With what standard are you evaluating? — SonJnana

Ah. So evaluating actions in terms of their morality requires standards, does it?

So what sort of thing is a standard? Is it a measure? Is it something we are agreed on?

Then if we have a shared standard, is it not objective?

So if there are two cultures where one says killing is okay and the other doesn't, but what standard can you say that one is better than the other? If you are in the nonkilling culture, you could evaluate the other culture by your culture's standard, but the other culture doesn't agree with those standards. Essentially both cultures value different things. What makes your standards or values better than there's?

And if a psychopath murders and society judges that as immoral while the psychopath doesn't value what society values, isn't it just a case might makes right?

Essentially both cultures value different things. — SonJnana

Let me give you a more complete example.

A nation has sufficient funds to keep for a very, very large army, yet despite not being under imminent direct threat, it refuses to use some of this money to provide an equitable health care system.

Is that an acceptable use of the country's resources?

Now, rather than telling me what your answer is, tell me what each of the possible answers tells us about those who accept it.

And if a psychopath murders and society judges that as immoral while the psychopath doesn't value what society values, isn't it just a case might makes right? — SonJnana

Again, tell me what you think - is the psychopath right?

And what does your answer tell us about you?

Again, tell me what you think - is the psychopath right?

And what does your answer tell us about you? — Banno

I can say the psychopath is not right because I value society and safety. Those things are important to me. I have no problem acknowledging me saying that is just an expression of what I desire and find important in life.

SO you are quite happy to make moral decisions without having intrinsic moral guidelines, and without having an objective moral system to refer to?

SO you are quite happy to make moral decisions without having intrinsic moral guidelines, and without having an objective moral system to refer to? — Banno

The question is not whether or not I find it uncomfortable, I care about what is really happening. When the psychopath murders, he is doing something that goes against what the majority value. Yet when the majority lock him up, they are acting against what the psychopath values.

This moral system you are referring to sounds like might makes right. One person doesn't have power over a society. So if society's values go against those of the murderer, then the society will win and do what they want which is to lock him up.

I care about what is really happening. When the psychopath murders, he is doing something that goes against what the majority value. — SonJnana

But what do you think?

Try this example. Suppose that there were a moral system that set out for you, in any and every case, what you ought do.

Ought you do what such a system says?

Try this example. Suppose that there were a moral system that set out for you, in any and every case, what you ought do.

Ought you do what such a system says? — Banno

You have to clarify first. Where is this moral system coming from? Is this my moral system based off of what I value? Or is it society's moral system about what people as a majority have agreed on what to do based off of their common values?

But what do you think? — Banno

My values would be closer to what society values than the psychopath. So what? What makes my moral system any better than the psychopath's? It sounds more like a conflict of interest. We value different things.

Good questions.

Suppose for the sake of discussion that you have agreed previously to the moral system; perhaps you believe it to be the undeniable word of god, or it has the form of a computer programmed to follow a specific algorithm that you have examined and found convincing.

Here's the point: suppose further that the system tells you that you ought do something that you find morally reprehensible; kill your firstborn or explode a bomb in a school.

What do you do?

So what? What makes my moral system any better than the psychopath's? — SonJnana

But equally, what makes your value system any less than the psychopaths?

SO, what moral system will you follow, yours or the psychopaths or the crowds?

Here's the point: suppose further that the system tells you that you ought do something that you find morally reprehensible; kill your firstborn or explode a bomb in a school.

What do you do? — Banno

I would not. Not because I think that my morality is any better in some objective sense, but because it goes against my moral values, which are an expression of what is important to me and what I desire. So in some sense it would be like saying I won't do it because I don't want to.

But equally, what makes your value system any less than the psychopaths? — Banno

This only supports my point. I cant say my value system is any better or worse than the psychopaths.

SO, what moral system will you follow, yours or the psychopaths or the crowds? — Banno

I follow my moral system which is an expression of my values. What is important to me. Although I won't do anything that goes against society's moral system if I have to deal with potential consequences. I am lucky, unlike the psychopath, that my values are similar to the values that society has used to make laws.

I follow my moral system which is an expression of my values. — SonJnana

So whether those values are objective or subjective is irrelevant to your decision.

And that is where this discussion has been headed. Thanks for playing along.

So whether those values are objective or subjective is irrelevant to your decision.

And that is where this discussion has been headed. Thanks for playing along. — Banno

For me specifically yes. You could have just said this from the start I don't disagree with this lol.

However some people will argue that their values are in some way superior to other peoples' values by some objective moral standard. Your example is a hypothetical and that too seems subjective. I don't even see how objective morality could be possible which is why I made this thread in the first place.

There are people out that might actually say because god told them to do something like that, it must be objectively true and that the moral values of that are somehow superior, Or that some moral system is objectively superior just because of some biological argument or "common sense." That is why I made this thread.

I don't even see how objective morality could be possible — SonJnana

Sure; and if objective morality is impossible, so is subjective morality.

The argument that morality is not objective, therefore it is subjective, is as valid as the argument that fish are not poetry, therefore fish are prose.

Sure; and if objective morality is impossible, so is subjective morality.

The argument that morality is not objective, therefore it is subjective, is as valid as the argument that fish are not poetry, therefore fish are prose. — Banno

Yeah, but I'm not asserting that objective morality is impossible or that morality is subjective. If you read the OP completely, you would see that. I am just saying it hasn't been demonstrated to me that morality is objective. I don't know how it could be demonstrated that it is which is why I made this thread.

And in the absence of any objective morality standard demonstrated, statements like "No, my morality and values are better than yours" don't make much sense. If you are gonna make a statement like that, you have to demonstrate why it is based off of an objective moral standard. If you can't, I have no reason to think anyone's morality and values are better than anyone else's.

I didn't set out to contradict you; From my point of view I was making an my ideas clearer with your help,

And in the absence of any objective morality standard demonstrated, statements like "No, my morality and values are better than yours" don't make much sense. — SonJnana

Statements like that don't make much sense even with an objective morality, as the example above shows. One's acts are always chosen; even accepting someone else's moral system is itself your moral choice.

Oh okay my bad I misunderstood lol. And it is a strange thing to think about. Your examples still seemed like they would be a type of subjective morality but I'm not really sure to be honest. The idea of some objective morality seems kind of weird in general to me.

Are you using the word bad here as that which one doesn't hope or desire for? Like for example saying ice cream is good. If so then we're basically saying the same thing. If not, can you explain what context you are using the word bad? — SonJnana

The point is, it doesn't matter how I am using the word bad. It's no different to asking how I'm using the word 'flat' when saying the earth is flat. I can be wrong about the earth being flat only because we all broadly agree on the meaning of the word 'flat', but the most important thing about it is this doesn't stop being the case if one person in the world decided that 'flat' means "curved like a ball". The fact that most of the world agree on the the properties of things that belong in the group "things which are flat", is what allows me to say that someone claiming the earth is flat, is wrong. I compare the earth to the widely agreed upon criteria for membership of the group "things which are flat" and decide that it does not meet these criteria, therefore the person is wrong. It doesn't matter if a small group of people dispute the criteria for membership of the group "things which are flat".

Morality is no different. We have a widely agreed upon group "things which are bad". The edges of that group are very blurred, but this is true of many groups. You think you know what a car is, or a table, but it's not difficult to think of ambiguous object which would be difficult to classify (an amphibious car, a piece of furniture designed to be both sat on and eaten from). This does not in some way invalidate the group "things which are a car/table", we get along quite well with blurred edges to our definitions.

So morality is not some special case, it's exactly the same, we have some things which clearly fall into the group "things which are immoral/bad", like murder of innocents (remember, the fact that one or two people might disagree about the definition of a group does not invalidate the description any more than if I now declared that only green things are 'cars', that doesn't suddenly make the use of the term 'car' ambiguous). We also have blurred edges, like adultery, where there is discussion about whether they fall into the group, but this is resolvable by the second point about definitions,

Group membership criteria are not defined first. No-one ever said "all small modes of personal self-propelled transport with four wheels shall henceforth be called cars", the first thing to be called a car was simple called that, and all subsequent things were compared to it for similarity. If they were similar enough they were called cars, if not they were given another name.

Deciding if a thing belongs in the group "moral behaviour" or not can be approached the same way, is it similar enough to other things in the group to justify inclusion. If it is not, then we can justifiable say someone claiming it to be "moral" is wrong. Murder of innocents clearly does not share the characteristics of other things in the group "moral types of behaviour", it is about as unlike to all those things as anything could get, so someone claiming that the murder of innocents was moral behaviour would clearly be wrong.

If there are only 2 cultures that live separately in the world. One culture says it is wrong to needlessly kill and the other culture says it is morally acceptable to needlessly kill. How do we decide which culture is right? Is it only dependent on the presupposed values that each culture uses to establish a definition of the word "morality"?

If there are two groups of people in the world and one group say that cars are modes of transport with four wheels and the other say they are small swimming things that live in rivers, how do we decide whether the thing I'm driving to work is car or not? It's the same question, morality isn't special in this regard. The reality is we don't have two such cultures so the issue does not arise.

If there are two groups of people in the world and one groups say that cars are modes of transport with four wheels and the other say they are small swimming things that live in rivers, how do we decide whether the thing I'm driving to work is car or not? It's the same question, morality isn't special in this regard. The reality is we don't have two such cultures so the issue does not arise. — Pseudonym

The difference here is the word morality still means the same thing in both cultures. It means what is right or wrong. So now we have to define those two words. What is a "right" act and what is a "wrong" act. The words themselves mean the same thing in both cultures, however it has gotten blurry what each culture should consider to be right or wrong. So is what one culture considers to be right whatever they want to be right? Is that what you're saying? I'm just trying to understand your position better.

No, the words 'right' and 'wrong' are defined by the things that are in them. Think of them like groups to which certain things belong. The word didn't come first, the group did. So to say "The words themselves mean the same thing in both cultures" is meaningless unless they define a group of behaviours which are all similar in some way. To be wrong about a definition does not require any pre-existing knowledge of the criteria. If I presented you with a collection of objects all of which were green balls made of plastic and told you they were all "bandersnatches", you would have no trouble providing me with a justified true belief about whether the red jelly-like substance I present you with is a "bandersnatch". The more you are presented with things which are called "bandersnatches" the more justified you will be in deciding if a new thing is similar enough to fall into that group. At no point in time have I had to tell you what a "bandersnatch" actually is.

So, to answer your direct question, it depends on what the behaviour is. If it is something which can arguably be shown to be similar to all the other behaviours already in the group "moral behaviour", then it is a reasonable argument. Others might disagree, but we can have such a discussion based on arguments about similarity. If, however, the culture tries to claim that something belongs in the group which is entirely dissimilar from everything else in the group, and provides no argument as to what it is about this behaviour which they consider similar, then they are objectively wrong, just as wrong as they would be if they decided to just randomly call thing 'car' based on no similarities at all.

Back in the day it was morally acceptable to stone homosexuals. That behavior was not in the “in group” for what is morally wrong by definition of the societies in the past that did it. Yet now we consider that morally wrong. Is this because we have redefined the word morality to mean a different group of actions where now that act would be considered morally wrong even though it wasnt in the past?

If it is something which can arguably be shown to be similar to all the other behaviours already in the group "moral behaviour", then it is a reasonable argument. Others might disagree, but we can have such a discussion based on arguments about similarity. If, however, the culture tries to claim that something belongs in the group which is entirely dissimilar from everything else in the group, and provides no argument as to what it is about this behaviour which they consider similar, then they are objectively wrong, just as wrong as they would be if they decided to just randomly call thing 'car' based on no similarities at all. — Pseudonym

When you say that it is a group that is similar, similar in what way? (Non harm causing, helping, stablizing society, etc.)

Is this because we have redefined the word morality in a way where that act is morally bad now even though it wasn’t in the past? — SonJnana

There are two issues here that are completely separate.

1. What people claim they think is morally acceptable because it confers membership of a social group to which they wish to belong, and what people actually think is morally acceptable are not always the same thing. Not all claims that a behaviour is moral can be trusted to be honest. A staunch Conservative might claim they believe low taxes to be an economic stimulant, but in reality, they don't care if it stimulates the economy or not, they're just being greedy. I suspect a good number of people stoning homosexuals probably knew full well it was wrong but did it because everyone else was doing it.

2. Notwithstanding the above, there are obviously still cases that are as you describe. In such cases we have indeed redefined morality slightly in that it includes something it previously did not, but the important thing is that we have not done so randomly. An argument has been made that stoning homosexuals is much more similar to all the things we call 'immoral' than it is to the things we call 'moral'. You cannot reasonably make such an argument about just anything.

So then how do we decide if things are similar enough in to be in the group of morality? What do they even share in common that makes them similar?

So then how do we decide if things are similar enough in to be in the group of morality? — SonJnana

We have discussions like this one. I used to sit on a board of ethics and we have discussions like this all the time. The point is we don't just throw our hands up and say "anything goes", we are defining, ever more carefully, where the boundaries of the definition are. Sometimes it became necessary to refer to 'popular opinion', but also arguments can be made by virtue of similarity alone.

What do they even share in common that makes them similar? — SonJnana

By 'they' I assume you mean definitions of morality in common usage? Haidt and Graham for example identify five common threads; Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, but others such a Bernard Gert list them as avoiding being the cause of death, pain, disability, loss of freedom, loss of pleasure, in that order (i.e, you might unavoidably be the cause of the later ones on the the list in order to avoid being the cause of the earlier ones).

The point is, whatever list you chose, you will not find murdering innocents on any of them, absolutely no-one thinks it is moral and they are right to think that because it is absolutely unlike everything else we have ever called 'moral', in just about every aspect. It doesn't matter if one quibbles over the exact nature of the similarities, that's what ethical discussions are about, but it would be quite a stretch to suggest there are no similarities.

No I am saying exactly what I meant to be saying. You are confusing matters of fact with matter of opinion. Own it; deal with it.
— charleton

Own what?

I'm not the one asserting that murder can be demonstrated as a fact. That's why I made this thread, to see if anyone can demonstrate it because a lot of people talk as if it is a fact. What are you even talking about??? — SonJnana

Let's recap on what you were saying.
You were comparing two things.
1) The roundness or flatness of the earth.
2) The rightness or wrongness of killing.

1) This is a matter of fact. It does not matter what you feel, what you believe, what your culture is.. The earth is flat or round.

2) If killing is wrong, or if killing is right is a matter of opinion. It does matter what you feel, what you believe, what your culture is. It matters if you were brought up by the Yanomami tribe which believes that if you have not made your first kill then you are not a man. Alternatively you might be brought up a Jain. They believe that treading on an ant or a worm is bad.

If a psychopath says he wants to murder because he enjoys murdering and doesn't care if other people don't like it, what reasoning do you have for telling him he shouldn't do it.

Is it because it goes against what you or majority of people desire? In this case the act of murdering is simply an act that goes against what other people want.

Is it because it is wrong in the context of presupposed value of life? In this case if "life" isn't important to the psychopath, then he's just doing something that goes against what others find important and in some sense just acting against others' desires.

Or is it because murder is just wrong for some other reason? — SonJnana

Psychopathy is an illness, so this is an unfortunate demonstration.

Murder is principally wrong because it goes against the nature of life itself. This can't be demonstrated as if it was a scientific fact, but can be demonstrated on other ways. Doesn't the fact that societies around the globe progressively traveled from allowing killing in many situations towards universal ban on killing tell you something?