Right & Wrong

[Raúl Duke]

Does right & wrong exist objectively (measured and/or determined objectively); i.e. Does objective ethics really exist? (Some people claim it does. But I would like to know; does it really?)

Or is ethics purely subjective?

[Sir_No_Sir]

Yes.In my opinion.

EDIT:
fuck i mean ethics are purely subjective

[Led Zeppelin]

Yes, it exists objectively.

For example killing an innocent person is wrong, objectively.

[Sir_No_Sir]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:59 pm
Yes, it exists objectively.

For example killing an innocent person is wrong, objectively.
What if your defending yourself though?
Most people would say that's okay, but there are some who wouldn't.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:08 pm
What if your defending yourself though?
Most people would say that's okay, but there are some who wouldn't.
Then the other persons innocence isn't objective fact anymore.

[apathy maybe]

The universe doesn't care if you kill someone or not. There are no objective right or wrong. Full stop. If you are a materialist, you have to agree that the universe doesn't care, this is the only way to have objective morals.

Even if everyone agreed with a statement ("it is wrong to kill innocents" for example), it would still be subjective. (Not only that, there would be interpretations on, "kill" and "innocent".)

So, all ethics and morals are subjective. God doesn't exist, therefore there can be no objective ethics or morals.


(Of course, this doesn't stop us from having the opinion that our ethics or morals are better then someone else's. )

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:59 pm
Yes, it exists objectively.

For example killing an innocent person is wrong, objectively.
Why is it wrong though? What is your objective reasoning?

[Raúl Duke]

I personally agree with apathy maybe; but I posted this just to see everyone here idea towards the matter.


If you are a materialist, you have to agree that the universe doesn't care, this is the only way to have objective morals.

This point intrigued me, so materialist's really agree that the "universe don't care" (i.e. Universe has no objective ethics).

Also the last part about "this is the only way to have objective morals" confused me, could you elaborate on this point?

Could you also tell me what kind of ethics (and please don't answer with "a materialist ethics, duh"; I want you to give me a short explanation) a materialist would have?

[apathy maybe]

I'll answer your questions in the order you asked them.

Firstly, the universe doesn't care. It can't, it doesn't have a mind. Well, that is my position anyway. And I am sure that all materialists (people who believe in only physical things and don't believe in dualism etc.) would agree.

Secondly, what are "objective morals" (or "objective ethics")? They are morals that are right or wrong no matter what anyone thinks on the matter. They are black and white answers to questions like, "is it wrong to kill innocents?". I meant that unless you have a being who was above humans (for example a God (in the Christian or deist sense)) then there could be no objective morals. Er. I don't really know how to expand on that more ...

Thirdly: No. I can't tell you what sort of ethics a materialist would have, the same way I can't tell you what sort of ethics an atheist would have. Because of the disbelief in a higher power, (and from here I'm just guessing) materialists have two main places to draw ethics from. From within themselves, influenced by their upbringing and what they read and so on. And from outside, from the wider society. As these two factors vary, you will get a variety of different ethical standards.
You can find Publius in OI for example, he is an athiest, but a capitalist. Or LSD (and plenty of others) who argue that it is just fine and dandy to do what you want with non-human animals (may be slightly exaggerating the position here for affect). Then you have me, I'm an anarchist (and obviously anti-capitalist), yet am against cruelty to non-human animals, and really think we shouldn't be eating them either. Does that answer your question?

[Led Zeppelin]

Alright, your argument is in reality a non-argument.

Nature without human-beings is a deaf-mute, so there can be no objective anything without us existing. Of course the universe doesn't care if an innocent person is killed, it also doesn't care about anything else, it just "is".

So when speaking about something being an objective fact, we have to take into account humanity, and humanity has ethics, so objectively there is a right and wrong.

The innocent man example was small-scale, how about us nuking the world and destroying it? Would that be right or wrong? Well, the universe doesn't give a shit, but humanity sure as hell does.

That doesn't mean you're a materialist or not, it means you have common sense and basic logic in your brain.

[apathy maybe]

I disagree. How the fuck does humanity have anything? Humanity doesn't care if anything happens to it or to anything else.

And while subjectively I might be of the opinion that nuking and destroying the world is a bad thing, it isn't objectively a bad thing. You could say that it would be bad for humanity, but that isn't an ethical argument as such.

You shouldn't confuse ethics with success.

Sure, by your (subjective) standards it might be bad for humanity to be destroyed. Sure it could even be argued that objectively it would be not a good thing for humanity if it were destroyed (if good is defined as the continued existence of humanity). But it isn't an objective ethical argument to say that it would be bad for humanity to be destroyed. Why would it be bad for humanity to be destroyed? Because, subjectively, you think it is. As soon as you start bringing in something that is good or bad, you bring in subjectivity. Unless you define your terms (as I did with good above), and then examine a situation in relation to those terms, you can't really have an objective argument. (And the argument would only be objective in relation to those subjective definitions.)

Understand my point?

[rouchambeau]

There are objective ethics. See: Kant's "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morality".

[apathy maybe]

Because I can't honestly be fucked going and reading Kant's anything (I don't think I ever have indeed (how did I manage to pass philosophy I wonder?)), could you summarise his arguments for us?

Or perhaps show where I went wrong above?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I'm not familiar with that particular work, but Kant's major contribution to ethics was the categorical imperative, so it's probably that.

I.e., ethical principles are innate in humans. We know by intuition what is right and wrong, and this certitude transcends all culture and environment. Kant also managed to flip this into an argument for God.

-Alex

[apathy maybe]

So he argued for the existence instinct? Because otherwise (and without having read his work), it sounds like crap (being a materialist). Of course, even if these ethical principles were innate, it wouldn't mean that they were 'objective' as such. Simply that they were universal.

I'm sure you can all see the difference.

[Raúl Duke]

There can be universal innate ethics without having to be objective?
I thought the idea of a universal ethics was deeply related to an objective morality, at least in the religious morals which always claims to be "the only true one" and the "one that applies to all, since its the only true one".

[apathy maybe]

A universal innate ethic would be universal for humans only. It wouldn't apply for other animals (presumably) or for aliens. And, even if it was universal for all beings, I still don't think it would be objective as such.

Saying that something is objectively wrong, is saying that it is fundamentally wrong, that the universe cares as it were. However, as I have pointed out, the universe doesn't care. Claiming that some ethical position is objectively true, is saying that it is true regardless of what people think on the matter. And I would argue that even if people think something because it is innate, doesn't mean it is objective.

You could base an "objective" ethical position on (for example), what is good for humans (and many around here seem to do that). However, while all the conclusions you may draw maybe objective (though I would argue that they are going to be subjective anyway), the starting point is going to have to be chosen. And choice is subjective.

To further flesh this idea out, I'll quote the Wikipedia article Moral objectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral+objectivism).

Critics say that if morals are to be truly objective, they would have a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority — but there is no conceivable source of such morals, and so none can be called 'objective'.They claim that even if there are objective morals, there will never be universal agreement on just what those morals are.
And, not only that, but even if there were universally accepted ethics, with an unquestioned source, interpretation and authority, it still would not be objective. All our ethics come from our own point of view, we cannot be objective, thus non of other ethics can be. The universe does not have a point of view (and God does not exist), thus it cannot provide an objective ethics for us.

[rouchambeau]

I.e., ethical principles are innate in humans.
If by that you mean humans "just know" what is right and wrong, then you might want to give Kant another read.


Or perhaps show where I went wrong above?
See: Kant's "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morality".

[apathy maybe]

rouchambeau: I'm not reading Kant, I can't be fucked. I've got better things to do with my time. If you think that he showed how I was wrong, can you summarise his arguments here.

Argument by appeal to authority isn't going to work, so unless you can present his arguments ...

I stand by my arguments that there cannot be an objective ethical system, and this is grounded in my materialist outlook.

[rouchambeau]

I'm not reading Kant, I can't be fucked. I've got better things to do with my time.
Your loss. Honestly, Kant's ethical philosophy is not nearly as difficult to read in comparision to his other works, so don't be so scared.


If you think that he showed how I was wrong, can you summarise his arguments here.
No. You're a big kid and I'm sure you know how to do your own homework.


Argument by appeal to authority isn't going to work, so unless you can present his arguments ...
Well, then it's a good thing I'm not appealing to any authority I might have.


I stand by my arguments that there cannot be an objective ethical system, and this is grounded in my materialist outlook.
Sweet.

[luxemburg89]

ethics and morality, according to freud, exist as a result of both classical and operant conditioning within society. I disagree to an extent. In order for ethics and morality to exist, at least one person had to naturally feel them in the first place - but i do agree that the majority of morals come from set trends for 'normal' behaviour within a 'civilised' society.

[redcannon]

the concept of "right and wrong" and the concept of "property" are very similar, in that they do not exist

[rouchambeau]

the concept of "right and wrong" and the concept of "property" are very similar, in that they do not exist
O RLY?

[tambourine_man]

lol, kant and his "categorical imperative" is just academic bullshit irrelevant to daily life, dont even bother reading it. he thought it was immoral to lie no matter what. so if like a neo-nazi asked me where a comrade was with intent to kill or injure him, according to kant it's my "perfect duty" to tell him the truth.
anyways i would agree that theres no objective morality.

[Jude]

Sorry, didn't have time to read all of the previously posted opions, because ironically, I am busy writing paper on the morality of revolution for English, which I will post in CL but basically what it says is this: Morality is directly related to free will, and in this essay, the counterrevs are Imperial France, and that since the oppresed, the Algerians are fighting for freedom and safety, they are blinded by emotion and mob mentality, and thus cannot be held responsible for their actions. g2g

[bolshevik butcher]

I would very much agree that Kant's categorical imperative is useless (I've just finished studying it for school and it bored me shitless), it doesn't acknowledge the consequences of an action at all. It is completley alien to anyone who believes in any form of pragmatist, and if accepted widely in the socialist movement would certianly hold us back.

Ideas of right and wrong are purely subjective, there is no absoloute right or wrong, we cannot physically see a right or wrong. The idea that there is a definitive right or wrong would either point to it existing as a physical quality or some sort of higher power governing this.

[gilhyle]

If wrong means contrary to a/the rule, I understand what the term means. But if it means that, the rule must have a source - it must derive from an authority. Those who believe in objective ethics must describe the legitimacy of the authority on which the rule is based....you cant.

'God said to Moses love thy neighbour as thyself' is an Authority, but its illegitimate.

'Lying makes speach impossible' is a rule....but its false.

[aberos]

i would tend to agree with the direction in which this thread is heading. simply put, nothing is fully objective...let alone ethics. ethics and morals are bestowed upon us by the societal norms we live under. what is considered ethical in one society could be considered to be wholly heinous in another.

additionally, the idea that killing an innocent person is something that is objectively unethical is very shortsighted. how many billions of innocent people have been killed over the course of history because they wanted to defend their homeland? just because you are a member of an opposing armed force does not mean you lose your innocence. while in some cases there are clearly bad people in the armed forces, many times, they are just young men and women indoctrinated into believing they are serving their respective countries. yet many people would consider war to be ethical under certain circumstances; and, therefore, would consider the murdering of such innocents as ethical...so where is the objectivity there?

the fundamental purpose of a society is to place constraints and limits upon its inhabitants so as to permeate a sense of cohesion in that society. by imposing morals and ethics specific to that particular society, the peoples within are guided into behavior that will serve to perpetuate the existence of that society. without society to impart these elements, morals and ethics would be wholly subjective and individual to each inhabitant of the planet.

there is no right and wrong---there is only what society tells us is right and wrong.

[firstname]

well i dont think anything can be completely objective because people justify there actions for the "wrongs" they commit. a murderer may not see murdering as wrong.

[Eleftherios]

Ethics do not exist independently of society. All of our ethics and morals are determined by our society.

[Arkham Asylum]

Morality is a facade.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

What's this, another truth from a 'nihilist'?

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 12:34 pm
What's this, another truth from a 'nihilist'?
Actually it is a opinion or interpretation from a nihilist.

Only deluded optimists believe in items life truth,factuality,right or wrong.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AA:


Actually it is a opinion or interpretation from a nihilist.

Once more, is this yet another truth from a nihilist who could not care less??

And since this is mere 'opinion;, we can ignore it:


Only deluded optimists believe in items life truth,factuality,right or wrong.

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 08:36 pm
AA:


Actually it is a opinion or interpretation from a nihilist.

Once more, is this yet another truth from a nihilist who could not care less??

And since this is mere 'opinion;, we can ignore it:


Only deluded optimists believe in items life truth,factuality,right or wrong.
Truth? What is truth?


Actually I was describing a self realization of myself and you could ignore me but it wouldn't change anything.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A:


Truth? What is truth?

If you do not know, you are in no position to deny any exists.

Moreover, asking this question suggests that you might be interested in a true answer, so you can't be a nihilist, then.

Oh no, another truth from the all-time hater of truth:


Actually I was describing a self realization of myself and you could ignore me but it wouldn't change anything.

:o :o :o :o

[Arkham Asylum]

If you do not know, you are in no position to deny any exists.

Words like "Position" are remniscent to other words like "obligation".

What superficial terms you use for yourself..........

You are right I am in no position because I don't claim a "ought." but you on the otherhand are clearly supporting some obligational thought.


Moreover, asking this question suggests that you might be interested in a true answer, so you can't be a nihilist, then.

Not really. :P

I am just interested in your opinions and interpretations. :D



Oh no, another truth from the all-time hater of truth:

:wacko:


emoticons

I am sorry, I don't understand emoticon linguistics.

Translator?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AA, why are you posting my quotes 3 times over?

I know they are important, but gain some perspective, please!


Words like "Position" are remniscent to other words like "obligation".

What superficial terms you use for yourself..........

How can a term be superficial??

Anyway, leaving aside that conundrum, superficiality has nothing to do with it; you deny truth but do not seen to know what it is.

So, what exactly are you denying?

now, this looks like a randomly-typed sentence:


You are right I am in no position because I don't claim a "ought." but you on the otherhand are clearly supporting some obligational thought.

I do not know what "obligational thought" is, and even if I did, I would not use such a barbarous term.


I am sorry, I don't understand emoticon linguistics.

Once more:

Do you want the truth?

If you do, I will accept your resignation from the nihilist society.

If you do not, I won't bother trying.

[smoy]

way back someone said that "killing innocent ppl is wrong, objectivly" well just a take on right or wrong what if u have to kill one innocent person to save 10 other innocent people, then killing the 1innocent person is not wrong and is thus not objective and instead subjective

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, before we can even begin to answer that, we need to be clear what it could possibly mean to say that ethics/morality is 'objective'.

[Janus]

Useless spam and flame posts split to Trashcan. Let's avoid the personal conflicts in the future?

As for the topic itself, it's quite popular and has been discussed quite a bit:
ethics (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54334&hl=+ethics++moral*)
morals (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62482&hl=moral*)
ethics (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47434&hl=moral*)
ethics (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44141&hl=moral*)

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 22, 2007 06:40 pm
I would very much agree that Kant's categorical imperative is useless (I've just finished studying it for school and it bored me shitless), it doesn't acknowledge the consequences of an action at all. It is completley alien to anyone who believes in any form of pragmatist, and if accepted widely in the socialist movement would certianly hold us back.

Ideas of right and wrong are purely subjective, there is no absoloute right or wrong, we cannot physically see a right or wrong. The idea that there is a definitive right or wrong would either point to it existing as a physical quality or some sort of higher power governing this.
I don't know much about Kant in the specific aspects, as I haven't read the works of that agnostic, but I would agree with what you have said.

Although I would say that if it aids the cause of the working class, it is good, and if it goes against the working class, it is bad.

[Soterios]

I take a very Machiavellian attitude towards right and wrong.

Ethics mean little to me. If something MUST be done, then certain rules of society must be broken. The balance between the need of a solution of a problem and the "evil" of the act required makes up the "shade of grey". Lets give a situation that probably will never happen as an example. You need to save the world from an evil outside force. You feel that humanities greatest goal is to defeat this force- and that to you it is the most noble idea. But lets compare that with HOW to get it done. Lets say you must do the most evil act you believe in, and perhaps that is killing millions of innocent people. Keep in mind that the inherent goal and the required "sin" vary for everyone based on their personal ethics. In the example given, the act would have to be done- so that the overall goal is achieved. The positive and negative would balance out, and so it would be ethically justified.

I am well aware of the fact that this philosphy HAS been used by just about every evil dictator out there. The difference is, that THEY were not acting for a just cause, unlike the example, which features the ultimate cause, as well as the ultimate negative deed required.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:47 pm
Does right & wrong exist objectively (measured and/or determined objectively); i.e. Does objective ethics really exist? (Some people claim it does. But I would like to know; does it really?)

Or is ethics purely subjective?
Objectively measuring, they do not exist at all.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 14, 2007 05:27 pm
The universe doesn't care if you kill someone or not.
No, but we humans tend to.


There are no objective right or wrong. Full stop.

No, morality cannot exist somewhere out there, independent of human values.


If you are a materialist, you have to agree that the universe doesn't care, this is the only way to have objective morals.

True. But being a materialist doesn't mean we dispense with the ideal or see it as illusory. Historical materialism is about putting the ideal in correct relationship to the material.


Even if everyone agreed with a statement ("it is wrong to kill innocents" for example), it would still be subjective.

No, it would be inter-subjective. It would be a rule which guided behaviour and would, consequently, have material (that is, social) power. It would also not be subject to the random whims of subjective interpretation.

It's the same argument Marx puts forward about religion. Religious belief isn't just subjective illusion - it can't merely be dismissed by empirical observation, dispelled by philosophical argument or cured by psychiatry - it is embedded within specific social conditions. It becomes a shared relation. This is where it draws its social power from. The same with morality.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spot on Z, just lose the trendy word "values" and it will be 100% correct.

[MarxSchmarx]

Well here's a way to think about the "objective/subjective" question of morality.

Let's suppose there was a universal virtue that held, such as "thou shalt not pick thy nose." Suppose you were born in a remote, ethnically and culturally homogeneous village in the middle of nowhere that had no contact with the outside world. Suppose the sinners of this village believed that picking your nose was a sign of moral rectitude, kinda like helping an old lady cross the street in our society. Do you think people and you yourself would pick your nose incessantly? Yes, I do. So universal morality is untenable.

But suppose that we could, basically through a social "whim" create any old morality. Now imagine that this same remote society held lifelong celibacy was the highest virtue. Would people do it? I doubt it, for the simple reason that those that do would be unable to pass on their genes. Over time the virtuous would vanish from the population. Now, if there were cloning techniques or something, these celibate people would be able to pass on their virtuous genes to the next generation. So then I think that standard of morality will stand the test of time.

So I think to categorically say that something is moral, in all circumstances, is untenable, because we can always imagine a situation where the "absolute" morality would fail to persuade anyone to act a certain way. And at that point it becomes like the number of angels on a pinhead. But to say we can come up with our own arbitrary morality, given our present circumstances, is also false. Although this suggests morality is contingent, given the "hand" one is dealt, it is not. I think a gambling analogy can be taken further. One should not "always raise a bet", nor should one "raise a bet" based on a whim, but one should do so depending on the context one is in.

[rouchambeau]

MarxSchmarx, you're begging the question.