Living in a civilized society arguably means each individual has a better quality of life than if we were all wild men living in nature, and a civilized society requires we have certain rules, things that are right and things that are wrong. — JustSomeGuy
I never said that there wasn't an obvious usefulness to have subjective morality. — SonJnana
It seems to me that our moralities are nothing but subjective preferences... nothing else. — SonJnana
we are essentially saying that we don't like the person because they aren't acting the way we want everyone to act — SonJnana
In a way, it becomes a might makes morality. — SonJnana
What about someone who enjoys going around conquering lands and becoming a harsh dictator. It is for that person's benefit right? Who are you to tell that person he should care about others' well-being, while he's benefiting from being a dictator? — SonJnana
For example, if someone discovers a plant extract that will extend life and reduce suffering, and distributes it to everyone in equal amounts, that act would be objectively moral. — CasKev
Your opening statement was "I really don't see any reason of why one should act in any way besides because they have a preference for acting in that way". You went on to elaborate that people should just do whatever makes them feel good. It follow from this that if murder makes a person feel good, they should be able to do it. — JustSomeGuy
It seems to me that our moralities are nothing but subjective preferences... nothing else. — SonJnana
...so I really don't see where you made it clear that you understood the necessity and purpose of morality. It seemed to be quite the opposite. — JustSomeGuy
we are essentially saying that we don't like the person because they aren't acting the way we want everyone to act — SonJnana
It's not about want, it's about need. These laws aren't just made up willy nilly, there is very clear purpose to the morals we have. — JustSomeGuy
You still seem to be missing the point. If a person doesn't care about the well-being of others and is actively harming people, we don't allow them in our society.
Not murdering is a condition you must agree to in order to live in and receive the benefits of our society. If you want to try to form your own society where killing each other is legal, good luck. — JustSomeGuy
I think it's more honest to say that the person is acting morally based on a subjective morality that values the extension of conscious life. — SonJnana
You just listed things that you claim are objectively moral without providing any argument or reasoning as to why. — JustSomeGuy
Humans are biologically programmed to survive. In that context, human survival is good. It follows that anything extending human survival, without negatively affecting other conscious life, is good. — CasKev
Parasitic organisms are biologically programmed to thrive off of harming others. In that context, harming others is good. How does that tell you anything about the morality of it though? — SonJnana
You can't agree that human survival is good, in the context of human biological motivation? How about avoidance of unwanted suffering? — CasKev
Those are both subjective, though...we're discussing objective morality. — JustSomeGuy
Parasitic organisms don't know they are causing harm to another conscious entity. There is no morality involved when the organism isn't capable of assessing possible rightness or wrongness of an intentional act. — CasKev
Since we're discussing human morality, I think it makes sense to discuss it in terms of human biological instinct, no? — CasKev
You can't have morality without context — CasKev
Judging an action as morally wrong is entirely different than judging an apple pie to be good. — darthbarracuda
You say that helping others survive in the CONTEXT of biological survival is good. I agree with that. In this case the word "good" means beneficial to the cause of biological survival.
In the CONTEXT of harming others, stealing is good. In this case the word "good" means beneficial to the cause of harming others. — SonJnana
Judging an action to be morally good is simply saying it is consistent with your morality code, which is based off of your subjective values, which expresses preferences (wants, needs, desires, comfortableness). Essentially, ones moral code is just their preferences. — SonJnana
Nothing is intrinsically morally wrong
It seems to me that our moralities are nothing but subjective preferences... nothing else. It is kind of uncomfortable, but I am trying to be intellectually honest and I don't see how there can be a case for an objective morality that lies outside our subjective values. I've tried to find arguments for objective morality, but they don't seem right to me. — SonJnana
If someone kills someone, what do you do? One might say you shouldn't kill them back because that will destabilize society and hurt biological survival. Someone else might say you should kill the person because they deserve to die because that is fairness. How can you objectively say biological survival is a better code than fairness? It just comes down to one person wants to see a world that is more fair, whereas one person wants to see biological survival. These are conflicting moralities and there is no objective way, as far as I know, to say one is better than the other.
When I say morality being subjective preferences, I am saying that any person's moral code is to suit their preferences of how they want to see the world. They want to see a stable society so they say killing is wrong. That doesn't mean killing is wrong because it's intrinsically bad. It just means that its immoral to someone because not beneficial. And that is based off their preferences because in this case they prefer what is beneficial to them - a stable society in this case. — SonJnana
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.