions about morals, and in that situation I say "I have ethics".

When you're dealing with a specific case, it's best to just home in on what the real problem is. I'm a brass tacks kind of guy, too.

[arthwollipot]

It seems to me that there's a difference between the conditionality (the claim which I bolded above), and the subjectivity of morality.

Morality could be... (snip for brevity)You raise some good points, but I'm of the opinion (:))that personal opinion does not have much to do with morality. Morality is a group consensus, and what any individual thinks about it probably doesn't have much of an effect on morality as a whole.

We as individuals derive our morality from society - from our parents, our teachers and peers, from television and entertainment, and from the other people that we share our locations with. If one individual disagrees with the morality of the whole, then society usually arranges to correct the deviation - through prosecution by law in modern liberal democracies, or in milder cases simply by peer pressure.

So whether I think that my opinion on morality is universally correct or not (and for the record, I don't) isn't really the issue.

[Yoink]

I might do. $3M is a lot of money.

Only "might"? I wonder what could possible be causing that mental reservation. Clearly nothing to do with any possible calculation of self-interest. Moral objections seem to me the only possible ones that could be in play.

What is this "we"? you're doing a lot of assuming that people in general share the same values as you. There ae people who think those people had the right idea, you know.

Sorry, I should have been more precise on this point. It's no part of my argument to say that any or all moral claims are universal. When I said "we" I simply meant "the vast majority of moral agents of whom I am personally aware." I also meant "you" because it's transparently obvious from all of your answers that you do, in fact, share these same moral frameworks--you just object to the word "morality" because you associate it with narrow-minded sanctimoniousness. I suspect if I'd used the worth "ethics" from the start you'd never have bothered to argue with me--even though I'd have been making exactly the same point.

Not necessarily. For many of those people their own survival outwieghed the emotional need to get involved. For many people what was happening was for the public good- probably more than you feel comfortable considering. There is a history of tribalism and slaughter of the "other" running all through history- this "we" you appeal to is a fiction.

You seem to think that I'm claiming both a universal moral code and that everyone adheres to it. I'm not. Hence this line of argument is entirely irrelevant.

That's because I'm not making a case for "morality=calculation of self-interest". Morality is irrelevant. It is a useless add-on. An unecessary postulated entity.

If "morality is irrelevant" then you mean "nobody actually acts based on moral criteria"--right? If you are saying that "nobody acts on moral criteria" you are saying "when people claim to be acting on moral criteria they are actually acting on a calculation of self-interest." Therefore, in your view, morality=calculation of self-interest.

An end to pain and suffering.

So someone who risks their own life to save others is in every single case in fact choosing suicide as a way to end their pain and suffering. Wow. And you object to me claiming to know what's going on in other people's minds.

Again with the "we". There is no "we". What do you not understand about SELF-interest?

This is pretty funny when I consider your communitarian objection to the random killing hypothesis ("but these people contribute to the social totality! And to the gene-pool!"). Your own moral values are drenched with "we."

For my part, I value personal liberty and civil rights. I enjoy thwarting those who would deny it to anybody, because when anyone's pesonal liberty is threatened it weakens my ability to hang on to my own.

Except that a totalitarian regime that is seeking to kill Jews is in no way actually harmed by your decision to secretly hide one old Jewish man. As long as the guy is successfully hidden nobody is aware of the regime being thwarted and thus its grip on power is in no way lessened. Again, as a calculation of self-interest this is utterly one sided ("on the one had this act will do nothing at all to undermine the power of this tyrannical regime; on the other hand it could very well get me killed...."). By the way "I value personal liberty and civil rights" is a moral claim about the way you think society should be structured for the "we." A calculation of "self-interest" would not care about "rights" but about what you are personally empowered to do. From the perspective of pure self-interest your ideal should be to be the tyrant in a tyrannical society. That way you are as free as it is possible to be.

When it is over, he may be in demand as an oboeist. Or maybe we just have oboe lessons on the graves of our enemies.

I find it really charming the way that you can't help but reveal your actual moral engagement in these matters even while you strenuously decry morality. "Oboe lessons on the graves of our enemies"? Where's the calculation of self-interest in this celebration of the defeat of evil and the triumph of the human spirit. You love the idea of this guy's artistry--however mediocre--being preserved against tyranny. You value his talent as something inherently precious, quite abstracted from any calculation of actual benefit to you or to anyone else. And why? Because, again, you accord human life--in its rich individuality--an absolute value (absolute in the sense that it is not contingent in any way upon any benefit he can provide to you or to anyone else). You value his particular being in itself and you disapprove of anyone who would unjustly destroy that being.

Is this because you think his particular skills are inherently important? Pish. I said he was in no way an outstanding oboist. He's an ailing 80 yr old averagely talented oboe player. If the benefit you wanted were oboe music you can go out and hire a better player with ease.

I'm a little vain. It will satisfy that emotional need. Plus it will improve my chances at being remembered past my own lifetime, satisfying another emotional need.

And what, exactly, is the "calculation of self-interest" involved in being remember past your lifetime? I find it hard to imagine that you are believer in the afterlife. And why is it important for you to be remembered as a good person? If all you want it to be remembered, there are easier ways to accomplish that.
And, again, what about people who give their lives to save others and do so anonymously? Do you regard such people as saps who failed to adequately calculate their self-interest? No, of course you don't.

What kind of "calculation" would cause someone to invest in a highly risky business venture, when the possiblity of complete financial ruin exists?

The thought that the potential benefit outweighs the potential losses. That's not the case, however, in any of the hypothetical cases I've given you.

Just because you may be highly risk adverse doesn't mean everyone is.

I'm not talking about being "risk averse," I'm talking about throwing away a definite high benefit in favor of a highly improbable and lower benefit. It's one thing to be willing to bet your last $30 with a chance of winning $300; it's another thing to refuse an offer of $1000 to not risk the $30 in the first place.The first might be a "calculated" risk, the second is simply a failure to calculate.

I like chocolate. I don't like butter pecan. I value chocolate more than butter pecan. Where is "morality" needed in that?

Not all values are moral values, no. You like chocolate, but you don't think that chocolate is inherently valuable; that is, you wouldn't imagine it worth getting involved in a political campaign to force all restaurants to offer a chocolate dessert. You (clearly) would be willing to take part in a political campaign to guarantee certain civil rights--even if those civil rights were not ones that you yourself would benefit from (as, for example, many straight people take part in the fight for gay marriage). Those are moral values. And, whether you like the idea or not, you have them.

I like going fast. I dislike the laws that tell me I can't. I value going fast more than I value the law. Where is "morality" needed in that?

Actually, that shows precisely how you see yourself as governed by moral restraint rather than by legal restraint. You drive fast because you don't see it as morally wrong to do so (despite the fact that it is against the law). I presume there are plenty of other illegal acts that you don't do, even though you would be likely to get away with them and they would be to your benefit because you find them morally repugnant (or, seeing as you don't like that term; because you don't like the way that you would feel about yourself and that other people would feel about you if you did them).

I like the people around me to prosper- it helps me prosper. I dislike those that exploit and rob them. i value the rights of others to prosper over the rights of those who would exploit and rob them. Where is "morality" needed in that?

Once you're "valuing their rights" rather than valuing specific benefits to yourself I'm afraid you're making moral judgments.

Ah, according to my values they are "better" people to the extent they conform to what I myself might have done.

Yeah, sure; that's where I came in: our moral judgments are absolute. Even though we recognize that people do live by different moral codes, we can't stand outside our own moral frameworks.

I also didn't say "feeling that you've stayed true to your values". That assumes that my values are inflexible and that I serve them. That is not the case. They are subject to change at any time given sufficent pressure to do so. They have, in fact done so many times in my life.

Where did I say that moral values are unchanging? I think throughout this argument you've been arguing with a boogeyman of your own invention. You thought I was saying that there was some absolute moral code that everyone shared and that was eternal and unchanging. That was never my point. Our moral positions change all the time and are often radically incompatible with other people's.

Neither did I say "feeling that you've defeated a tyrannical power"- I wouldn't think myself such a hero for hiding one old man.

Wow--modesty. How moral of you. "Why, I'm doing what anyone would do." By which, of course, you mean "I'm doing what we all should do, but which I know very many people would not do." That entire position is meaningless outside of a moral framework.

I'm refusing to "calculate" because it is simply not possible for you to offer all the factors that may enter into my decision. I certainly do not hold any "absolute" value to human life. There are people that need killing- the're just not "random strangers".

"Absolute value" doesn't meant that you can't imagine justified killing. It means simply that you attribute an inherent value to human lives; for you to be willing to snuff a life out (or see others snuff it out) you need to be persuaded that some other values are in conflict with that person's continued existence. The fact that you prize the lives of "random strangers" (to the extent that even a free gift of $3 million only makes you say "hmmm, I would have to think about that" when racked up against their lives--utterly insignificant to you in terms of "self interest") proves my point; those lives have for you an inherent value that is absolute--not contingent upon any consequences those lives have for you.

It does insofar that I am part of the human race.

HA! Oh no, there's no "we" for you at all, is there Piscivore. You stand alone, coldly calculating what is purely in your self interest as you hide people from tyrannical regimes and as you celebrate the downfall of tyrannies whether you suffered under them or not and as you fret about the fate of the human race even long after your death...

You sound like a decent guy, Piscivore. I think our moral values are mostly pretty similar.

I suggest you take a deeper stroll through history, sir. Those exact calculations have been made time and again by people as sane as you or I. See Robber Barons, (Nineeth Century), Westward Expansion (US), and anything about criminology.

Again, I never said that moral codes were universally shared or universally obeyed. I would bet you anything you like that those Robber Barons would recoil in horror if you said to them "so, for you an innocent life is worth N dollars, right?" The very fact that we develop complex ideologies to mask from ourselves the fact that we do so often allow our self-interest to overcome our moral judgments proves the force of those judgments. If all we we ever cared about was the calculation of self-interest those Robber Barons would proudly proclaim their ability to squeeze a buck out of the lives of the innocent and we would celebrate them for it. "Yay," we'd say, "those guys really calculated their self-interest well!"

Unless you want to make the curious assertion that anyone who does not adhere to the particulars of your value system are not sane?

It is an entirely orthodox position in psychology that those with no ability to make moral judgments of any kind are insane.

History plainly refutes this assertion. Murder and profit from murder have been with our species as long as we've been writing things down. Unless you are claiming to have read the minds of every murderer (even the dead ones) and have found "guilt" there?

Of course not. But, again, the only people who confess to murder with no sense of moral transgression are psychopaths. Most murderers construct elaborate stories to justify their actions precisely because they want to lessen their feelings of guilt. If your position were correct, it would be inexplicable that anybody, ever, had ever felt guilty about anything. What possible part of a "calculation of self-interest" could guilt be?

How, under your framework, could you ever account for somebody confessing to wrongdoing after they have successfully got away with it? And yet we know that this happens fairly frequently. How would you translate the statement "this was weighing on my conscience" into the language of the calculation of self-interest?

[Piscivore]

Only "might"? I wonder what could possible be causing that mental reservation.
The fact that there are still questions I'd want to know before pushing it. Where is the money coming from? Why is the delivery of the money tied to these deaths? How is the money going to be delivered? How do I know the moeny is going to be delivered? Is there an option for taking less money for fewer or no deaths? Things like that would be considerations in the unlikely event such an option were presented. Plus, since I do not adhere to a predetermined moral code, I might find that emotional factors I'm not considering at this time will be in play. I can't see the future enough to tell you exactly what I'd do in any circumstance.

In any case, you do realise that your "hypothetical" is basically what who-knows-how-many-thousands of Air Force pilots and bombadiers were and are asked to do on a regular basis, right? For considerably less that $3M, even. Why are they doing it? Is it "moral"?

Clearly nothing to do with any possible calculation of self-interest. Moral objections seem to me the only possible ones that could be in play.
Argument from ignorance. "I don't see self interest, therefore it must be morality."

Sorry, I should have been more precise on this point. It's no part of my argument to say that any or all moral claims are universal. When I said "we" I simply meant "the vast majority of moral agents of whom I am personally aware."
Then it's another argument from ignorance?

I also meant "you" because it's transparently obvious from all of your answers that you do, in fact, share these same moral frameworks
Sorry, just because we coincidentally end up in the same place doesn't mean we got there by the same road. If it appears so to you it just means that at best you are simply ignorant of any road but the one you took.

--you just object to the word "morality" because you associate it with narrow-minded sanctimoniousness.
I object to the word "morality" because it does not explain anything about human behaviour.

I suspect if I'd used the worth "ethics" from the start you'd never have bothered to argue with me--even though I'd have been making exactly the same point.
As Piggy so excellently pointed out, there is a signifigant difference between "morality" and "ethics". And had you said "all ethical agents are required to regard their ethical judgments as absolute" it would still be nonsense.

You seem to think that I'm claiming both a universal moral code and that everyone adheres to it. I'm not. Hence this line of argument is entirely irrelevant.
Well, you do say "we think" and "we feel" an aweful lot. If that's not the impression you mean to give you need to be a little more accurate in the words you choose.

If "morality is irrelevant" then you mean "nobody actually acts based on moral criteria"--right?
Right. The say they do, but they violate their "morality" often enough when it conflicts with a stronger need or desire. That's why we get preist who molest kids, and cops who take bribes, neighbors who sell each other out to oppresive governments, or mothers that kill their kids.

If you are saying that "nobody acts on moral criteria" you are saying "when people claim to be acting on moral criteria they are actually acting on a calculation of self-interest."
Yes. It just happens that their self interest coincides with their view of "morality"- which is not an accident. Most people are indoctrinated pretty heavily to accept the relevant "moral" codes of their societies, by their parents, teachers, elders, what have you. it's much easier to live with other people if you think you know waht they are thinking and what they are going to do. Which is the entire basis for "culture clashes"- the uncertainty that come from not knowing.

Therefore, in your view, morality=calculation of self-interest.
No. In my view The basis for motivations for most behaviours = self interest. Morality is irrelevant. It is not needed anywhere. It is a useless addition. It's rubbish, toss it out.

So someone who risks their own life to save others is in every single case in fact choosing suicide as a way to end their pain and suffering.
No. You asked "What possible "calculation of self-interest" could involve the annihilation of the self". Well, sometimes people commit suicide to end pain and suffering. That's what they say in their notes, at least. You said nothing about "saving others" as part of that.

When you specifically asked about people sacrificing themselves to save others, I very clearly answered you that I did not know what their self-interest was, I'd need to consider an actual instance to even guess at it.

This discussion is not served by such disingenous tactics.

ETA: Let me ask you- are animals that pull people out of burning buildings, or wake their owners when there is a fire or other danger, acting "morally"?

Wow. And you object to me claiming to know what's going on in other people's minds.
Indeed. I also object to you putting words in my mouth. It reflects a lack of intellectual integrity that does not serve you as well as you think.

This is pretty funny when I consider your communitarian objection to the random killing hypothesis ("but these people contribute to the social totality! And to the gene-pool!"). Your own moral values are drenched with "we."
I specifically outlined how such contributions could and do benefit me directly and personally. Your statement is a fallacy of composition.

Except that a totalitarian regime that is seeking to kill Jews is in no way actually harmed by your decision to secretly hide one old Jewish man.
So I said. But if their goal is to kill all the Jews in Holland, and they don't kill the one I'm hiding, they failed in their goal in that one miniscule way.

As long as the guy is successfully hidden nobody is aware of the regime being thwarted
I know. The old man knows.

and thus its grip on power is in no way lessened.
Possibly. I said it satisfied an emotional need, not a political goal.

Again, as a calculation of self-interest this is utterly one sided ("on the one had this act will do nothing at all to undermine the power of this tyrannical regime; on the other hand it could very well get me killed....").
You are trying to impose different values on me than the ones I gave you. I never said the object was to cause real political damage to the regime, I said it served an emotional need in myself to not comply.

When you ask me for a number and I give you 106, and you ask me how I got the figure, and I tell you I added up the ages of my family, you don't get to say "NO, you didn't include 12 and 17 and 52!!!"

By the way "I value personal liberty and civil rights" is a moral claim about the way you think society should be structured for the "we."
It is, for some people, about "we". There are all kinds of values that certain people- "crusaders" if you will- think ought to be imposed on others. I personally value personal liberty and civil rights for myself. I will usually recognise them for anyone else that claims them for themselves as it helps bolster my claim to them. I generally won't try to deny them to anyone because that would tend to weaken my claim on them. But I won't try to impose them on anyone that doesn't want it or won't assert it for themselves.

A calculation of "self-interest" would not care about "rights" but about what you are personally empowered to do.
Exactly so.

From the perspective of pure self-interest your ideal should be to be the tyrant in a tyrannical society. That way you are as free as it is possible to be.
Tyrants are not free. Tyrants are perhaps the least free people. Their position is tenuous, rarely as pleasant as it seems it should be, fraught with paranoia and distrust, highly insular, and often short. I have no interest in living that kind of life.

Your notions of what constitutes self-interest are quaint and naive, as if it were inherently a "dirty word" encompassing the very worst impulses humankind has to offer. You must have been indoctrinated very well. Please do continue. :)

I find it really charming the way that you can't help but reveal your actual moral engagement in these matters even while you strenuously decry morality. "Oboe lessons on the graves of our enemies"? Where's the calculation of self-interest in this celebration of the defeat of evil and the triumph of the human spirit.
Who said anything about "evil"? Evil is as much an illusion as "morality" And "Triumph of the human spirit"? Such grand and poetic notions you have. No, I'm afraid the impulse to which I was refering is nothing so noble- more like "You wanted to kill us, but you're dead instead, neener neener neener."

Who was it that so recently whined "Please, just read what I wrote, for FSM's sake. Don't read what you wish that I'd wrote or what, in your frenzy to post a rebuttal, you imagined I wrote. READ WHAT I WROTE." :)

You love the idea of this guy's artistry--however mediocre--being preserved against tyranny.
Yep. I value art.

You value his talent as something inherently precious,
No, not inherently precious. I value it because I value art and music. If I didn't, it wouldn't be a consideration.

...quite abstracted from any calculation of actual benefit to you or to anyone else.
Nope, not abstracted at all. Literally no one will play the oboe like he does- whether he is "the best" or not.

And why? Because, again, you accord human life--in its rich individuality--an absolute value
No, I dont. If it were a pedophile, say, I wouldn't shelter him no matter what other facters were in play- I have kids, and that factor takes priority to me. If he were a cannibal, likewise. If he were not interested in his own survival, for instance, if he insisted in walking down to the pub to paly checkers every day like he used to, I would not shelter him.

Again, just because we get to the same place doen't mean we used the same road. You're making a fallacy of affirming the consequent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent):
Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
Arguments of this form are invalid, in that the conclusion (3) does not have to follow even when statements 1 and 2 are true. The simple reason for this is that P was never asserted as the only cause of Q, so, in general, any number of other factors could have caused Q (while P was false).

1) If someone were moral, they would shelter a Jew from the Nazis
2) Piscivore would shelter a Jew from the Nazis
3) Therefore, Piscivore is moral.

(absolute in the sense that it is not contingent in any way upon any benefit he can provide to you or to anyone else).
Which I've already demonstrated to be untrue.

You value his particular being in itself and you disapprove of anyone who would unjustly destroy that being.
No, I don't. Now you are just stinking fingers in your ears and chanting "youagreewithmeyouagreewithme". Assertion is not evidence.

Is this because you think his particular skills are inherently important? Pish. I said he was in no way an outstanding oboist.
Even a mediocre oboeist is a better one than me.

He's an ailing 80 yr old averagely talented oboe player. If the benefit you wanted were oboe music you can go out and hire a better player with ease.
I didn't say it was necessarily a benefit I sought out, it's just one of many I would have. Again, if it soley came down to his oboe skill, I might not. But that is a minor consideration only.

And what, exactly, is the "calculation of self-interest" involved in being remember past your lifetime?
Vanity, I already said. I like thinking that people long after I'm dead will know my name. See Herostratus, Ozymandias.

I find it hard to imagine that you are believer in the afterlife. And why is it important for you to be remembered as a good person?
I didn't say anything about "good". "Good" is in the eye of the beholder anyway.

If all you want it to be remembered, there are easier ways to accomplish that.
Sure. But again, this is only one of several benefits. If the potantial to get my name on a monument were the only factor, I might not.

And, again, what about people who give their lives to save others and do so anonymously?
I cannot even guess what their motivation was. They are not me.

Do you regard such people as saps who failed to adequately calculate their self-interest?
Maybe. Maybe they just have a different idea about what served themselves than I do. Of course, since you don't cite a single actual example of one, talking about imaginary people is pointless.

The thought that the potential benefit outweighs the potential losses. That's not the case, however, in any of the hypothetical cases I've given you.
Yes it is, and I've illustrated how to you. You are going through some really amusing mental gymnastics to attempt ignoring or discrediting them, however.


See, this is why I find hypotheticals useless- the positor just keeps changing the rules to try to get an answer he wants. This specific quantification does not correlate to the situations you've offered in any way except in your own mind.

Not all values are moral values, no. You like chocolate, but you don't think that chocolate is inherently valuable; that is, you wouldn't imagine it worth getting involved in a political campaign to force all restaurants to offer a chocolate dessert.
Are you speaking for me now? I don't remember giving you power of attorney to decide what I will and won't do- let alone what I would "imagine".

You (clearly) would be willing to take part in a political campaign to guarantee certain civil rights--even if those civil rights were not ones that you yourself would benefit from
I've explained already how I benefit from other people having "rights". Just because you choose to blind yourself to that doesn't make your assertions correct.

(as, for example, many straight people take part in the fight for gay marriage). Those are moral values. And, whether you like the idea or not, you have them.
You're affirming the consequent again.

Actually, that shows precisely how you see yourself as governed by moral restraint rather than by legal restraint. You drive fast because you don't see it as morally wrong to do so (despite the fact that it is against the law).
Nope, "morality" isn't in the equation at all. I drive fast beacuse I am impatient and don't care what other people think about it.

What you offer is a false dichotomy- if I am not bound by legal restraint I must be bound by moral restraint. You ignore the possibility that I may not be bound by either.

[quote]I presume there are plenty of other illegal acts that you don't do, even though you would be likely to get away with them and they would be to your benefit
You might be surprised.

because you find them morally repugnant (or, seeing as you don't like that term; because you don't like the way that you would feel about yourself and that other people would feel about you if you did them).
You may "presume" all you want- it doesn't make your presumptions fact. All you are doing is commiting another fallacy- petitio principii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petitio_principii) this time

Once you're "valuing their rights" rather than valuing specific benefits to yourself I'm afraid you're making moral judgments.
Good thing I'm not doing that then.

Yeah, sure; that's where I came in: our moral judgments are absolute. Even though we recognize that people do live by different moral codes, we can't stand outside our own moral frameworks.
Why don't you tell me, by number and quoted definition, to which sense of the word "absolute (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absolute)" you are referring here.

Where did I say that moral values are unchanging? I think throughout this argument you've been arguing with a boogeyman of your own invention. You thought I was saying that there was some absolute moral code that everyone shared and that was eternal and unchanging. That was never my point. Our moral positions change all the time and are often radically incompatible with other people's.
That's fair enough, I may have done.

Wow--modesty. How moral of you. "Why, I'm doing what anyone would do."
I didn't say that. I have no idea what anyone would do. In fact, as I said, many many people did not do it. I'm merely confirming what you mentioned earlier- that the benefit to hiding the man is not effecting actual political change.

By which, of course, you mean "I'm doing what we all should do,
Nonsense. That's what you would like me to mean.

but which I know very many people would not do." That entire position is meaningless outside of a moral framework.
No, unfortunately it is the moral framework that is meaningless without the "position" being in place first.

"Absolute value" doesn't meant that you can't imagine justified killing. It means simply that you attribute an inherent value to human lives;
Which is ridiculous, everybody dies, often pointlessly. That people value human life does not mean they value it because it is human life. That's another "affirming the consequent" fallacy.

for you to be willing to snuff a life out (or see others snuff it out) you need to be persuaded that some other values are in conflict with that person's continued existence.
Yes. The value in which one holds (for whatever reason) the person life balances agains the values that are served by the person's death. The balance point on that beam being variable, of course.

The fact that you prize the lives of "random strangers" (to the extent that even a free gift of $3 million only makes you say "hmmm, I would have to think about that"
The fact I only said I'd consider it speaks to your failure to outline a realistic scenario, it says nothing about my beliefs and values- let alone that I "prize" the lifes of random strangers. Affirming the consequent again.

when racked up against their lives--utterly insignificant to you in terms of "self interest")
"Utterly insignifigant" only by your assertion, as if you had the ability to divine my thoughts and emotions. You have not the slightest gorram idea what or who I might choose to care about- you can't because even I don't always.

proves my point; those lives have for you an inherent value that is absolute--not contingent upon any consequences those lives have for you.
Which directly contradicts everything I've said about it. Whoever installed your blinders must be very proud.

HA! Oh no, there's no "we" for you at all, is there Piscivore. You stand alone, coldly calculating what is purely in your self interest as you hide people from tyrannical regimes and as you celebrate the downfall of tyrannies whether you suffered under them or not and as you fret about the fate of the human race even long after your death...
There is that sadly naive and warped conception you have of "self-interest" again.

Chances are you'll ignore this as you have everything else in favour of your own opinions, but:

1) I've specifically stated that emotions play a lager part of what I do, so "coldly calculating" is dishonest
2) What is "purely in [my] self intrerst] frequently conincides with the self-interests of others. You seem to discount any notion of the "win-win" scenario
3) "hiding people for tyrannical regimes" was your invention, not something I claimed for myself. I have thusfar not been put in that position
4) There are any number of reason to "celebrate the downfall of tyrannies" that have nothing to do with "morality- affirming the consequent really is a big factor in your thinking, isn't it?
5) the notion that I "fret about the fate of the human race even long after your death" is your invention as well. Reading my mind again?

You sound like a decent guy, Piscivore. I think our moral values are mostly pretty similar.
Sure, you'd like to think so. You clearly want to think so about "the vast majority of moral agents of whom I am personally aware". It make it a lot easier to live next to somebody when you assume he's just like you, more or less. That's why people cling to "moral codes"0- they want desperately to believe this- as much or more than the religious want to believe there is a kind old man in the sky watching out for them.

Doesn't make it true.

Again, I never said that moral codes were universally shared or universally obeyed. I would bet you anything you like that those Robber Barons would recoil in horror if you said to them "so, for you an innocent life is worth N dollars, right?"
What the hell do you think workman's comp and life insurance does?


The very fact that we develop complex ideologies to mask from ourselves the fact that we do so often allow our self-interest to overcome our moral judgments proves the force of those judgments.
You've got it backwards. We all act according to what we percieve our self-interest to be and some of us develop or accept complex ideologies to explain why that deviates from what we claim our "moral judgements" are.

If all we we ever cared about was the calculation of self-interest those Robber Barons would proudly proclaim their ability to squeeze a buck out of the lives of the innocent and we would celebrate them for it. "Yay," we'd say, "those guys really calculated their self-interest well!"
Once again asseerting a narrow, naive, and prejudicail conception of "self-interest"

Nevertheless, there are some that do. We had one deluded libertarian recently on this very board that did praise them for exactly that.

Like I said, in my view, I benefit more when others benefit also, as opposed to how much I benefit when others suffer.

It is an entirely orthodox position in psychology that those with no ability to make moral judgments of any kind are insane.
Cite?

And that's not what I asked. Are those that make "moral judgments" different from your own "moral judjments" insane?

Of course not. But, again, the only people who confess to murder with no sense of moral transgression are psychopaths.
Cite?

Most murderers construct elaborate stories to justify their actions precisely because they want to lessen their feelings of guilt.
Cite?

[quote]If your position were correct, it would be inexplicable that anybody, ever, had ever felt guilty about anything.
It's not inexplicable at all. They accepted someone else's - parent's, religious leader's, government's, or some such- ideas about what they "should" do instead of their own.

What possible part of a "calculation of self-interest" could guilt be?
None, as far as I can see.

How, under your framework, could you ever account for somebody confessing to wrongdoing after they have successfully got away with it?
What they felt was in their self-interest changed. See Alcoholics Anonymous, steps 8 & 9.

And yet we know that this happens fairly frequently. How would you translate the statement "this was weighing on my conscience" into the language of the calculation of self-interest?
A new emotional need created by an incompatibility with their previous ideas about self-interest at the time of the act with their current conception of self-interest. For instance, a spouse who cheats might pressured at the time of the infidelity with sexual desire, loneliness, or some other factor that overwhelms the emotional pressures- concern for the integrity of the family, desire for the happiness of the spouse- pushing him or her to remain faithful. later, after the immediate pressure that caused the act to happen are absent, other pressures- wishing to escape the stress from the need for secrecy, repudiating the act, trying to lessen the severity of the act by "coming clean" before it is found out- may be said to be "this was weighing on my conscience".

Of course, this is all highly speculative. Every situation and every person is going to be unique.

[theprestige]

You raise some good points, but I'm of the opinion (:))that personal opinion does not have much to do with morality. Morality is a group consensus, and what any individual thinks about it probably doesn't have much of an effect on morality as a whole.

We as individuals derive our morality from society - from our parents, our teachers and peers, from television and entertainment, and from the other people that we share our locations with. If one individual disagrees with the morality of the whole, then society usually arranges to correct the deviation - through prosecution by law in modern liberal democracies, or in milder cases simply by peer pressure.

So whether I think that my opinion on morality is universally correct or not (and for the record, I don't) isn't really the issue.
So what is the issue, then?

And are you saying that conditionality and subjectivity are separate questions, or not?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Objective Morality

Oxymoron.

[arthwollipot]

So what is the issue, then?

And are you saying that conditionality and subjectivity are separate questions, or not?I'm pretty sure that either is or is not what I was saying.

[fromdownunder]

I would be interested if somebody could even come up with a definition of objective morality that could generally be agreed on. Because if it cannot be agreed on by definition, it cannot exist.

I will just chuck this at the wall and see if it sticks, as I have no issues with the discussion, but I have never seen an agreed definition used as a starting point to any discussion on the subject:

Objective Morals (upper case intentional) are things all humans agree on that should never be done by any person at any time under any circumstances.

Can anybody up the bidding on this? And by all means, disagree and poke sticks at it.

Norm

[P.J. Denyer]

would that be ethical?


roflmao

[Piscivore]

I would be interested if somebody could even come up with a definition of objective morality that could generally be agreed on.
Parsing through a dictionary gives "A doctrine or system of principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong existing independent of an observer as part of reality."

That's how I understand the term.

Because if it cannot be agreed on by definition, it cannot exist.
Well, I'm not sure if that is true. Things wich we don't know about and haven't defined yet may very well exist- or else what is discovery?

I will just chuck this at the wall and see if it sticks, as I have no issues with the discussion, but I have never seen an agreed definition used as a starting point to any discussion on the subject:

Objective Morals (upper case intentional) are things all humans agree on that should never be done by any person at any time under any circumstances.
That's a pretty fair estimation.

[quadraginta]

Parsing through a dictionary gives "A doctrine or system of principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong existing independent of an observer as part of reality."

That's how I understand the term.

<snip>



My problem with this is that it is words strung together which sound like they mean something without actually doing so. It suggests that "right and wrong" are things which can be independent of an observer.

I'm not saying that correctly. Sorry. "Right and wrong" are concepts which require the framework of a perspective, i.e. culture, religion, etc. It's the same question we started the thread with.

Objective Morals (upper case intentional) are things all humans agree on that should never be done by any person at any time under any circumstances.


That's a pretty fair estimation.I'm pretty much okay with that too, since it admits the human perspective .

Now the question is, can we actually develop an example of such an agreement without hanging so many qualifiers on it that it reads like a contract from an insurance company?

[Piscivore]

My problem with this is that it is words strung together which sound like they mean something without actually doing so.
I cut and pasted only the words from the definitions on Dictionary.com which referenced the senses in which the words "objective" and "morality" are used. Yeah, it's a bit awkward.

It suggests that "right and wrong" are things which can be independent of an observer.
Well, wouldn't there need to be, in some Platonic form, to be truly objective? Isn't that really what the notion comes down to- that it's something outside ourselves that we serve, rather than the other way around?

I'm not saying that correctly. Sorry. "Right and wrong" are concepts which require the framework of a perspective, i.e. culture, religion, etc. It's the same question we started the thread with.
Right, but the notion of "objective" means that regardless of the observer, "right" and "wrong" are always the same. I think that once you accept that there is no external source for "morality" there is no possible way for it to ever be objective.

Thus "morality" itself can be binned, right next to God and yesterday's newspaper.

Now the question is, can we actually develop an example of such an agreement without hanging so many qualifiers on it that it reads like a contract from an insurance company?
:)

[theprestige]

Objective Morals (upper case intentional) are things all humans agree on that should never be done by any person at any time under any circumstances.
That's a pretty fair estimation.
I'm pretty much okay with that too, since it admits the human perspective.
Why does universal human agreement have to be a part of it? I thought the whole point of "objective truth" was that it was true regardless of whether or not everybody agrees that it's true.

I mean, is the Apollo Project not objectively true, simply because not "all humans agree on" its truth?

I'm not saying that morality is objective (I mean, I think it is, but that's not what I'm arguing here). I am saying that if it is objective then "everybody agrees on it" can't be the source of its objectivity.

That said... what about murder? It seems as though almost every human society agrees that there exists a category of killing that is morally unacceptable.

Most societies differ on the details of what kinds of killings, under what kinds of circumstances fall into thhe "murder" category. But if a foreigner came to your country and killed a business associate because of a contract violation, and you told him "that may be permissible in your country, but here we consider that murder", he'd know exactly what you were talking about. He might thing your culture foolish for allowing a contract-violator to live, but he'd understand the "murder" category, and he'd understand the need for putting things in it.

[fromdownunder]

Most societies differ on the details of what kinds of killings, under what kinds of circumstances fall into thhe "murder" category. But if a foreigner came to your country and killed a business associate because of a contract violation, and you told him "that may be permissible in your country, but here we consider that murder", he'd know exactly what you were talking about. He might thing your culture foolish for allowing a contract-violator to live, but he'd understand the "murder" category, and he'd understand the need for putting things in it.

As you have pointed out, "murder" is a relative term, and not an absolute one.

Many of these societies are quite happy to send their own citizens into other countries societies and murder their citizens, and some are still quite happy to murder their own citizens for breaking various laws.

Norm

[Piscivore]

Why does universal human agreement have to be a part of it? I thought the whole point of "objective truth" was that it was true regardless of whether or not everybody agrees that it's true.

I mean, is the Apollo Project not objectively true, simply because not "all humans agree on" its truth?

I'm not saying that morality is objective (I mean, I think it is, but that's not what I'm arguing here). I am saying that if it is objective then "everybody agrees on it" can't be the source of its objectivity.
You're absolutely right, and well spotted. What I think fromdownunder was trying to do was formulate an expression of objective morality based on the premise that morality is human created. If that premise is true, it can only be objective if all humans- consciously or not- agree that it is true. Which of course is also nonsense.

That said... what about murder? It seems as though almost every human society agrees that there exists a category of killing that is morally unacceptable.
But that proscribed "category of killing" is so variable across cultures and so frequently subject to exceptions in specific cases that no "universal" rule whatsoever can be gleaned from it. Try and formulate any universal version of a "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and you'll start getting into statements so ridiculously precise that they are meaningless most of the time- and when you're done there's going to be found somewhere in history a culture that allowed it.

This is why we have a judgment based legal system, by the way- because in no case is "justice" or "morality" (fancy words for "the perceived self interest of the community") served by mindlessly following black-or-white notions like "killing people is wrong".

Most societies differ on the details of what kinds of killings, under what kinds of circumstances fall into thhe "murder" category. But if a foreigner came to your country and killed a business associate because of a contract violation, and you told him "that may be permissible in your country, but here we consider that murder", he'd know exactly what you were talking about. He might thing your culture foolish for allowing a contract-violator to live, but he'd understand the "murder" category, and he'd understand the need for putting things in it.
That he understands the word and the idea just means that he and I share a common word and idea, not that there is a universal rule of correct conduct.

ETA: Compare to the idea of "God"- is the fact that he understands the idea of a big sky daddy called Allah and I understand the notion of a big sky daddy named Jehova eveidence that "god" exists?

You mentioned you think there is an objective morality- do you mind sharing what you think that is, and where it comes from?

[theprestige]

As you have pointed out, "murder" is a relative term, and not an absolute one.
You misunderstood my point. First, I do not make the point that "murder" is an absolute term. So any attack on that point is an attack on a straw man.

Second, in the point I made, I drew a distinction between the idea of "murder"--"killing that is morally wrong"--and the implementation of that idea in a particular society. Any attack that fails to recognize that distinction, fails.

The point I made is that most--if not all--human societies seem to share a paricular value: that sometimes killing people is wrong. They seem to share this value in common, even when they differ on exactly which times that might be.

Someone who kills in self defense objects to being labeled a murderer because they believe that murder is wrong, not because they believe that murder doesn't exist.

I do not argue from this that therefore murder is objective.


That he understands the word and the idea just means that he and I share a common word and idea, not that there is a universal rule of correct conduct.
I agree. However, it does seem that you and he--and apparently almost every other human ever--do agree that sometimes it's wrong to kill people.

If (as has been suggested) morality originates from humanity itself, then perhaps the notion of universal agreement isn't as nonsensical as you think...

You mentioned you think there is an objective morality- do you mind sharing what you think that is, and where it comes from?
I reason from the apparent universal agreement among humans that the concepts of "right" and 'wrong" exist is evidence that they do, in fact, exist. But I see this as essentially axiomatic.

I'm not interested in discussing any theory of origin at this time. As far as I'm concerned, the hypothesis that humanity's universal agreement on the existence of right and wrong originates as an evolutionary necessity or by-product of the species' natural selection serves just as well as any other hypothesis.

[Piscivore]

I agree. However, it does seem that you and he--and apparently almost every other human ever--do agree that sometimes it's wrong to kill people.
Well sure- you start killing too many people and they are going to get together and make you stop. Thanks to our long and bloody history as a species we've many of us come to the conclusion that stopping the ones that don't seem to mind it so much sooner rather than later is a well-advised. Also, you kill your neighbor and he can't help raise your barn, he can't share his food with you if your barn burns down, he cant father mates for your offspring, etc. It's is all about self-preservation and self-interest, not morality.

If (as has been suggested) morality originates from humanity itself, then perhaps the notion of universal agreement isn't as nonsensical as you think...
We come to similar conclusions about behavior when we formulate them under similar conditions because we all work with the same equipment (more or less). Change the circumstances and the conclusions change. Change the equipment (psychoactive drugs, lobotomy) and the behaviour changes.

The idea that we come to similar conclusions about killing because there is a universal notion of "wrong" is akin to saying we build doors near ground level because there is a universal notion that coming in through upstairs windows is wrong- when it's really because we have feet, not wings.

I reason from the apparent universal agreement among humans that the concepts of "right" and 'wrong" exist is evidence that they do, in fact, exist. But I see this as essentially axiomatic.
That just means the concepts exist, not that they designate anything "real" or meaningful. Same as the concepts "god" or "Superman" existing doesn't mean that such real entities exists. that's some kind of fallacy but I'm not really sure which right now.

When you look closely at "right" and "wrong" all they mean to anyone as far as behaviour is concerned is "agrees with my opinions and values" and "does not agree with my opinions and values". That this is a "universal" is only a reflection of the fact that we all use basically the same equipment to process inputs, nothing else- just the same as everyone who does not have wings "agreeing" to use doors, not windows.

I'm not interested in discussing any theory of origin at this time. As far as I'm concerned, the hypothesis that humanity's universal agreement on the existence of right and wrong originates as an evolutionary necessity or by-product of the species' natural selection serves just as well as any other hypothesis.
Fair enough. I'm not sure that the evolutionary necessity thing is correct, but I'm not 100% sure on that opinion.

[fromdownunder]

I do not argue from this that therefore murder is objective.



Fair enough.

Norm

[Malerin]

Maybe we could start by examining certain acts, and seeing if there's any "universality" to them. For example, Is there any situation anyone can think of where the rape of a child would be permissible?

Another way of phrasing that would be: can you imagine a situation where, if you were watching a person rape a child, you would not feel the need to intervene on the child's behalf?

[Piscivore]

Maybe we could start by examining certain acts, and seeing if there's any "universality" to them. For example, Is there any situation anyone can think of where the rape of a child would be permissible?
Probably. For instance to save them from being sacrified because of their virginity.

Another way of phrasing that would be: can you imagine a situation where, if you were watching a person rape a child, you would not feel the need to intervene on the child's behalf?

That would only give you anecdotal evidence at best. Even if every single person on this board, or even in our respective countries, said "no" it isn't even a single step towards proving universiality.

ETA: Contrariwise, the fact that people have and continue to write about, fantasise about, plan, attempt and actually carry out the rape of children is pretty strong evidence that at least some people do indeed imagine a situation where raping a child is acceptable.

[Malerin]

Probably. For instance to save them from being sacrified because of their virginity.

Right. So then I refine the question: Is there any situation anyone can think of where the rape of a child for the sole purporse (and with the sole outcome) of sexual gratification would be permissible?



That would only give you anecdotal evidence at best. Even if every single person on this board, or even in our respective countries, said "no" it isn't even a single step towards proving universiality.

Isn't a single step? If we asked a billion people, and 99% of them said "no" that wouldn't be suggestive of anything?

ETA: Contrariwise, the fact that people have and continue to write about, fantasise about, plan, attempt and actually carry out the rape of children is pretty strong evidence that at least some people do indeed imagine a situation where raping a child is acceptable.

Not necessarily. If there's an objective morality, the people who carry out such things would be "wrong" (and incarcerated for a long time), and the people who fantasize about such things would be shunned by almost all who knew them (except by other people with APD). The fact that people think it permissible to act a certain way, does not mean there is no universality- it could just mean those people are wrong because their actions go against universal moral truths.

Your point would be like saying 23 is not universally a prime number because some people erroneously think you can get 23 from 6 times 4. That doesn't make it relative- it just means those people who don't think 23 is a prime number are wrong. The same could be true of the inability to grasp moral truths.

[Piscivore]

Right. So then I refine the question: Is there any situation anyone can think of where the rape of a child for the sole purporse (and with the sole outcome) of sexual gratification would be permissible?
Yes. Because people do it. It has often been acceptable in many cults for the leader to take child brides whether they liked it or not. Arranged marriages without the consent of the bride or groom were once common.

And, by the bye, this is the first step in the narrowing down process I mentioned before- we've already pared down the "universal moral truth" from "raping a child" to "raping a child for sexual gratification". Next it will be "raping a child for sexual gratification when the child is prepubescent", I suppose.

Further, "permissable" assumes some external authority- who is that? God? "Society"? What happens when different gods and different societies have different ideas about what the "universal moral truths" are?

Lastly, just because you or I may not think of a situation where it might be acceptable doesn't mean such a situation does not or may not exist. Fallacies of ignorance and incredulity.


Isn't a single step? If we asked a billion people, and 99% of them said "no" that wouldn't be suggestive of anything?
"Suggestive"? Maybe. But that's not proof- it isn't even very compelling evidence. That's just 1/100th (estimated) of all the people that have lived.

ETA: And that there is 1% that presumably said "yes" suggests very strongly that there is no "universal moral truth". Unless you are using some definition of "universal" with which I am not familiar.

If we photograph a billion swans, and none of them are black, does that prove there are no black swans?

Not necessarily. If there's an objective morality, the people who carry out such things would be "wrong" (and incarcerated for a long time), and the people who fantasize about such things would be shunned by almost all who knew them (except by other people with APD). The fact that people think it permissible to act a certain way, does not mean there is no universality- it could just mean those people are wrong because their actions go against universal moral truths.
Which also doesn't do anything at all for showing that there are "universal moral truths". "Ifs" aren't evidence. But if there are universal moral truths, not only does the one asserting them need to explain from where these truths come, they now have to explain how they can be violated.

Your point would be like saying 23 is not universally a prime number because some people erroneously think you can get 23 from 6 times 4. That doesn't make it relative- it just means those people who don't think 23 is a prime number are wrong. The same could be true of the inability to grasp moral truths.
23 is a prime number because that's the way we've defined the numbers. If we used some other base than Ten 23 might not be prime- it might not even meaningfully exist. That's relative. If you've got some compelling argument that using base 10 maths is anything but an arbiratry choice influenced by centuries of tradition I'd love to hear it.

Similarly, the "moral codes" we follow are the same sort of arbitrary choice, influenced by centuries of tradition. Most people that posit "universal moral truths" only think so because they do not, will not, or cannot see anything outside their own arbitrarily imposed values set. That's not evidence of a "universal moral truth", it's just another iteration of argument from ignorance.

[gnome]

23 is a prime number because that's the way we've defined the numbers. If we used some other base than Ten 23 might not be prime- it might not even meaningfully exist. That's relative. If you've got some compelling argument that using base 10 maths is anything but an arbiratry choice influenced by centuries of tradition I'd love to hear it.

You're actually mistaken here about prime numbers' dependency on exponential base.

23 is a prime number in any numeric base. Number of whole number factors isn't affected by base.

[Piscivore]

You're actually mistaken here about prime numbers' dependency on exponential base.

23 is a prime number in any numeric base. Number of whole number factors isn't affected by base.

In binary "23" doesn't exist.

In base 12 (http://www.base12math.com/) the primes are 1, 2, 3, 5,7, b, 11, 15, 17, 1b, 25...

[Malerin]

Yes. Because people do it.

Huh? So that makes it OK?

It has often been acceptable in many cults for the leader to take child brides whether they liked it or not. Arranged marriages without the consent of the bride or groom were once common.

Again, the fact that the practice has occurred does not make it relative (e.g., permissible in certain cases). You would need to argue that the practice has occurred in the past, and the people doing it were acting morally. You haven't done the second part. It's like saying slavery is OK because we used to allow slavery. Suppose you somehow were transported into the past into a situation where some prince was about to rape a child bride. Also assume you could stop the prince without any danger to yourself. Are you honestly saying that you would stand aside and let the child be raped?

And, by the bye, this is the first step in the narrowing down process I mentioned before- we've already pared down the "universal moral truth" from "raping a child" to "raping a child for sexual gratification". Next it will be "raping a child for sexual gratification when the child is prepubescent", I suppose.

Which is not a problem if you reach a point where a situation is so morally abhorrent, no sane person would go along with it. If that means a highly detailed scenario, so be it. The point is, I'm trying to get at some moral act that is universally viewed as wrong. The argument you're making here is the old saw others have done it, so it must be OK.

[Hokulele]

No, Piscivore is arguing, "Others have done it, so they must have thought it to be morally OK."

[Piscivore]

Huh? So that makes it OK?
As Hokulele points out, it means that the ones doing it probably thought so. Very few people think they are the "bad guy".

Again, the fact that the practice has occurred does not make it relative (e.g., permissible in certain cases). You would need to argue that the practice has occurred in the past, and the people doing it were acting morally.
I don't have to do any such thing, because it is my argument that "acting morally" is meaningless. It is just a label for "agrees with my personal opinions about what is right and wrong".

You haven't done the second part. It's like saying slavery is OK because we used to allow slavery.
Slavery was not immoral in the places where it was practiced or to the people who kept slaves. They fought a war because they thought it should continue. Slavery was also not immoral hardly anywhere in antiquity. Why is that, if it is an objective, universal moral truth that it is wrong?

Suppose you somehow were transported into the past into a situation where some prince was about to rape a child bride. Also assume you could stop the prince without any danger to yourself. Are you honestly saying that you would stand aside and let the child be raped?
What I would or would not do is irrelevant. The fact remains that the prince does not see it as immoral. Relying on what I would do and ignoring what the prince is doing is cherry picking. Trying to make a univeral truth out of what I would do is hasty generalisation.

Which is not a problem if you reach a point where a situation is so morally abhorrent, no sane person would go along with it.
Let me know when you find it. Before you invest too much effort on this "child rape" thing as your best horse in that race, though, you might want to check out the behaviour of the Japanese when they visited Nanking back in the Thirties.

If that means a highly detailed scenario, so be it.
That's going to be a a pretty useless "universal moral truth", though, isn't it. I don't see any possible version of such a specific "truth" ever fitting on a bumper sticker, being cut in stone on a courthouse, or influencing one's day to day behaviours.

The point is, I'm trying to get at some moral act that is universally viewed as wrong.
Good luck. I'm going to go get a beer with Diogenes. I understand he's probably got some good advice about waiting a loooong time I could use. While you're looking, can you give me a hint as to where you think this "universal moral truth" might come from?

The argument you're making here is the old saw others have done it, so it must be OK.
Again, as Hok said, it's "others have done it, so they must have thought it to be OK".

[Malerin]

Again, as Hok said, it's "others have done it, so they must have thought it to be OK".

This goes back to the first point you made: others have thought 23 is a composite number so therefore 23 is not universally a prime number.

Just because others think something does not make a proposition non-universal. Those are the only two arguments you've given:
1. There are psychopaths, so it is moral to act like a psychopath
2. Others thought they were acting morally, so therefore they were acting morally.

Neither of these is very convincing. Neither is claiming there is no morality. As Yoink pointed out, we act against our self-interest all the time for moral reasons, and nearly all of us feel the intuitive pull of right and wrong. There is a name for the ones that don't, which can be found in the DSM IV.

[Piscivore]

This goes back to the first point you made: others have thought 23 is a composite number so therefore 23 is not universally a prime number.
That's not a point I made. That comparison to primes is one you made and are now insinuating is valid. Leaving aside the issue on whether "23" is always prime as off-topic (although I still fail to see how "23" can be prime in a number system in which it doesn't even exist), you have yet to present any evidence at all that "universal moral truth" share the same objective existence as "prime numbers".

Just because others think something does not make a proposition non-universal.

True. Which is why "thinking" really hasn't anything to do with it. I can't read minds, I suspect you cannot either. What we have is evidence of what people do. What people do strongly suggests that they do not all agree on the same rules of proper conduct.

Those are the only two arguments you've given:
1. There are psychopaths, so it is moral to act like a psychopath
2. Others thought they were acting morally, so therefore they were acting morally.
I have made neither of those arguments, because both those arguments assume that "morality" is something that meaningfully exists. I am arguing that "morality" does not meaningfully exist except as a label for one's own biases. it is irrelevant whether or not any one "thinks" they are acting "morally" or not. And "psychopathy" has just been co-opted by moralists as the new "sin". Let me explain.

Premises:
Rules for what consititues proper behaviour demonstrably need to be taught to humans by others. They do not act as if they are born with them.

Ideas about rules for proper behaviour differ between culture to culture, nation to nation, city to city, family to family, and even person to person.

Rules for proper behaviour either come from a source external to humans or they do not. There is no evidence presented thusfar for an external source.

Rules for proper behaviour are either constant and unchanging or they are not.

People change their behaviour based on different situations or different emotional or environmental pressures.

People have been observed violating moral codes because of new situations or new emotional or environmental pressures.

"Morality" is defined as "rules for what consititues proper behaviour".

Morality does not have to be formalised into a list or code to be rules for proper beahviour.

Using these, let's examine this idea of "universal, objective morality".

If morality differs from person to person as behaviour suggests, and there is an external, as yet unidentified and unevidenced source, it is possible that the differences in behaviour stem from perceptual errors on the part of humans.

If there is an external source for morality, and if people cannot completely or accurately percieve it, the "universal" nature of morality is meaningless- we are functionally no different than if morality is subjective and human created.

Contrariwise, If morailty is created by humans, an morality differs from person to person, then morality is defined on a personal basis based on their drives and desires- operant conditioning in "society's" version of morality being jsut another drive.

If moralilty is defined on a personal basis an people have their own biological drives and desires, the morality of each person is likely to be influenced heavily by these drives and desires.

If morality is human created, based on the drives and desires of the individual, and have been observed to be violated because of new situations or new emotional or environmental pressures, it is meaningless as a behavioural constant.

ETA: My hypothesis relys only on observed human behaviour and what humans are documented to have done to explain it. Your seems to require an understanding of what humans will do. I don't have access to that.

Further, it is going to be up to you to show what the additional entity explains that nothing else does, and document that these things that are only explained by the additional entity actually take place. Further, you have to explain the majority of human behaviour in which your additional entity does not seem to have an affect.

The simplest explanation to me for the additional enity's existence is you (and everyone who posits a similar belief) want it to be true. Just like god.

Neither of these is very convincing. Neither is claiming there is no morality. As Yoink pointed out, we act against our self-interest all the time for moral reasons,
It just means that these "moral reasons" (more accurately identified as behavioural conditioning) have a stronger influence that simple desire- which is all that poor Yoink can evidently conceive of as "self-interest".

and nearly all of us feel the intuitive pull of right and wrong.
"Nearly all" is not all -so "universiality" still wants defenestrating from consideration. Leaving that aside- do you read minds? How do you know what "everybody" feels? What is more likely is that you would like to believe that "everybody" feels the same way about right and wrong" as you do- it would make life ever so much safer and simpler.

There is a name for the ones that don't, which can be found in the DSM IV.
"There is a name for those that don't feel the pull of right and wrong- it's found in the Bible"

I think you'll find that Antisocial Personality Disorder (which used to be called "psychopathy") has as one of its diagnostic criteria "The symptoms have caused and continue to cause significant distress or negative consequences in different aspects of the person's life"- in otherwords, failure to act in one's own interest- and that "failure to conform to society's norms and expectations" is a symptom, not the definition of the disorder.

The way yoiu definie it, as a explanation for why people don't act the way your assertion suggests they will, does not seem a bit different from "sin". Are you asserting that every single person that does not act "morally" according to you is mentally ill? Are you further asserting that until children are taught the prevaling rules of proper behaviour for the society in which they are born they are mentally ill? If not, and assuming you assertion is correct that "morality" is understood by all sane people the same way- why don't people act morally?

[JJM 777]

Is morality objective?
Yes and no.

Yes, you can observe and classify people's actions with quite similar degree of objectivity as you can observe and classify anything else in universe. For example:

http://www.johnjoemittler.com/ethics/English/ch_04.html

But no, all people will not agree with you when you try to define, which of the observed categories of human behaviour are "good / right" and which of them are "evil / wrong".

To give an example, some would say that Capitalism is moral and the right thing to do in life, others would say that it is selfish and immoral. The objective part is observing and classifying people's actions to "Capitalism", "Socialism" or any degree between them, or any other classified alternative. The subjective part is trying to decide or agree, which of these classified alternatives is the right thing to do in life, and which of them is not right.

[gnome]

In binary "23" doesn't exist.

In base 12 (http://www.base12math.com/) the primes are 1, 2, 3, 5,7, b, 11, 15, 17, 1b, 25...

But they are just two representations of the same number.

You line up 11 (base 10) stones, and you have a prime number of stones whether you count them in binary, base 10, base 12, or whatever.

[Piscivore]

Yes and no.

Yes, you can observe and classify people's actions with quite similar degree of objectivity as you can observe and classify anything else in universe. For example:

http://www.johnjoemittler.com/ethics/English/ch_04.html
I think the word you want is consistency, not objectivity. "[Y]ou can observe and classify people's actions with quite similar degree of consistency as you can observe and classify anything else in universe. Consistently calling a rose a rose doesn't make "rose" an objectively real label for the flower.

[Piscivore]

But they are just two representations of the same number.

You line up 11 (base 10) stones, and you have a prime number of stones whether you count them in binary, base 10, base 12, or whatever.

You have a prime number of stones in base ten. The fact that you or I cannot think outside base ten and have to translate back into it to do operations doesn't change things. But this is a derail.

[Wolfman]

Morality is a trait that has developed as a result of evolution. When a creature acts on pure instinct, there is no need for morality. But when a creature has the ability to overcome instinct, and make conscious decisions as to what action to take, then a sense of morality becomes necessary.

Why?

Because one of the most fundamental instincts driving us is the instinct for survival. First, for our own survival. Second, for those immediately related to us. Third, for those in our community. And, as societies develop, those 'circles' increase in size, until they encompass the entirety of the human race -- and then go even beyond that, to concerns about the environment, animals, etc., which also have an impact on our own survival.

"Morality" is an evolved trait that helps ensure that we will act in the manner that best ensures survival. Without the sense of morality, without a desire for survival, humans would disappear entirely from the planet in quite a short time. However, morality is going to change and evolve, depending on the situation.

Take one of the most basic/primal situations. Primitive humans, living in small groups, who are barely able to survive. The combination of disease, predators, injury, etc., mean that survival is a constant battle. The need for resources (food, water, building supplies, medicinal plants, etc.) means that the most fundamental moral imperative will be, "survive by whatever means necessary". If another group of humans threatens your survival, even by something so simple as using resources that you depend upon, then getting rid of those other humans is 100% morally justifiable. It is you or them...and your genetic programming declares that it should be you (just as theirs declares that it should be them).

Now, fast forward a few centuries. Societies are more developed, agriculture and industry have progressed to the point where the same amount of land can provide for many more people. It is no longer necessary to get rid of all outsiders in order to ensure survival...so attacking other people simply for using the same resources as you is no longer moral, and there are laws enacted to prevent such behavior. However, lacking modern tools of industry (steam engines, electricity, etc.), the primary source of the raw power that provides resources for everyone in this society is slavery. Since slavery serves the purpose of ensuring the survival/growth of the dominant group, it is 'moral'. At their time, in their particular situation, abolishment of slavery would mean that fewer people would survive...violating the biological imperative that drives them.

That society will, inevitably, reach a point where slave labor is no longer necessary, where machines are able to take over and do the same job. At that point, slavery become immoral, since now it doesn't help the survival of the dominant group, but hurts the survival of those who are slaves. The umbrella of morality now expands to include an even larger group of people, as the resources necessary to support those people has also increased.

And thus we see the evolution of morality throughout the centuries. It is, in my opinion, primarily determined by the biological drive for survival. The fewer the people who can survive in a given situation, the more likely 'morality' will focus on individual survival, at the expense of others. The more people who can survive in a given situation, the more likely 'morality' will focus on the rights of that larger group as a whole. Actions that were perfectly acceptable and 'moral' in one situation become immoral and unacceptable in another.

And for Christians who may seek to debate this, let me point out that your own scriptures follow exactly the same process. From polygamy (moral in OT, immoral in NT), to slavery (moral in both OT and NT, but immoral in most modern Christian nations).

[gnome]

You have a prime number of stones in base ten. The fact that you or I cannot think outside base ten and have to translate back into it to do operations doesn't change things. But this is a derail.

Yes but it's a FUN derail--meet me in the split thread I'm about to make?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151816 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5036237)

[Piscivore]

Morality is a trait that has developed as a result of evolution. When a creature acts on pure instinct, there is no need for morality. But when a creature has the ability to overcome instinct, and make conscious decisions as to what action to take, then a sense of morality becomes necessary.

Why?

Because one of the most fundamental instincts driving us is the instinct for survival. First, for our own survival. Second, for those immediately related to us. Third, for those in our community. And, as societies develop, those 'circles' increase in size, until they encompass the entirety of the human race -- and then go even beyond that, to concerns about the environment, animals, etc., which also have an impact on our own survival.

"Morality" is an evolved trait that helps ensure that we will act in the manner that best ensures survival. Without the sense of morality, without a desire for survival, humans would disappear entirely from the planet in quite a short time. However, morality is going to change and evolve, depending on the situation.

Take one of the most basic/primal situations. Primitive humans, living in small groups, who are barely able to survive. The combination of disease, predators, injury, etc., mean that survival is a constant battle. The need for resources (food, water, building supplies, medicinal plants, etc.) means that the most fundamental moral imperative will be, "survive by whatever means necessary". If another group of humans threatens your survival, even by something so simple as using resources that you depend upon, then getting rid of those other humans is 100% morally justifiable. It is you or them...and your genetic programming declares that it should be you (just as theirs declares that it should be them).

Now, fast forward a few centuries. Societies are more developed, agriculture and industry have progressed to the point where the same amount of land can provide for many more people. It is no longer necessary to get rid of all outsiders in order to ensure survival...so attacking other people simply for using the same resources as you is no longer moral, and there are laws enacted to prevent such behavior. However, lacking modern tools of industry (steam engines, electricity, etc.), the primary source of the raw power that provides resources for everyone in this society is slavery. Since slavery serves the purpose of ensuring the survival/growth of the dominant group, it is 'moral'. At their time, in their particular situation, abolishment of slavery would mean that fewer people would survive...violating the biological imperative that drives them.

That society will, inevitably, reach a point where slave labor is no longer necessary, where machines are able to take over and do the same job. At that point, slavery become immoral, since now it doesn't help the survival of the dominant group, but hurts the survival of those who are slaves. The umbrella of morality now expands to include an even larger group of people, as the resources necessary to support those people has also increased.

And thus we see the evolution of morality throughout the centuries. It is, in my opinion, primarily determined by the biological drive for survival. The fewer the people who can survive in a given situation, the more likely 'morality' will focus on individual survival, at the expense of others. The more people who can survive in a given situation, the more likely 'morality' will focus on the rights of that larger group as a whole. Actions that were perfectly acceptable and 'moral' in one situation become immoral and unacceptable in another.

And for Christians who may seek to debate this, let me point out that your own scriptures follow exactly the same process. From polygamy (moral in OT, immoral in NT), to slavery (moral in both OT and NT, but immoral in most modern Christian nations).

And take away the accoutrements of civilisation, this "morality" breaks down just as surely.

If there is a universal moral truth- IF - then it is "make sure my genes survive". That's all it breaks down to.

ETA: I'm not sure I'd say "morality is a trait"- it is a learned set of behaviours. The learned set of behaviours has evolved as you describe, but they are not inherent. If they were, we wouldn't need to teach them to children.

What is inherent, what is genetic, is selfishness (shown by the mokey link above) and other tribal group dynamics- that our current learned set of behaviours are largely developed to supress.