Ethics

[stormcrow]

Is there a strong case for an objective morality? Or does morality depend on the context of the situation?

[no-Name]

Is there a strong case for an objective morality? there's pretty much no objective truth Or does morality depend on the context of the situation? it'll always depend the context. I can't think of any ethical question that has exactly one answer, besides "subjectivity exists."

[stormcrow]

So in what context is slavery permissible? I think morality is a product of evolution which was a useful tool in the formation and continuity of social groups and tribes. We had the incentive to act morally towards each other for our own well being and to prevent alienation from the tribe. Strength in groups! So in a way our reasons for treating each other right are altogether selfish. I have been entertaining the idea that morality is innate but Im still undecided on whether ethics are absolute or relative. Regarding objective truth I think the proposition "Water is H20" is pretty objective regardless of context.

[no-Name]

So in what context is slavery permissible? that's what makes it subjective. my answer is never, but another guy might say it's usable as a punishment, or even as war-spoils. different views etc.

[stormcrow]

I personally believe slavery is not permissible under any circumstance and you are right it is my subjective opinion. I cannot produce evidence to suggest that slavery is wrong in all circumstances. I guess there is no way to prove an action immoral or moral, it is arbitrary to the person in a given situation.

[no-Name]

I guess there is no way to prove an action immoral or moral, it is arbitrary to the person in a given situation. uh nope. plenty of people have a reason for why slavery is wrong. not all personal beliefs are without reason (I'd hope very few at all are.) you're still thinking objectively.

[stormcrow]

Yes I am trying to think objectively. Its true plenty of people have a reason for believing slavery to be wrong but can we prove that the position "slavery is wrong" is superior to the position "slavery is permissible". the only evidence we can bring up is from our own subjective cultural standpoint. I guess what I'm asking is Is there a way we can prove an action to be a moral one if morality is relative?

[DrunkenArse]

I guess what I'm asking is Is there a way we can prove an action to be a moral one if morality is relative? I hate to use the word prove here but essentially yes. But only within the context where your basic assumptions about morality hold true. So people that disagree with your basic assumptions will most likely not be moved by the argument. Let's consider slavery and the "golden rule": Do to others as you would have others do to you. This seems to be a pretty universal rule. Let's rephrase it though: Do to other humans as you would have other humans do to you. Who are humans? Humans are those organisms to which our modified version of the golden rule applies. The more the rule applies to them, the more human they are. So in the antebellum US south, from the perspective of a typical person of European descent, there were essentially two broad categories of homo sapiens, humans and niggers. Humans were broadly distinguishable by having white skin and more human was distinguishable by being in a similar economic class or having close genetic relations. Niggers were distinguishable by having a different skin color. Of course nobody would advocate that a human should be enslaved because doing so is, by definition, claiming that you would be happy to be enslaved yourself. But, again by definition, our rule doesn't apply to a non-human. So there was no more moral problem with enslaving a nigger than there is with performing medical experiments on a chimpanzee today. Today we can see that members of homo sapiens that have more recent African descent than Europeans are fully human and so explicitly enslaving someone that fits into that category is obviously and, within the context established by our definition of human, objectively wrong. People of middle eastern descent are still not fully regarded as human by a lot of people in the US. They're close to human perhaps. Unless a few of them commit another terrorist act, riding around and randomly being violent to them is distasteful in much the same way that sexually assaulting a woman is1. They're certainly closer to human than chimpanzees or gorillas though. 1 before you scoff at that, note that it's estimated that as many as 1 in 3 women get sexually assaulted and almost nobody goes to jail for it: You probably know a woman that's been sexually assaulted and a guy that's done it. If you don't, wait a few years.

[Invader]

Did you rephrase it to include "humans" for the example, or for other reasons? I've come to realize that the conflict between "regular" people and animal rights activists for instance stems from the disparity between how they extend the "do unto others" phrase. Some say 'people' in place of 'humans', and will say that any conscious entity fits that descriptor. Can we say anything about ethics then, or does it fall apart because of the difference in definitions?

[DrunkenArse]

"Human" seems like the word. It seems that most people feel that "Human Rights" = "My Rights". "People", to me at least, seems to carry the connotation of homo sapiens whereas "human" seems to refer to that quintessential, luminiferous, undefinable essence that takes a set of organisms and makes us want to give them human rights(i.e., my rights). For other people, the roles of the words may be reversed. But then they may want to refer to "People Rights" rather than "Human Rights". For example, I'm fairly conservative and grant human status to vertebrates and cephalopods. Some people are more liberal and restrict their definition to only, say, great apes, cetaceans and mammoths. Some people are even more extremely liberal and only grant human status to certain members of one particular species of great ape.

[stormcrow]

If we have moral obligations to other humans (future humans as well) then we have moral obligations to preserving the earth for them considering deforesting, mountaintop removal, pollution, etc all threaten the continuity of the human species(and all other life on earth and as far as we know the only life in the known universe). In this regard I think it is only fitting that we extend our definition of ethics to all organic life. Yes slave owners excused their behavior by viewing black people as animals and not fully humans. If there is no moral standard by which to judge an action then there is no good or bad just an opinion held by that particular culture. This leads to the view that there are many truths that apply only to particular cultures. Here is a great video by Richard Dawkins touching upon the subject, he basically says everything I am trying to articulate. YouTube - Richard Dawkins and Postmodernism Of course he isn't addressing postmodernism in general but I suppose plenty of the postmodernist have been accused of relativism

[Laughing Man]

there's pretty much no objective truth That would be an objective truth. You can't say there is no objective truth because that would be establishing one.

[Laughing Man]

If we have moral obligations to other humans (future humans as well) then we have moral obligations to preserving the earth for them considering deforesting, mountaintop removal, pollution, etc all threaten the continuity of the human species(and all other life on earth and as far as we know the only life in the known universe). In this regard I think it is only fitting that we extend our definition of ethics to all organic life. Yes slave owners excused their behavior by viewing black people as animals and not fully humans. If there is no moral standard by which to judge an action then there is no good or bad just an opinion held by that particular culture. This leads to the view that there are many truths that apply only to particular cultures. Here is a great video by Richard Dawkins touching upon the subject, he basically says everything I am trying to articulate. YouTube - Richard Dawkins and Postmodernism Of course he isn't addressing postmodernism in general but I suppose plenty of the postmodernist have been accused of relativism Well it doesn't follow that since we have moral obligations to others then we have moral obligations to the earth especially when you don't spell out those obligations.

[no-Name]

That would be an objective truth. You can't say there is no objective truth because that would be establishing one. s'why I stuck the "pretty much" in there. someone might have a different opinion on the matter of objective truths, so there is still no one truth. it's sneaky, but that's the idea of subjectivity. everyone's got their own shit.

[stormcrow]

Well it doesn't follow that since we have moral obligations to others then we have moral obligations to the earth especially when you don't spell out those obligations. I said IF we have moral obligations to other humans then we are morally responsible for the condition of the earth our children inherit.

[Invader]

"Human" seems like the word. It seems that most people feel that "Human Rights" = "My Rights"... ...For example, I'm fairly conservative and grant human status to vertebrates and cephalopods. Some people are more liberal and restrict their definition to only, say, great apes, cetaceans and mammoths. Some people are even more extremely liberal and only grant human status to certain members of one particular species of great ape. Oh, it's the other way around for me (in that 'humans' is what carries the connotation of homo-sapiens), though your way of viewing it makes more sense if we justify crimes against others by dehumanizing them. And if there are no criteria for what it takes to label another entity as a human, the objectivity of ethical treatment sort of falls apart, save for whatever definitions a group of people choose to adopt. Is that so?

[DrunkenArse]

Right. Objectivity can only exist within the context provided by a set of definitions. All I'm really doing here is playing games with circular definitions and saying that a person's actions defines who they consider to be human (or a person) and that who a person considers human (or a person) determines if their actions are ethical from their perspective by application of the "Golden Rule" or "Ethic of Reciprocity". So if a pickpocket steals from a certain class of people, then we can determine if that pickpocket considers that certain class of people to be human or not human by asking if that pickpocket would want to be stolen from by members of that certain class of people. If the answer is yes, then the behavior is perfectly ethical and if the answer is no, then the pickpocket considers them to not be human. By my definitions. This is as objective as our ability to get an honest answer out of the pickpocket. As near as I can determine, an objective and universal system of ethics would require a god. Even then, if there is a god, then that god seems to abhor preferred coordinate systems.

[Philosopher8659]

Is there a strong case for an objective morality? Or does morality depend on the context of the situation? Law of Identity. A thing is not different from itself. Find the definition of self and you have your answer. The human mind is that environmental acquisition system which must acquire experience and with those experiences abstract and apply forms of behavior that maintain and promote the life of the body. This is why language is always important to those philosophers with exceptional I.Q.'s like Confucius, Plato, the source of Scripture. That is why the name of the beast 666 was given as a puzzle. "To regulate one's comming and going so as to turn the past into the future and to bring the future to pass." i.e. in order to have life and to have it more abundantly. All this from the simple law of identity. Know what you are and what your function is and it becomes clear. Most people do not know the difference between a definition and a description. I make it clear in Language and Experience. Logic is not circular--not at all. There is a great deal in the way of logic that man does not yet comprehend, but it was written long ago. Take for example relative difference, it is common to ascripe relative difference to one of the terms, which is false reasoning. Plato demonstrated it in his work--but it seems to have confused readers. Even today, relative difference is ascribed in mechanics to one of the terms, giving a false sense of physical understanding.

[Laughing Man]

I said IF we have moral obligations to other humans then we are morally responsible for the condition of the earth our children inherit. Yes, I know that. It still doesn't follow that if we have moral obligations to other humans then that means we have moral obligations to the earth.

[Laughing Man]

s'why I stuck the "pretty much" in there. someone might have a different opinion on the matter of objective truths, so there is still no one truth. it's sneaky, but that's the idea of subjectivity. everyone's got their own shit. And yet there are no private languages. Isn't that amazing? And saying that there is no one truth means that there is one truth which is that there is no one. It is a performative contradiction.

[no-Name]

And yet there are no private languages. Isn't that amazing? And saying that there is no one truth means that there is one truth which is that there is no one. It is a performative contradiction. but it's just my opinion, man which makes it correct to me and not necessarily to everyone else I was talking philosophy, while this thread's about ethics. I was also trying to drive home the point that no one will have the same thought process ever. Everyone perpetually thinks differently, and thus subjectively.

[Laughing Man]

but it's just my opinion, man which makes it correct to me and not necessarily to everyone else I was talking philosophy, while this thread's about ethics. I was also trying to drive home the point that no one will have the same thought process ever. Everyone perpetually thinks differently, and thus subjectively. The fact that there aren't private languages isn't an opinion..it's a fact. It's true regardless of what you think. Logic isn't subjective.

[no-Name]

The fact that there aren't private languages isn't an opinion..it's a fact. It's true regardless of what you think. Logic isn't subjective. this is the extreme of subjectivity, but someone that believes there are no private languages and someone believes that there are. it's true for both. universal subjectivity. I only made those posts to prove a point I was on, that logic can easily be thrown out the window, and that subjectivity is literally in all people. I made some shitty posts up there not to deny that logic is fantastic, but that some people might not value logic as highly as others. I was trying to force through the idea that nothing applies to everyone. so any objective truth, or objective law, won't exist. everything is objectively subjective, except when it's not. wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee I have no real serious answers to this question. of course you shouldn't take my extremist words to heart. logic is king to me, and anything firmly rooted in it sounds good.

[stormcrow]

Language is a form of communication that consists of words commonly known to a certain group of people. A private language would be nonsense. You might be able to attach your made up words to objects in the real world, and it would make sense to you but it wouldn't be a language, language by its very definition and function is very public. Wittgenstein and Kripke talk at length about the possibility of private languages but the common consensus is that private languages do not function as a language.

[Puffin]

I think we've grown to have morality and ethical thoughts, but no other animals seem to care about them. It's just us. In other words, if we weren't so used to morality by now and accepted it as a norm, it wouldn't make a difference to any of us about slavery and other issues.