Objective Morality

[Peter Graham]

By essentially denying the same privileges to over half of the human race, these approaches cut back on the number of possible solutions to problems.

I'm less sure. For one thing, there's so many possible solutions to problems that measuring whether there are more or less in any given situation is probably impossible. For another, repression doesn't necessarily mean a reduction of solutions, so much as a range of different solutions.

but at the same time, it means you also have more people invested in changing things for the better, rather than concretizing the methods of the past.

This presupposes that individuals with these "freedoms" have sufficient motivation to wish to make such changes. It also doesn't help us if things change for the worse.

Following the latter approach, however appealing it may be to our love of traditional ways of life, does not tend to get us in a position to make positive changes for the future (and thus ensure our survival, which in turn allows us to continue increasing our advantages, etc.).

That said, one could argue from a purely pragmatic standpoint that many of the manifestations of change - massive overpopulation of the planet, enormous and still growing pressure on dwindling resources and the advent of technologies which could kill us all at the flick of a switch - have made our species less sure of survival than at any time since the last Ice Age. Change has made us more, not less, vulnerable.

The larger our resource pool, the better the odds....

But the fewer the remaining resources, the worse the odds.......

Regards,

Peter

 

[RJM Corbet]

Now that HB's cleared up that 'subjective' means 'objective' I can't resist putting my mouth into gear and stating that the simple answer must be no. We can't know. We're like fleas on a dog trying to understand the dog from within a forest of fur. Then there's something beyond the dog, and beyond.

A priest believes it's wrong to kill, a soldier that it's wrong to shoot an unarmed man. Lions think zebras belong on a plate, zebras think lions belong in a cage. Entirely subjective, in nature. Big galaxies swallow little ones: to he that has shall more be given, to him who has little, even that shall be taken away.

But if we can lift our minds beyond nature, then nature is a room within a greater house. Call it 'spirit' the words don't matter. The house surrounds the infinite rooms (dimensions) that it contains and permeates, is not contained by them. And then, there's something beyond the house. Beyond 'spirit'. Holds it all together. Is that love? In the highest sense.

I'm with Parson: this world is not my home ...

 

[Parson]

Welcome fellow sojourner.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Even in the broadest terms of "morality" we can't actually know what is moral and what is not. One might think it is immoral to leave a man who is drowning; and believe it moral to save them.

But this can have the far-sighted results J.D. spoke of earlier. What if that man were to later rise to power and become almost like a second Hitler? It would have probably been moral, then, to leave the single man to drown in order to avoid the bloodshed of hundreds, or thousands, or millions due to his hand years later. And the issue of "what provides the greatest benefit to the greatest amount of our people."

It is a great benefit to find and eradicate causes of diseases; such as malaria or bubonic plague. But is it truly moral to change the genetic code of mosquitoes so they no longer live long enough to develop the malaria parasite? Is it moral to destroy thousands of rats to prevent the spread of disease? Is it moral to make a species go extinct so another is no longer threatened by it?

It really all does come down to what has been taught to you, and not only by society, but by your loved ones. If we knew what true morality was, then we would never get into debates about subjects like Death with Dignity, abortion, genetic engineering, gay marriage, or war. Just to name a few.

And simply put...I don't think humans will ever learn what is truly moral. It's an idea; not something created by nature, and it can never have empirical evidence the way, say, quantum mechanics can have. And without empirical evidence, as an entire species, we will never agree on ANY subject, as a single outcome.

 

[Parson]

Karn,

It seems to me that what you are saying is that the "ends justify the means." Usually this kind of thinking is used to justify what some what consider to be evil to achieve good outcomes. But you are saying that what is good is determined by what happens in the future. As the future is unknowable there can be no objective morality.

I would posit that there are things that are moral regardless of the outcomes. I base this statement on my belief that the definition of what's good and what's evil has been illustrated by the majority of thinkers through the ages. In your example of a man drowning, saving his life would be a moral choice. Letting him die would always be immoral. It is not dependent on whether his life turned evil.

The areas of agreement among the separate philosophies is small but there are some nearly universal ones.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Karn,

It seems to me that what you are saying is that the "ends justify the means." Usually this kind of thinking is used to justify what some what consider to be evil to achieve good outcomes. But you are saying that what is good is determined by what happens in the future. As the future is unknowable there can be no objective morality.

I would posit that there are things that are moral regardless of the outcomes. I base this statement on my belief that the definition of what's good and what's evil has been illustrated by the majority of thinkers through the ages. In your example of a man drowning, saving his life would be a moral choice. Letting him die would always be immoral. It is not dependent on whether his life turned evil.

The areas of agreement among the separate philosophies is small but there are some nearly universal ones.

Letting a man die is in general immoral, yes. And no, none can see the future. But say you did know that this particular man was planning to, and would succeed in, taking, say, fifty lives by blowing up a mall? Assuming you tried to alert authorities of such a plot but received no help, would you still save the man from death, knowing that if you did, far more lives would end? Sometimes there is no outcome on the side of pure good. Lesser of two evils would be the only moral choice.

 

[RJM Corbet]

... on the side of pure good...

And what is that?

Man has always looked upward, toward the 'light' for moral guidance, from the earliest sun worshippers there's been the awareness that some eternal, timeless power is constantly working to draw all lower nature toward the purity of it's own higher nature ...

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

And what is that?

Man has always looked upward, toward the 'light' for moral guidance, from the earliest sun worshippers there's been the awareness that some eternal, timeless power is constantly working to draw all lower nature toward the purity of it's own higher nature ...

Indeed, we can never truly know what the "pure good" is. But the closest I personally see it is to the benefit of others with no harm to anything else.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Indeed, we can never truly know what the "pure good" is. But the closest I personally see it is to the benefit of others with no harm to anything else.

Comes back to 'love' then? In the highest sense ...

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Pretty much.


This isn't a theological debate, but a philosophical one. The problem with philosophy, as I've stated before, is the fact that there is no possible way to have tangible evidence to prove one philosophical idea or another. And hence, debates will always occur.


Despite all the same morals society in general seems to share, i.e., murder is wrong, theft is wrong, etc., there are more personal, base morals that are the ones that differ, and these base morals can bring into question the so-called "absolutes" of the broader morals. Is it really so wrong to steal a loaf of bread if your family is starving?


It comes down to ends justifying the means when it comes to more personal morals. And I'm not talking about "sticking it to the man" when I question the morality of stealing that bread. What I'm bringing to mind is the possible death of innocents if that bread is not taken. And I know, I know, a lot of first world countries have programs to help out with their impoverished, like the Food Stamp program here in the United States. But what of third world countries, like many African countries where help from the better off countries don't arrive in time, if at all?

 

[RJM Corbet]

... i.e., murder is wrong, theft is wrong, etc ... But what of third world countries, like many African countries where help from the better off countries don't arrive in time, if at all?

I find it useful often to take an argument back to basics. Nearly all social mores, marriage customs etc, are originally designed to protect the 'tribe', and don't apply outside the tribe: ie: Apache steal from Apache = bad; Apache steal from Sioux = good. And so on, by extension. (Sorry, no offence meant to any Apache out there.)

But this is all 'nature'. All that exists, that we can in any way perceive or know, from grass to quasars, we can perceive only because it exists in 'time'. The circle of life. But it exists within a higher dimension, that turns the wheel of nature, and is not turned by it. And an even higher, beyond that.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

I'm technically not even talking about from "outside the tribe," even. Tribe were made up of numerous families; what if you were a Sioux and stole from another Sioux to feed your family?


Speculation I know, but these are only meant to be hypothetical for sake of argument. Tribes share within their own? Not always, I'm sure.

 

[RJM Corbet]

I'm technically not even talking about from "outside the tribe," even. Tribe were made up of numerous families; what if you were a Sioux and stole from another Sioux to feed your family? ...

No, that would be a deadly crime. The tribe comes above the individual, or the individual families that it consists of.

But would that happen in such a society? Tribal mores would require families to support one another, for the survival of the tribe.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Yes, but-and I don't know if I actually posted this-but societal mores do tend to change with the times, especially under such large impacts as technological advancement that makes the necessity of hard gain in order to survive less and less likely.


And whether or not the laws of the ancient tribe would see it the way, is irrelevant. What I was talking about was, do YOU think it would have been moral or immoral to steal from one of your own for the sake of your own individual family? And especially in this day and age when we don't think under terms of "tribe," except in perhaps some remote areas of the underdeveloped world, but of "nation," where our affiliation towards one another is not actually knit at all?

 

[RJM Corbet]

Yes, but-and I don't know if I actually posted this-but societal mores do tend to change with the times, especially under such large impacts as technological advancement that makes the necessity of hard gain in order to survive less and less likely.


And whether or not the laws of the ancient tribe would see it the way, is irrelevant. What I was talking about was, do YOU think it would have been moral or immoral to steal from one of your own for the sake of your own individual family? And especially in this day and age when we don't think under terms of "tribe," except in perhaps some remote areas of the underdeveloped world, but of "nation," where our affiliation towards one another is not actually knit at all?

Quite. I was in danger of approaching the 'noble savage' myth.

But Karn: do I think so? It's like, if you steal from a bank that can afford it, a 'victimless' crime, then it's ok? But if you steal my pay packet, whatever the reason, now I have to suffer?

Really I think that everyone has their own inner moral code. It's a personal code that isn't necessarily that of the society. It may allow theft but not, say, pushing old ladies over in the street to steal their handbags. As long as one is true to one's own code, one is still a moral person? It's those who seem to have no personal code whatsoever who are the truly scary ones ...

EDIT: whether it's to feed your family or to feed your heroin habit, the need is still there?

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

The difference between the two is the fact that a heroin habit provides no true benefit to others (ignoring the fact that your dealer gets some cash) while stealing bread for one's family means they can eat and continue surviving.


I'm one for the death penalty, for example; others find it immoral, but even with life in prison there can be possibility of parole or escape; and say a prisoner who is guilty of murder and convicted-and I do mean truly guilty and not just found so-manages to get out of prison by way of sentence running its course, parole, or escape...and goes to kill again, and kills more than one. I would find it moral to make sure that one is unable to ever again perform his deadly actions.


And to another subject I had mentioned before in the thread: I am also in support of Death with Dignity, and others find it immoral. It's death, yes, but I do believe that when a mercy killing is TRULY a mercy killing, in order to spare the sufferer any unbearable, unrelenting pain, then to end their life I would think would be a moral act.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Mercy Killing: I'd do it for my dog, hope someone will do it for me, should need arise.

Death Penalty: Do it quickly, get it over with, not to punish, no need to torture just, as you say, throw out the rotten apple. Mistakes will be made, but ...

Drug Theft: A need is a need. Withdrawal is far more painful than hunger.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Drug withdrawal is more painful, yes, and it can indeed be deadly, but as I said, the difference between stealing the bread and a drug withdrawal is the fact that drug withdrawal only physically affects the druggie, and to steal to support a drug habit is NOT moral in my eyes. Yes, there is survival and self-preservation instinct, but that is not the same as morality.

And I had also listed that stealing the bread for your family would have to be your very last option for feeding them and keeping them alive. Back to the wall, ends justify the means, if the benefit to others outweighs the losses. It's a parrotry of what I had said earlier that you noticed-when the situation can not result in "pure good," then the lesser of two evils is the moral choice. And in the drug habit situation, stealing for a selfish, destructive need is not the lesser of two evils.

What would I think about if you yourself, and nobody else, were the one starving in the bread situation? It's that kind of situation that actually tends to baffle me. It's a selfish act, even if it is under self-preservation survival instinct, and selfishness is not moral in my eyes. It's a toss up in the air because I do acknowledge that taking the bread may result in the possibility of at least one other person suffering for its lack.

 

[Parson]

If I understand you correctly Karn, you are saying that there is no objective morality, there is only the ends which justify.

I believe that if we go down that road, then anarchy is the ultimate result. A belief in an ultimate good and evil has lead to a society in which it is possible for altruism.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

It's not that I believe that there can't be an ultimate good or evil. It's just that too often there are situations when the ultimate, or pure good as I've said, just can't be reached.


And beyond that, I don't think humans will ever be able to reach the state of objective morality, so the best we can do is the least of evil.