Is Morality subjective?

[G4b3n]

I have seen quite a few bourgeois philosophers claim that morality is both subjective and objective, or completely objective.

what is your take and why?

[cyu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cooperation

While this does not yet amount to a science of morality, the game theoretic approach has clarified the conditions required for the evolution and persistence of cooperation, and shown how Darwinian natural selection can lead to complex behavior, including notions of morality, fairness, and justice.

[G4b3n]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cooperation

While this does not yet amount to a science of morality, the game theoretic approach has clarified the conditions required for the evolution and persistence of cooperation, and shown how Darwinian natural selection can lead to complex behavior, including notions of morality, fairness, and justice.

And you believe these notions to be objective?
If so, why?

[Sotionov]

First of all, saying that morality doesn't exist, and that people should disregard morality in itself- is nonsensical, literally no one can be void of ethical views. Every "ought" statement is an ethical statement. Take for example statments that capitalism should be abolished and socialism should be established. If you ask the question "why" a few times, you are bound to get to some form of ethical theory. Talking about justice, hierarchy, suffering, poverty, survival, well-being, efficiency, those are all ethical appeals.

Ethical theories are grouped into virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism. Anyone saying that capitalism is unjust or inhumane or similar- talks about virtue ethics; anyone talking about wrongness of oppression and exploitation (etc) in themselves talks about deontology, anyone talking about bad consequences of capitalism and good consequences of socialism is talking about some from of consequentionalism. There is a bunch of ethical theories falling into those three categories, e.g. in virtue theory you have aristotelianism, stoicism, epicureanism, situational ethics, ethics of care, justice as fairness etc, in deontology you have kantianism, divine command theories, natural rights theories, contractarianist theories, deontological voluntaryism, deontological anarchism, in consequentialism you have utilitarianism, egoism, altruism, prioritarianism, and they all have different versions, e.g. utilitarianism has literally more then a dozen types.

.

Now, is morality (differentiation between good and bad action) subjective or objective?

It can be show that there exist objectively correct moral norms. To be precise, the core of morality is neither subjective nor objective, but inter-subjective, but that means that inter-personal moral norms can be shown to be objectively right or wrong. I'll explain how.

Reid showed that there exist something called communicative rationality, i.e. that all inter-personal interaction implies all participants accepting (by the very fact of participating) certain notions about reality, such as that they exist, that they can communicate, understand each other, that language exists, has meaning, and general norms of logic, rationalism and empiricism. To deny such norms in communication is to commit a perfomative contradiction, i.e. to contradict what you're saying by the fact that you're saying it, basically, like saying "I cannot speak".

Habermas and Apel pointed out that inter-personal interaction implies accepting not only norms that concern themselves with ideas about reality, but also with behaviour of participants. The core norm of that kind is the principle of autonomy, every participant having full freedom of controling himself, or in prescriptive form- no participant doing to any other participant something that he doesn't want to be done to him. If this norm is broken, that stops being a discourse, and starts being a conflict. Having in mind that when talking about any ethical idea, whether virtue, consequentialist or deontological, they can justified only by discourse, which then implies objectivity of the correctness of principle of autonomy, and the objective wrongness of it's violation. Reasoning goes like this:

- Something can be justified only by discourse.
- Discourse implies certain norms, i.e. by entering it, one accepts certain norms, like respect for autonomy.
- To deny something one accepts is a contradiction.
∴ Any attempt to justify violation of autonomy is contradictory per se, i.e. violation of autonomy is injustifiable- making principle of autonomy effectively a moral axiom.

This axiom is a priori and value-free, effectively being an instance of objective deontological norm of morality.

I think it's pretty clear that the principle of autonomy in it's application (almost) implies anarchism- not imposing anything on people, and also not establishing relations of hierarchy, because every established hierarchy means alienation of autonomy. That in practice means basically anarchism, and is perfectly in line with anarchism if coupled with a socialistic (anti-capitalist) view of property.

[nizan]

I believe it was Nietzsche who said "who gives a flying fuck about this morality bullshit, lets go smoke some opium". I don't think there is much left to be made of the matter.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Morality doesn't exist.

[Fakeblock]

Morality is entirely dependent on the class relations in a given society. In capitalist society, the universal morality is the morality of the bourgeoisie. As long as bourgeois ideology dominates politically, bourgeois morality will dominate in culture. However, there are groups that separate themselves, to varying extents, from bourgeois ideology and morality (such as communists, anarchists, etc.)

Communism, as an ideology, is moral, to a degree, but not in the same way as the bourgeois and petit bourgeois ideologies. For (marxian) communists good and bad can only be seen in relation to the interests of the working class, i.e. what advances proletarian interests is moral, what harms proletarian interests is immoral. I'd say that what separates marxian communists from other ideologies, in this respect, is that they recognise the class character and deny the objectivity of their morality.

[Sotionov]

That's still an ethical theory, a consequentialist one "what is good is that which is in the interest of the proletariat", and then expanding on it's application. Being that some stuff is bad (e.g. rape) is always bad, irrelevant to whether or not it's in or against the interest of the proletariat, that theory is stupid as hell, but it's still a theory of morality.

[nizan]

That's still an ethical theory, a consequentialist one "what is good is that which is in the interest of the proletariat", and then expanding on it's application. Being that some stuff is bad (e.g. rape) is always bad, irrelevant to whether or not it's in or against the interest of the proletariat, that theory is stupid as hell, but it's still a theory of morality.

It's possible to theorize revolution without declaring it to be good or bad in the 'interests' of the proletariat, best interest being a less than amiable term for the terms of revolt.

Once you enter into an 'ethical' theory of goodness and the proletariat, you find yourself issuing judgement, consciously or not, based purely on the ruling ideals of the epoque. Yes, a tired quote, once used and abused to no end, but it remains a remark without its practice. The measurements of wealth are, today, measures of development and overdevelopment, qualifiers dependent upon accessibility in a society of class and hierarchy. When these measurements of poverty are applied to a hypothetical communist future, all that is achieved is the production of a more equitable capitalism. Those who speak of proletarian ethics and revolution in the interest of the proletariat only come to oppose the project of proletarian revolution, a contradiction in appearance designed in perfect line with the disunity of modern ideology being the result, the synthesis of interest to negate that of what is proclaimed. The image of the proletarian victory over history, as imagined by the mind of today, is nothing but an image of the past.

Dead are all theories of proletarian ethics, we have killed them so the proletarian may live.

[lautréamont]

Morality doesn't exist.

Morality does exist in the same way that ideology exists. Morality provides the ability for the bourgeoisie to maintain control over its power and structure.

The "subjective" and "objective" options are both off, too. Subjective implies that morality depends on individual perception. Individual perception has nothing to do with ideology, which exists as a historical force of reaction. "Objective" (or "universal") is the rhetorical status that ideology wants its prescribed morals to attain. As Hegel argued, dominant ideology strives toward universal objectivity. But it is the negative of universal objectivity that counters and later negates objectivity. The idea of "objective" bourgeois history is a good example. Its objectivity is almost always moralizing; "objective" history defines false universals in order to maintain the dominant power of the bourgeoisie.

[Sotionov]

Every time you say something should be done, you're uttering an ethical statement.

As I already pointed out- when someone says capitalism should be abolished, he's making an ethical statement, and when asked a few times "why" in order to come the the basis for his statement, there will we find some ethical theory.

[lautréamont]

ethics =/= morality

[Sotionov]

Ethics is generally the name of discipline that studies theories about morality, whereas generally morality is the name for differentiation of good and bad actions. They can be used interchangebly in different contexts.

[JPSartre12]

ethics =/= morality

This ^

"Morality" is one of the social narratives that constitute the entire social superstructure; it's pure bourgeois ideology. It's manufactured consent for institutionalized power systems, an illusion of legitimacy.

"Ethics" are different - fairness, co-operation, etc; the dynamic sociologic relationship that every person has with each other and is conducive for a peaceful, ordered society. Simone de Beauvoir wrote a good piece on existentialist ethics in her book The Ethics of Ambiguity.

I dislike it when people (conservatives, religious fundamentalists, etc) say that people wouldn't be able to know the difference between right and wrong without an institutional morality, or when they say that amoral societies would just anarchic state-of-nature chaos all the time.

I'm opposed to morality in all forms, but I'm supportive of a certain just ethic.

[Art Vandelay]

Morality is class based.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm

[Bardo]

Morality does exist and it is subjective. This is directly observable throughout the world. We can observe the range of moral virtues not only in individuals, but in whole societies throughout time and throughout the modern world. Morals of lesser importance like common manners obviously differ from person to person and place to place. Serious mores like murder and violence tend to be a little more universal, but still very subjective. Some people and societies reject all violence of any kind, while others tolerate violence to some extent. In the present day US alone, there are clear divides between moral stances from person to person as well as from place to place.

Humans everywhere hold moral and ethical virtues, therefore morality exists. These virtues change over time and between individuals. Therefore, morality is subjective.

[Sotionov]

These virtues change over time and between individuals. Therefore, morality is subjective. Astronomical theories change over time and between individuals. Therefore, astronomy is subjective.

People having different views about something doesn't mean that that something isn't objective.

[Bardo]

^Astronomy is the study of an objective reality, what changes is our perception and knowledge of it. The stars don't change according to our perception of them.

Morality is a social and personal construct. Morality does change according to our perception of it.



People having different views about something doesn't mean that that something isn't objective.

This is true of something that is objectively observable. There are still people that say the Earth is flat, it doesn't mean the shape of the Earth is subjective.

This is different from people who say the Earth is nice vs those who say it isn't.

[nizan]

Morality is class based.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm

Wherein a proletarian moralist talks about Bourgeois moralists.

Very much appreciated lad, thanks for the effort.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That's still an ethical theory, a consequentialist one "what is good is that which is in the interest of the proletariat", and then expanding on it's application. Being that some stuff is bad (e.g. rape) is always bad, irrelevant to whether or not it's in or against the interest of the proletariat, that theory is stupid as hell, but it's still a theory of morality.rape was considered legal, ethical, and the husband's right in marriage for a long time though... And still applies in some ways but is contested now because of general changes in society (women's movements, changing roles for women, etc).

Rape even further back was considered a "spoil of war" and there would have been no ethical problem with it for some classical societies... It was practical for them and pillaging was a way to keep the military together.

Morality is an idealist mask over more practical considerations... And those practical considerations in a class divided society create different ideas and views of right and wrong. When people talk of universal morals, they generally take more clear cut examples... But these examples tend to be in isolation and simplified. If right and wrong were that easy, then there's be no concepts such as moral ambiguity or dilemmas and so on. In real life moral considerations often conflict and to do right on one thing might be to do wrong at the same time. So when a moral dilemma occurs, how does someone decide this moral consideration over another? Well their class position, ideology, context, vales etc all come into play.

There can only be a small lowest common denominator of morality in class divided societies, universal morality to any real extent, requires a universal humanity.

[Sotionov]

^Astronomy is the study of an objective reality, what changes is our perception and knowledge of it. The stars don't change according to our perception of them.
Or one can be an idealist and say that the stars are not real, and that this world is not real, we can't trust our senses. It's a pretty famous philosophical position.


Morality does change according to our perception of it.Opinions about morality change, not morality.


This is true of something that is objectively observable. Which morality is, as I have demonstrated.


There are still people that say the Earth is flat, it doesn't mean the shape of the Earth is subjective. Exactly, that just means they're wrong. Likewise, just because you think that morality is subjective, doesn't mean that it is subjective, it just means that you're wrong.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Astronomical theories change over time and between individuals. Therefore, astronomy is subjective.

People having different views about something doesn't mean that that something isn't objective.

No, but one is different interpretations of a changing material phenomena whereas the other, morality, is different interpretations of immaterial ideals.

You are trying to argue that there are objective ideas, when there are not.

[Bardo]

Or one can be an idealist and say that the stars are not real, and that this world is not real, we can't trust our senses. It's a pretty famous philosophical position.

True, but this doesn't make the world disappear. One's perception of the world can change, the objective reality doesn't. If we can't trust our senses to determine whether or not the world is real, how can we trust our senses to determine objective morality?


Opinions about morality change, not morality.

Which morality is, as I have demonstrated.

Morals are not material constructs, they are social and personal constructs. By their very nature, morality changes with the social and personal perception of them.


Exactly, that just means they're wrong. Likewise, just because you think that morality is subjective, doesn't mean that it is subjective, it just means that you're wrong.

Says who?

:P

[Sotionov]

rape was considered legal, ethical,...

Rape even further back was considered
So what if it was considered ok? Did that make it ok?


Morality is an idealist mask over more practical considerations...Practical considerations are also ethical ideas. Being a consequentialist instead of a deontologist doesn't mean you have discarded "moralistic idealism", you're still advocating your opinion of morality.

[Sotionov]

True, but this doesn't make the world disappear.
Just like epistomological relativism doens't make the world disappear, moral relativism doens't make morality disappear.


One's perception of the world can change, the objective reality doesn't.One's view of right and wrong can change, the objective morality doesn't.


If we can't trust our senses to determine whether or not the world is real, how can we trust our senses to determine objective morality? Exactly. As I explained in message #4 of this thread, if we accept one, we must also accept the other, it is implied in our inter-personal interaction.


Morals are not material constructsNeither are laws of mathemathics, physics, etc, but is possible to doubt them just like the existence of the worlds as we see it.

[Comrade Jacob]

I personally drive my morality through Marx because I believe Marxism is the best way of life, so in that sense the basics are objective (objective on Marx and Engels). I think things they didn't mention (e.i LGBT rights) should be seen through what Marx would've seen them as. He didn't mention LGBT rights (as far as I know) but he would've been in favour of it.

So I think the basics are objective in my view but the extensions are "subjective" through the lenses of the fundamentals of the objectives. We could get all philosophical but I think without some standards on basics we would be fucked.

I hope that made some sense, it does to me anyway.

[Bardo]

Just like epistomological relativism doens't make the world disappear, moral relativism doens't make morality disappear.

One's view of right and wrong can change, the objective morality doesn't.

What is the source of moral objectivism? Who or what decides what is or isn't morally correct?

Is stealing objectively wrong or is it objectively right?



Neither are laws of mathemathics, physics, etc, but is possible to doubt them just like the existence of the worlds as we see it. , they are social and personal constructs. By their very nature, morality changes with the social and personal perception of them.

Mathematics and physics analyse the physical world just like astronomy does. These sciences are all observable from an objective perspective and our perception of them doesn't alter their material characteristics. Material characteristics alter our perception of mathematics, physics and astronomy.

Morality was conceived by human beings, the physical universe was not. Humans didn't discover morality, they created it. While humans created sciences as a means to analyse the physical world, they didn't create the physical world.

[Sotionov]

What is the source of moral objectivism?Same as the one of episemological objectivism- intersubjectivity, as I have explained in the message #4 of this thread.


Mathematics and physics analyse the physical world just like astronomy does.If one is an epistemological relativist, that just means that he can doubt laws of mathermatics, physics and astronomy.

[cyu]

http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/Science+Has+No+Morals

Science itself may be amoral, but various social sciences involve the study or analysis of moral systems, from political science to economics to comparative religious studies.

Science also has something to say about contemporary morality as the result of the evolution of cooperation. By cooperation, I don't merely mean negotiation or compromise. I think that implies that the result of cooperation is ultimately not as good as you would like, if you didn't have to do it. In many cases, I would say that's not true at all.

For example, say there were two people on opposite sides of an island, each building their own house. So each of them climbs on ladders, by themselves, outside each of the houses, doing various things. The problem is that by working alone, they risk injury - the ladder may slip without anyone holding it. They also have nobody to hand them tools when they need it, etc etc.

If they worked together to build the houses (ie. cooperation), then they in fact would have someone to hold the ladder, or hand them tools. Similarly, on an assembly line, everyone works together to produce things much faster than if each of them had to build the whole thing alone.

On the other hand, if the two guys on the island decided to "compete" for the right to control the island, then they might spend their time making spears. When the day the fight comes, one may be killed, and the other may be seriously injured, only to die of an infection a week later. Competition obviously didn't quite work out for either party in this case.

I'm sure some "civilizations" end up like the one in Lord of the Flies, however, the "civilizations" like LotF don't have as much survival advantage as those with more cooperative memes.

The ones that don't have the same survival advantage kill themselves off and therefore their memes don't get propagated to future generations. The civilizations that not only don't kill themselves off, but help the carriers of their memes survive, end up with future generations with similar cooperative memes.

Interestingly enough, this is an amoral explanation for why you shouldn't kill people and why you should help them instead, instead of a moral justification for why you shouldn't kill people... it kind of scares me a bit actually.

[Art Vandelay]

Wherein a proletarian moralist talks about Bourgeois moralists.

Very much appreciated lad, thanks for the effort.

Trotsky's 'Their Morals and Ours' is one of the defining Marxian takes on 'moralism.' Stating Trotsky is merely a 'proletarian moralist' is factually incorrect. That is neither the position he argues forth in the book (this is a text I've read multiple times, as well as kept notes throughout reading, so I can back this up with quotes if you'd like) and neither is it a statement which precedes from any of the actions he undertook throughout his revolutionary career. Your comment is baseless.

[Remus Bleys]

I think things they didn't mention (e.i LGBT rights) should be seen through what Marx would've seen them as. He didn't mention LGBT rights (as far as I know) but he would've been in favour of it. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_and_LGBT_rights#Marx.2C_Engels.2C_Ulrich s_and_Schweitze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_and_LGBT_rights#Marx.2C_Engels.2C_Ulrich s_and_Schweitzer)r
Its wikipedia, but if there is any truth to this, no. Engels was homophobic.

[Comrade Jacob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_and_LGBT_rights#Marx.2C_Engels.2C_Ulrich s_and_Schweitze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_and_LGBT_rights#Marx.2C_Engels.2C_Ulrich s_and_Schweitzer)r
Its wikipedia, but if there is any truth to this, no. Engels was homophobic.

Hmmm... it was in the 1800s, people were ignorant about homosexuality and (if this is true anyway) I'm glad he looked past his phobia and publicly support the legislation of it.

[RA89]

I believe in a natural right. I think that without acknowledging that there is a natural right, we lead ourselves onto a dark road of nihilism which can eventually justify cannibalism.

I believe the natural right is something extremely similar to the golden rule, treat others how you would like to be treated yourself. Regardless of what era or country we live in I think we can always objectively state that certain things are morally wrong.