2) Analogies as to the facts of physical reality are not relevant. Morals are about how people feel. People feel differently about various things. Morals are value judgements, not facts. — charleton

Once again, either refute my arguments or back up your own position with a reason. As it stands, you have not done either, and as such, there is nothing here for me to either defend or refute.

Can you prove that the round earth is good or bad? You can demonstrate that the sun appears circular. You can even make 'circle' as defining by the shape of the sun. But can you demonstrate that the sun is evil or good? Morals are not factual. The closest you can get to objective morality is Law. — charleton

Neither the earth's shape nor the sun are either morally good or bad. An essential component of morality is intentions or voluntariness, and neither the earth nor the sun have that.

Yes, for those who don't know better, man-made laws are good starting points to moral judgement. This assumes that the laws are good, which is for the most part the case in developed countries. Now if we speak of laws being good or bad, then this implies a higher morality which serves as the criteria to judge man-made laws.

If morality is objective, there there are moral truths or morally right acts, such as following the Golden Rule. If not, then not. So what is your reason for believing that morality is subjective?

Hello.
In theory, your example indeed poses a problem. However, in practice, I claim that your culture A cannot exist. From experience, we know that nobody wants a degree of punishment that exceeds the degree of the crime. The punishment in culture A is clearly such a case, and so nobody would want to endure it. Not the citizens; not the law enforcers.

Alongside the principle of justice, human nature contains natural inclinations that apply to all, such as the fact that nobody wants unnecessary pain. As such, the principle of justice which may at first seem to be a mere equation without substance, is populated with inclinations from human nature, and this results in one single ethical system that would apply universally (in theory, if followed at all times).

Because the only rational reason to demand for justice is the fear of being the one that is in the worse situation. If one wants altruistic good, they'll prioritize the good and not its equal distribution. — BlueBanana

In your view, does it follow that such persons as Martin Luther King Jr. were selfish? I cannot agree. If one acts to restore equality in treatment, even if it is because they are situated on the worse end, as long as they do not go overboard so as to be unjust the other way, then the act cannot be called selfish.

I can't agree with that, for the reasons stated before. The concept of mercy just doesn't apply to means of crime prevention. — BlueBanana

I am not sure what you mean here. Let's take a step back to the definition of mercy. If mercy is defined as "never harming anyone ever", then it does not follow that mercy is always morally good, because it is sometimes necessary to harm, such as when defending a victim from a bully. If on the other hand, mercy is defined as "not being cruel" or "not giving a punishment that exceeds the crime", then mercy can indeed always be morally good, but also just.

You could say that the punishment clearly exceeds the crime by our standards today, however I don't think you have a basis for saying that majority of people in a culture can't exist that honestly believes that thieves truly do deserve to get their hand chopped off (that it doesn't exceed the degree crime). Such cultures may have been existing throughout history. With your logic, you could argue that about any type punishment. One could say that maybe prison sentences may be too much of a punishment for thieves also, or disagree about how long (2 years vs. 10 years in prison). Of course in the real world, every individual in a culture won't necessarily agree, which brings me to my next point...

The point of my comment was to talk about how people have different values. Individuals have different values, and to a greater extent societies have different values. Those values are what any justice or morality is dependent on. Values come from both biology and culture. How should a drug addict be punished? Some may think it's immoral to put them in prison and rather they should be only rehabilitated (some countries in Europe). Others may think drug addicts deserve 1 year, 5 years, 15 years in prison (the US). Some may go as far as saying they truly deserve the death penalty. An argument could be made that a democracy allows the greatest amount of peoples' values in consideration when making laws.

With presupposed values, something can be objectively more moral than something else. However, there is no objective standard for presupposed values that we are aware of that transcends human thought. Individuals and cultures disagree about what is moral. Natural inclinations are not the only thing that results in values. If that were true, everyone would have the same values, however we don't see that because of differing cultural effects or even just the parents one has. And I believe the differing values is what people mean when they say morality is subjective.

In your view, does it follow that such persons as Martin Luther King Jr. were selfish? — Samuel Lacrampe

No. His work resulted in net gain.

I am not sure what you mean here. Let's take a step back to the definition of mercy. If mercy is defined as "never harming anyone ever", then it does not follow that mercy is always morally good, because it is sometimes necessary to harm, such as when defending a victim from a bully. If on the other hand, mercy is defined as "not being cruel" or "not giving a punishment that exceeds the crime", then mercy can indeed always be morally good, but also just. — Samuel Lacrampe

I would use neither of those definitions. I'd maybe define mercy as an act or decision of not punishing (even if the punishment is just). Unless prisons are made inherently uncomfortable or dangerous for the inmates, I don't call imprisonment punishment.

I think I have already addressed this, but I will try again. "Equality in treatment in all men" means that, for a given situation, the treatment you choose must apply to yourself, and to others, and from yourself, and from others. With this, the treatment "do as you please, and only as you please" cannot be just, because what pleases you does not necessarily please others. So there is a contradiction, both when you apply the treatment to others, and when others apply the treatment to you.

I think women are more important than men since men are incapable of giving birth. — charleton

Women are incapable of giving birth without men. :cool:

Different roles in society require different treatment. — charleton

I thought your position was equality in treatment in men and women. Now you argue for different level of treatment? I am not sure where you stand.

To some degree we all have to treat ourselves before others since we would be incapable of working for others were we to not first look after ourselves. If you were to stay hungry before ensuring the rest of humanity were properly fed, then you'd be dead before you got very far. — charleton

I agree with you on that one. But if the act of helping yourself first is only intended as a means to the end of helping others too, then the act is not defined as selfish. Selfishness would be helping yourself only, with no intention of equal treatment for others down the road.

For the rest of us not so magically endowed perhaps you could explain exactly what it was about the context that lead you to uncover Samuel's secrect misogynist agenda. — Pseudonym

While I am secretly a misogynist, I am nevertheless offended that this was presumed from my use of words in the OP. :shade:

Women are incapable of giving birth without men. :cool: — Samuel Lacrampe

In theory we could all be born of stem cells. women would still be needed to gestate the foetus.

I thought your position was equality in treatment in men and women. Now you argue for different level of treatment? I am not sure where you stand. — Samuel Lacrampe

I stand on a platform which insists that morality is subjective. My personal position is not relevant. I've only to demonstrate that there are DIFFERENT positions which are based on preferences that are cultural, social and personal.

[...] I don't think you have a basis for saying that majority of people in a culture can't exist that honestly believes that thieves truly do deserve to get their hand chopped off — SonJnana

People cannot honestly believe that thieves truly deserve to get their hands chopped off unless they agree for it to happen to them under a similar situation. And I am fairly sure that no one in history has ever willingly got their hand chopped off.

[...] there is no objective standard for presupposed values that we are aware of that transcends human thought. — SonJnana

What about the Golden Rule: do onto others as you want them to do onto you? This practical rule is objective, and is derived directly from the concept of justice as defined in the OP. Let's apply it to the aforementioned examples:

Thieves example: It is possible for ex-thieves to have a "change of heart" and decide to repay their debts to society. In which case, they may not mind jail time or money compensation (even with interests); however, no one would choose to get their hands chopped off in the name of 'justice'. Not even the makers of these laws.

Drug addict example: Should drug addicts go to jail, or get rehabilitated? Well, if the law makers were drug addicts, and through not fault of theirs (which can happen), then surely they would want to get rehabilitated, and not go to jail. As such, only rehabilitation passes the Golden Rule, and is therefore just.

I did not respond to all your objections to keep the post short, but I think this is a good start.

No. His work resulted in net gain. — BlueBanana

A few comments: (1) This does not seem to follow from what you said earlier, that the only rational reason to demand justice is out of selfishness (maybe you changed your mind; and I am just clarifying). (2) So your judgement of people's acts is based on results, not intentions? If the same acts had not resulted in a net gain, then would he have been judged as selfish? One is fully in control of intentions, but not necessarily of outcomes. (3) It seems that you too believe in morality being objective, since you speak of a "net gain" which sounds like an objective judgement. Now, what is your criteria to determine a gain vs a loss, if it does not involve justice?

I would use neither of those definitions. I'd maybe define mercy as an act or decision of not punishing (even if the punishment is just). Unless prisons are made inherently uncomfortable or dangerous for the inmates, I don't call imprisonment punishment. — BlueBanana

Alright. I find this 'prison is not punishment' to be an odd judgement, but I'll roll with it. Now can you find a case where justice demands for a punishment that exceeds prison time? I admit I cannot find one, and without it, your point that, sometimes morality is separate from justice, is incomplete.

(1) This does not seem to follow from what you said earlier, that the only rational reason to demand justice is out of selfishness (maybe you changed your mind; and I am just clarifying). — Samuel Lacrampe

True, I'll rephrase that as "demanding justice for the sake of it".

(2) So your judgement of people's acts is based on results, not intentions? — Samuel Lacrampe

No, I base it on intended results, which in that example happened to be the same as the results.

(3) It seems that you too believe in morality being objective, since you speak of a "net gain" which sounds like an objective judgement. — Samuel Lacrampe

No, I only believe that to be my subjective opinion.

can you find a case where justice demands for a punishment that exceeds prison time? — Samuel Lacrampe

Is the code of Hammurabi unjust? I think "eye for an eye" is about as just as it gets.

People cannot honestly believe that thieves truly deserve to get their hands chopped off unless they agree for it to happen to them under a similar situation. And I am fairly sure that no one in history has ever willingly got their hand chopped off. — Samuel Lacrampe

People can honestly believe that thieves truly deserve to get their hands chopped off and agree for it to happen to them under a similar situation, until they are in that situation. Similarly, one can think it is moral for thieves to go behind bars and that one should themselves be put behind bars should they become a thief, yet when actually in that situation, not willingly want to go behind bars.

I understand that this is an extreme example, but it is entirely possible that historic civilizations really were like this.

Drug addict example: Should drug addicts go to jail, or get rehabilitated? Well, if the law makers were drug addicts, and through not fault of theirs (which can happen), then surely they would want to get rehabilitated, and not go to jail. As such, only rehabilitation passes the Golden Rule, and is therefore just. — Samuel Lacrampe

If the law makers aren't drug addicts, it's entirely possible that because of their values they truly believe drug addicts deserve to go to jail, including themselves, while at the same time believing they will never end up that way. And if they do at some point become a drug addict, they may then change their minds and find that rehabilitation makes more sense.

What about the Golden Rule: do onto others as you want them to do onto you? This practical rule is objective, and is derived directly from the concept of justice as defined in the OP — Samuel Lacrampe

Even if we have disagreements about the specific examples above, surely you must still acknowledge that individual people, and even more so different cultures, have different values. Natural inclinations are a huge factor of course, however people and cultures can come to different conclusions about what is justice because they have different wants. And they do all the time in the real world. What is justice will then vary between individuals and probably more so between cultures.

Also, even if theoretically everyone had the same wants and values, and miraculously somehow all were in agreement about how justice should be served, their justice would then still be dependent on their wants and values by your own definition of the Golden Rule.

askfjhagnslfkuganslfukaghjsnlkfajsf

I think I have already addressed this, but I will try again. "Equality in treatment in all men" means that, for a given situation, the treatment you choose must apply to yourself, and to others, and from yourself, and from others. With this, the treatment "do as you please, and only as you please" cannot be just, because what pleases you does not necessarily please others. So there is a contradiction, both when you apply the treatment to others, and when others apply the treatment to you. — Samuel Lacrampe

I feel we're kind of going around the circle, too, but I'm willing to keep it up to see if something latches on.

My rejoinder here is that the same can be said for the golden rule you propose. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" leads to a contradiction -- because what you want may not be what someone else wants, especially if the standard is necessity.

To contravene this sort of criticism of the golden rule others have developed the platinum rule: "Do unto others as they wish to have done unto them" -- but this likewise does not meet the standard of necessity, because you may not wish to do what I want you to do for me, and I likewise. It would not necessarily please any of us, though we may find ourselves pleased by others.

Even so, I would also say that justice isn't about pleasing others at all. Justice is about fairness. It's different from moral goodness, as I see it. They are actually very often in conflict with one another.

And I want to add a side note to the conversation: I realize that the topic is really about the objective/subjectivity of morality. But I think the meta- position on morality is better reached in the weeds, so to speak, rather than in yet even more abstract arguments regarding the objectivity/subjectivity of morality. My long term strategy here is to explore one of the main arguments for moral nihilism -- the argument of diversity in ethical commitments leading to a reasonable inference that there is nothing objective about them. I think a flip side of this argument is: even if you come up with something that sounds universally agreeable, that we only do so by abstracting moral norms to a point that they say virtually nothing about proper conduct.

While I know the response to this argument, from the moral realists perspective, is to point out that no subject matter has agreement, I wonder if there might just be degrees of agreement/disagreement which makes the inference to objectivity/subjectivity reasonable.

Kants thoughts might be helpful here; he talks at some length about the issue of intentionality when considering the categorical imperative and this would seem to imply a degree of subjecitivity in the process? The unintended consequences possibly injurious of the well intentioned act suggest the possibility of a relatavistic judgement?
Edmu d

In theory we could all be born of stem cells. women would still be needed to gestate the foetus. — charleton

Yeah I actually don't know much about this biology thing so I'll give you that one.

I stand on a platform which insists that morality is subjective. My personal position is not relevant. I've only to demonstrate that there are DIFFERENT positions which are based on preferences that are cultural, social and personal. — charleton

I would still like your opinion on the matter. Do you not seek justice and avoid injustice, at least to yourself, if not to others too?

True, I'll rephrase that as "demanding justice for the sake of it". — BlueBanana

I agree with this new claim. Demanding a thing for its own sake and not as a means to another end like pleasure, is to say that the thing is good. But to seek something good despite it not necessarily resulting in pleasure is also called 'duty', or 'moral good'. So it seems that everyone has the same moral sense.

No, I base it on intended results, which in that example happened to be the same as the results. — BlueBanana

Yes I agree. And the intended result must be good for the act to be judged as good. And the criteria for this good result in this case is justice, because this is what Martin Luther King Jr. intended to bring.

No, I only believe that to be my subjective opinion. — BlueBanana

It seems from our discussions that your moral system follows the criteria of justice, which itself is determined objectively. You believe that this justice-based moral system is itself a subjective choice, and although we disagree on this, we would come to agree about moral judgements in practice, as these would be based on justice. It's a start.

Now, the justice criteria for moral goodness is objective if, for every subject, the moral sense agrees with justice at all times. And this appear to be the case, unless we can come up with a case where the moral sense runs in opposition to justice.

I think "eye for an eye" is about as just as it gets. — BlueBanana

Recall that justice is defined as 'equality in treatment among all men'. From this, it follows that if, for a given situation, you want to be treated a certain way, then you ought to treat others in the same way; aka the Golden Rule. Now in some cases, the 'eye for an eye' treatment follows the Golden Rule, and in some case, it does not. E.g., if I murder your spouse, murdering mine in return would follow the 'eye for an eye' treatment, but violate the Golden Rule. Therefore the 'eye for an eye' treatment is not always just.

Yes I agree. And the intended result must be good for the act to be judged as good. And the criteria for this good result in this case is justice, because this is what Martin Luther King Jr. intended to bring. — Samuel Lacrampe

No, it's merely a means to an end, the end being the benefit, not the equality itself.

If you could give 1€ to two poor people each, or 5€ for one of them, it'd be just to give 1€ to both but (imo) morally right to give 5€ to one.

Now, the justice criteria for moral goodness is objective if, for every subject, the moral sense agrees with justice at all times. And this appear to be the case, unless we can come up with a case where the moral sense runs in opposition to justice. — Samuel Lacrampe

People disagree on morality, and if justice is objective, someone's opinion must contradict it. For example, let's take abortions. What's the just way to act? Whichever it is, there are people who disagree.

Drug addict example: Should drug addicts go to jail, or get rehabilitated? Well, if the law makers were drug addicts, and through not fault of theirs (which can happen), then surely they would want to get rehabilitated, and not go to jail. — Samuel Lacrampe

I'm certain there are people out there that would, being found guilty, be willing to suffer a punishment that they wouldn't want to suffer.

I would still like your opinion on the matter. Do you not seek justice and avoid injustice, at least to yourself, if not to others too? — Samuel Lacrampe

Obviously. But that is question begging. What is just?

(1) The criteria or standard to evaluate the moral value (goodness or badness) of an act is justice.

Criteria or standards are mental.

(4) If the criteria to evaluate the moral value of an act is justice, and justice is objective, then morality is objective.

Criteria, evaluation, and value are subjective (i.e. occurring in minds only).

People can honestly believe that thieves truly deserve to get their hands chopped off and agree for it to happen to them under a similar situation, until they are in that situation. Similarly, one can think it is moral for thieves to go behind bars and that one should themselves be put behind bars should they become a thief, yet when actually in that situation, not willingly want to go behind bars. — SonJnana

The difference between the hands-chopped-off case and the jail case is that some people may willingly go to jail out of a "change of heart" or sense of duty, but no one can willingly accept getting their hands chopped off out of duty.

If the law makers aren't drug addicts, it's entirely possible that because of their values they truly believe drug addicts deserve to go to jail, including themselves, while at the same time believing they will never end up that way. And if they do at some point become a drug addict, they may then change their minds and find that rehabilitation makes more sense. — SonJnana

Unless I misunderstand you, it sounds like you agree, that on the basis of the golden rule, the jail decision is a mistake, while the rehabilitation decision is the correct one.

Even if we have disagreements about the specific examples above, surely you must still acknowledge that individual people, and even more so different cultures, have different values. Natural inclinations are a huge factor of course, however people and cultures can come to different conclusions about what is justice because they have different wants. And they do all the time in the real world. What is justice will then vary between individuals and probably more so between cultures. — SonJnana

Those different values you speak of, called subjective, are secondary to the values all men have in common, called objective. Subjective values are tastes, such as different art styles, music, fashion and food. Objective values are (1) physical values; e.g., we all seek health and avoid diseases; and (2) moral values; e.g., we all seek to be treated as equal and not lesser individuals. Now objective values are primary to subjective values because we want clothes before fashion, food before taste, and equality before any subjective tastes. Based on those primary objective values, we can achieve one universal justice system (which, mind you, should allow room for secondary subjective differences).

Also, even if theoretically everyone had the same wants and values, and miraculously somehow all were in agreement about how justice should be served, their justice would then still be dependent on their wants and values by your own definition of the Golden Rule. — SonJnana

That seems correct. If somehow our natural inclinations were to fluctuate back and forth, say from food to starvation, from health to sickness, and from pleasure to pain, then justice would be impossible in practice. We conclude that an achievable justice implies a common and unchanging human nature.

how do you define objective morality? [...] what does objective morality mean, if it means anything? what does it mean to say "morality exists"? — Pollywalls

Morality is the science of duty or what one ought to do. With that definition, morality must be objective or else does not exist; because if subjective, then the person is free to choose the object of duty and change their mind, which renders the duty worthless. If objective, then we can think of morality as a law to follow, because like a law, it is above us to judge us, and can be broken.

even if there were some "moral truths", there would be no reason to be morally correct or incorrect or anything. even if you were supposed to do something, there would be no reason to do what is supposed to be done. why should you be happy, why should you be good? — Pollywalls

Let's expand on that question. Why do we do anything? Either because it is a means to an end which is good, or it is its own end which is good (if not truly, then at least perceived to be). If morality is objective, then the moral good is an objective good, and is therefore its own end. Why should we choose the moral good over other goods like pleasure? By its own definition, which is again, the science of duty or what one ought to do. Not that the moral good is necessarily in conflict with pleasure or other goods, but the moral good takes priority over other goods if they are ever in conflict.

Hello.
I agree that intention is a necessary ingredient to a moral act (i.e., if unintentional, then the act is neither moral or immoral, but amoral), and that intention is a power possessed only by subjects. That said, to be morally good, the intention is to be directed towards justice, which itself is objective.

I don't think morality is about equality. If equality were to be a fact in society then there would be no need to be good and bad would simply not exist.

Morality is critically dependent on INequality - there has to be some who are underpriveleged or wronged. Ethics needs inequality for its existence.

That said, I guess it's morality itself that motivates our quest for equality - the point at which it would lose its purpose - strange!

The difference between the hands-chopped-off case and the jail case is that some people may willingly go to jail out of a "change of heart" or sense of duty, but no one can willingly accept getting their hands chopped off out of duty. — Samuel Lacrampe

Fair enough. I admit this example is a little extreme.

Unless I misunderstand you, it sounds like you agree, that on the basis of the golden rule, the jail decision is a mistake, while the rehabilitation decision is the correct one. — Samuel Lacrampe

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I meant is that yes, the law makers might change their minds when they are actually in that situation. But majority of them won't ever end up in that situation. So in their minds they may have no problem with truly believing that they should go to prison should they become drug addicts because they think the addicts are bad people and that they'll never end up as one.

Also, it's even possible that if the law makers do become drug addicts, they may

may willingly go to jail out of a "change of heart" or sense of duty — Samuel Lacrampe

while others want rehabilitation.

Those different values you speak of, called subjective, are secondary to the values all men have in common, called objective. Subjective values are tastes, such as different art styles, music, fashion and food. Objective values are (1) physical values; e.g., we all seek health and avoid diseases; and (2) moral values; e.g., we all seek to be treated as equal and not lesser individuals. Now objective values are primary to subjective values because we want clothes before fashion, food before taste, and equality before any subjective tastes. Based on those primary objective values, we can achieve one universal justice system (which, mind you, should allow room for secondary subjective differences). — Samuel Lacrampe

This downplays the complexity of cognition that humans have. We are much more sophisticated than the way you described. Yes we all have natural inclinations, but we still have differing values that are relevant for morality. Person A thinks justice for drug addicts is rehabilitation. Person B truly thinks it is wrong and they should go to prison for sense of duty. Do you not think this is possible?

Some people think having sex outside of marriage for everyone is immoral. Some people think it's okay to have as much consensual sex as you want.

That seems correct. If somehow our natural inclinations were to fluctuate back and forth, say from food to starvation, from health to sickness, and from pleasure to pain, then justice would be impossible in practice. We conclude that an achievable justice implies a common and unchanging human nature. — Samuel Lacrampe

Morality is a word we use to characterize acts based on presupposed values. These natural inclinations you speak of are some presupposed values. For basic things like murder, yes most people in the world will have similar values - most will be against murder because they value life which is a natural inclination. Yet there are huge differences in values across people. Some think it is immoral for a 30 year old to get involved with younger than 18 year old. Yet in other cultures, they truly think it's acceptable for a 15 year old to be with a 30 year old.

If there was a set definition for morality with set presupposed values that somehow apply to everyone, then we could say things are moral or immoral based off of that criteria. However we don't see that because people value different things and use different presupposed values when using the word moral or immoral.

mercy cannot be unjust :brow: to anyone. Not showing mercy doesn't just harm the "target" but rots the soul of the ungiving.

I don't know whose definition that is. Merriam Webster defines "justice" as followes:

a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments meting out justice social justice

b : judge a supreme courtjustice —used as a title JusticeMarshall

c : the administration of law a fugitive from justice; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity a system of justice

2a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair questioned the justice of the their decision

b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action 

(2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness the justiceof their cause

c : the quality of conforming to law

3: conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness