Power determines morality

Gitonga

There is no such thing as objectively good or evil, there is only power and power is what determines whether we think something is good or evil. And there are two types of power, individual power and collective power ie many people.

Morality shifts when
A) an individual gains more power
B) A society gains more power
C) Minorities gain more power

So for example (and I'm not against it) for years people though homosexuality was wrong now seen as being right, why because of power, the minority has finally gained a strong enough foothold amongst the populous to assert their right.

Racism today is seen as wrong but in the past it was seen as okay why? Because of power.

For example eating animals today is not seen as morally wrong by most people but in future it could be seen as being horrendously wrong.

Power is defined as the ability to successfully defend one's own interests. For example if you have a sword and a shield the sword is more powerful if it can break the shield and the shield is more powerful if it can stop the shield.

Stealing and murder are only wrong because the people who think it's wrong are collectively more powerful than those who think it's right.

So in summary morality is literally a powers game.

Michael

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. All you're saying that the morality that most people believe in is the morality that most people believe in.

Take this for example:

So for example (and I'm not against it) for years people though homosexuality was wrong now seen as being right, why because of power, the minority has finally gained a strong enough foothold amongst the populous to assert their right. — Gitonga

When you say that "the minority has finally gained a strong enough foothold" aren't you really just saying that what was once a minority view is now a majority view? Or are you saying that most people still believe that homosexuality is wrong but that the minority who accept it are able to "force" their morality on the majority (whatever that would mean)?

Gitonga

↪Michael

what I mean is that homosexuality like everything else is neither right nor wrong but purely depends on who has what view and what power they have to defend that view.

For example there was the period in time when Christianity had power over most people therefore it asserted its view that homosexuality is wrong

However now Christianity has lost its power in favour to democracy and freedom therefore more people are willing to support non religious views that support freedom. Therefore the individual has been given more freedom to deviate from religious dogma

Hence why I'm saying objectively it is not right or wrong nothing is. It doesn't matter what anyone's (or any societies) moral view is its whether they have the power to back up their view or not.

Michael

Hence why I'm saying objectively it is not right or wrong nothing is. It doesn't matter what anyone's (or any societies) moral view is its whether they have the power to back up their view or not. — Gitonga

That doesn't follow. A Christian theocracy may enforce the view that the Earth is the centre of the universe and ~6,000 years old but the facts are otherwise. That the popular opinion changes over time given the opinion of those with power isn't that there is no objective right or wrong.

Gitonga

↪Michael

But that's what I'm saying morality is not an objective fact like science is... It's not a physical object.. How do I word this... Morality is not like a car which you can say is faster or smaller than another car. Morality is a matter of perspective and opinion.

Tell me how can you prove something is objectively right or objectively wrong morally speaking outside of one's opinion?

Michael

But that's what I'm saying morality is not an objective fact like science is... It's not a physical object.. How do I word this... Morality is not like a car which you can say is faster or smaller than another car. Morality is a matter of perspective and opinion. — Gitonga

I know that's what you're saying, but your argument doesn't show this. Your conclusion that morality isn't objective doesn't follow from your claim that power determines the popular moral opinion.

Tell me how can you prove something is objectively right or objectively wrong morally speaking outside of one's opinion? — Gitonga

You're shifting the burden of proof. If you want to argue that morality isn't objective then you need to set out the premises that lead to this conclusion. It isn't enough just to say that I can't prove that morality is objective.

Wheatley

↪Gitonga

I agree. Society doesn't see anything wrong with not taking care of their mentally ill because the mentally ill are essentially powerless.

Gitonga

It does cause with the examples I gave I tried to show that the position of morality has changed but that neither position can be objectively true because the strength or success of each position is merely determined by the power behind it.

So that's the premise to my conclusion, now you have to counter it by providing a case where morality can exist outside of one's opinion.

Michael

It does cause with the examples I gave I tried to show that the position of morality has changed but that neither position can be objectively true because the strength or success of each position is merely determined by the power behind it. — Gitonga

It still doesn't follow. You need to show that if there are objective moral facts then the success of a moral position isn't determined by the power behind it. You haven't even suggested that as a premise, let alone shown it to be true.

DrOlsnesLea

I disagree with the OP.

You can see morality of a person in a number of ways. Inner and outer bio-markers, for example, are sets of objective material to study.

The science for actual morality in a person is, of course, psychology, and one instrument is fMRI.

During interviews over morality, there are 5 different methods of objective lie-detection.
1. Polygraph
2. Mimicry including eye-dilation
3. Voice-stress analysis
4. fMRI
5. Near-infra red analysis for blood flow in the face
+ other, such a quantum testing, OR gate testing of claims.

True, corrupt power can distort investigation, but proper time span makes it certain that truth is acquired in the end.

Moral Reality by Paul Bloomfield supports my view of objective morality in nature. I mean, come on, people less of personal morality are monsters and no amount of corrupt power can make them moral people like that.

Gitonga

↪Michael

I don't understand as in that's what I've asked you to prove cause I've said there are ni objective moral facts.. Like what you quoted is what you need to prove cause I've said the opposite of that

Gitonga

↪DrOlsnesLea

what I'm saying is the moral standard you hold someone according to is completely subjective... For example Vikings used to think it was okay to rape and pillage now we say it's not... It's all a matter of opinion

Michael

I don't understand as in that's what I've asked you to prove cause I've said there are ni objective moral facts.. Like what you quoted is what you need to prove cause I've said the opposite of that — Gitonga

You argued this:

P1. The strength or success of a moral position is determined by the power behind it
C. Therefore, there are no objective moral facts

This argument is invalid; the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. You need this as a second premise:

P2. If the strength or success of a moral position is determined by the power behind it then there are no objective moral facts

This can be rephrased (via transposition) to:

P2. If there are objective moral facts then the strength or success of a moral position is not determined by the power behind it.

You need to assert P2 (in either form) for your argument to be valid, and also support it if you want to convince me.

tim wood

there is only power and power is what determines — Gitonga

You neglect - omit - the "power" of knowledge.

Power is defined as the ability to successfully defend one's own interests. — Gitonga

I believe this definition - and I am a great appreciator of defining - is at the very best inadequate. That inadequacy comes into sharper focus in looking more closely at "successfully defend one's own interests." Even with Socrates we learn that "self-interest" is not as simple as it might at first seem.

Gitonga

↪tim wood

what's wrong with my definition of power?

And you've not mentioned how power of knowledge contradicts my statement

tim wood

↪Gitonga

Yours is a variant of might makes right. 'Nuff said? As to the "power" of knowledge, can your sword make 2+2=19?

I hold that there is "power" in knowledge, and I've held that power in quotes - "power" - as my sign that it has itself not yet been defined.

But please do not mistake me. I repeat that I appreciate definitions; and I think they're essential. That leaves merely whether the definition is right or sufficient, resolving which sometimes a necessary step in argumentation.

Gitonga

↪tim wood

might decides what is right and what is wrong you might think it doesn't but it does when you realise only the mightier can decide what is right or wrong.. Like you might think a dictatorship is wrong but that's only cause you come from a democratic nation that's stronger but if the dictatorship was string enough guess what? You get a monarchy! And suddenly it's all hail the king

With the sword I was giving an example of a sword vs a shield.. You're comparing apples to oranges. I'm not comparing maths to a sword because they don't have similar opposing goals. The comparison only works in that way

Michael

might decides what is right and what is wrong you might think it doesn't but it does when you realise only the mightier can decide what is right or wrong.. Like you might think a dictatorship is wrong but that's only cause you come from a democratic nation that's stronger but if the dictatorship was string enough guess what? You get a monarchy! And suddenly it's all hail the king

With the sword I was giving an example of a sword vs a shield.. You're comparing apples to oranges. I'm not comparing maths to a sword because they don't have similar opposing goals. The comparison only works in that way — Gitonga

That might can (and does) enforce obedience isn't that might makes right.

tim wood

↪Gitonga

Your argument puts you in the position of affirming many, many thing as right that I suspect you would not think right. I think Michael's got it, most succinctly.

That might can (and does) enforce obedience isn't that might makes right. — Michael

Gitonga

↪Michael

not obedience we're talking morally right

Michael

not obedience we're talking morally right — Gitonga

But you're not. All you seem to be saying is that those in power have the might to enforce their moral opinions on others. Yet somehow you conclude from this that there are no objective moral facts and that this enforced moral opinion is all there is to morality. It doesn't follow.

You need to show me how you get from "those in power enforce their moral opinion on others" to "there are no objective moral facts".

Gitonga

↪Michael

That itself is the proof, I'm saying there are no objective morals outside of enforced moral opinions, you're the one that's not proven that there are it's like you saying that color preference is subjective and there's no objective best color preference and me saying give me proof that color preference is subjective.

Gitonga

↪tim wood

things that I would not think are right but that would just be my opinion

Michael

I'm saying there are no objective morals outside of enforced moral opinions — Gitonga

You're saying that but you haven't argued it. You're just asserting the unrelated claims "those in power enforce their moral opinion on others" and "there are no objective moral facts". The first doesn't entail the second. You need to set out the premises that allow you to conclude that there are no objective moral facts.

you're the one that's not proven that there are

I don't have to. You're shifting the burden of proof. You created this discussion to argue that there are no objective moral facts but you haven't actually done that. You've just asserted it without evidence.

Frank Apisa

↪Michael

Michael, I suspect you may have deleted my post here. In another thread where I participate, you mentioned deleting posts for various reasons.
"FYI, I've deleted some posts that were just insults and any posts that replied to them (as they won't make sense anymore). Please refresh the page so that you don't waste time replying to a post that has been deleted as your replies will just be deleted as well."

Why did you delete mine here?

It was important...and said something that should be said whenever the question of power is being discussed. Just because a meme is part of the culture as a result of television history does not make invaluable...nor inappropriate.

Tim Wood above mentions, "I hold that there is "power" in knowledge..."

That post of mine went directly to that.

I would like your permission to re-post that clip.

.

Michael

↪Frank Apisa

It was a clip from a TV show so is considered low-quality. Generally we don't accept videos or images unless they have more substance than that, e.g. an interview with some philosopher or a diagram that explains the differences between direct and indirect realism.

A Seagull

You're shifting the burden of proof. If you want to argue that morality isn't objective then you need to set out the premises that lead to this conclusion. It isn't enough just to say that I can't prove that morality is objective. — Michael

Not necessarily. When discussing deep philosophy one has to start from a position of ignorance not that of popular opinion.

Frank Apisa

↪Michael

Okay...thanks.

Judaka

↪Gitonga

Sure morality is subjective but your argument is circular, the ability to influence public opinion is power and you say public opinion is influenced by power.

tim wood

things that I would not think are right but that would just be my opinion — Gitonga

Then it's all opinion, but then where's the right? Or are you just indirectly claiming there is no right?

A Seagull

Then it's all opinion, but then where's the right? Or are you just indirectly claiming there is no right? — tim wood

Yes it is all opinion. You claim to like definitions... so what is your definition of 'right'?

Power determines morality

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions