Philosophy meme
Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy..blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something
You are viewing a single comment
Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy..blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something
“Subjective morality” is just what people tell themselves so they don’t have to do any actual introspection
Some cultural things may be subjective - take looking someone in the eye when conversing, for example. Some cultures find it disrespectful to do so, while others find it disrespectful not to do so.
But the big things? Actual morality? There is absolutely an objective right and wrong.
This is an honest question; what would you say to someone who says: "Unfaithful women are to be stoned to death. God told me so, everyone I know agrees with me, so it is a moral absolute."
On what basis are you (we) right and they wrong?
God is a fairy tale, and stoning someone to death for any reason is horrible and barbaric.
“Because Santa said so” isn’t a valid justification for anything. Neither is religion.
Unfaithfulness is not objective. It's subjective. Death is objective, not subjective.
This is a logical fallacy.
A religious person might disagree with both those statements.
Always enjoy a good stoning. The screams of a dying woman, wonderful thing.
Above is a bit of sarcasm to make my point. We do know inside what is wrong when we do something.
I don't need religion or a God to know that, it's built in. People call it empathy but that's a weak word. It's a much stronger feeling that screams this is wrong.
This is why people who go to wars have to be brainwashed before they go kill other people.
Nothing is objective, least of all morality. And not everyone "knows inside when they do something wrong". Some people are legit wired differently and don't care, or actually get positive feedback from those screams you sarcastically brought up.
Yes, those are evil people. The world is made up of both kinds. But they are a lot less, and it's not likely that they will get the majority to accept their twisted ideas.
Ok so who's deciding which people are evil and which aren't? There are plenty of wrong things (according to me, today) that have been consensus among some for hundreds or even thousands of years. Adults marrying children. Slavery. Execution of homosexuals.
Or consider that vegan/vegetarians would say that slaughtering animals is wrong, and that they know that in the same "innate" way that you're describing... and yet the majority disagree with them. So who's right? Where can we get this objectivity? If it's just our "gut" then I'm sorry but there is not a single morality, there are 7 billion separate objective moralities.
It is wrong to slaughter animals now that we have technology that makes it unnecessary. The world could stop eating meat tomorrow if there was a virus inside meat that made people sick, so why can't we decide to do it without the virus?
If there was a virus, the world would invest billions in alternative foods. Why can't we do that now, today?
The majority disagreeing is not new. Democracy is not based on the wisest people making decisions. It's mob rule, or majority rule. Today people just watch TV to make decisions, and TV is controlled by corporations. So we don't really have the kind of democracy where people are well informed and feel like they can trust what someone in power is telling them.
I agree with all of that, but I don't see how that deals with the problem that we don't even have consensus on a morality that we are all supposed to "know" by ourselves because it is objective and somehow contained within us. Why is there such disagreement on what is moral if we should all know what's right?
It's a good question... I think social media has made it worse, because people are now convinced that they are correct within their perception bubble. This is why I hate downvotes - because it removes the chance for people to see opinions they disagree with.
It's crucial to see opinions we don't agree with, or we believe that the "others" are just stupid, since clearly everyone on our side agrees.
So, regardless of the reasons behind it, it seems clear that we don't all know what is right - or certainly we don't agree - so where exactly does an objective morality fit into the picture?
Should children be raised by parents that are neglecting them (not educating them, not preparing them for anything other than subsistence living) or is it moral for the state to take the kids away?
I don't think it's moral for the state to take the kids away, unless the kid requests it. Even kids knows when they are being abused and if it's bad enough, they should have the choice to leave. That being said, the state doesn't care at all about them. It's only marginally better than living with parents that don't care about them.
Perhaps there should be some kind of certificate to become a parent, but that will most likely be abused and become too controlling.
Yeah it could, but if we could put that aside how do you think the state should handle children conceived
out of wedlockI mean without permission.Could you point me to how I can meassure or otherwise empirically confirm these objective rights and wrongs?
Just because you cannot empirically measure something (at least at the moment), doesn't mean it can't be true.
Take consciousness, for example. We all know we have it. But we cannot empirically prove it. Does that mean consciousness doesn't exist? No, not at all.
Do we know that? No. We literally, truly, don't know that. We may think it exists - I do, and so do you - but without empirical evidence we can't know for certain.
I agree. However this is a very bad basis to start from if you want to find an actual truth. There is millions of ideas that were dreamed up by people that can't be empirically denied or confirmed, including all the gods.
I think that is a great example. Because if we understood consciousness, we'd probably also understand how we come up with ideas, like morality.
That's really the bigger point. Morality is an idea. It's like countries. We divide up the planet into sections on a map we made up and agree that those now exist. Then we build stuff along the border to make it exist. But there is no "true" or "correct" way to divide the planet into countries and nations. It's just a process that happens as an emergent property of a civilisation.
Just like consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. So ultimatly if you find out anything about how morality comes to exist, studying the brain is a good start.
But I doubt we'll ever find any objective moral truths, because we made up the entire concept.
Well, that’s the tricky part. There isn’t much in the way of empirical measurements for morality, which is why it tends to be so varied. But truth being difficult to find doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. There is still right and wrong.
As another user here put it, “Moral judgement is subjective. Moral truth is not.”
I don't see the tricky part. If it can't be empirically measured, it's not objective.
So to put it correctly:
“Moral judgement is subjective. Moral truth is too.”
Truth isn’t subjective.
But "moral truth" is.
Two contradicting things cannot both be true. That’s literally just not how shit works.
What two contradicting statements?
Any two contradictory moral statements cannot both be true. Implying that morality is subjective would imply that they can.
For example: “being gay is wrong” and “being gay is not wrong”
Both cannot be true. One is right, one is wrong. This is objective. You can extrapolate this to every other moral stance. No two opposing ideas can both be true.
Therefore, if you were to extrapolate this to every moral stance, there would have to be a right and wrong statement for every one.
Morality is objective. Judgement is subjective, but judgement can be wrong.
Ok, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what "objective" means. Neither of these statements is true.
Objective means, something can be confirmed by observation. For example if we were in a room and there would be a rock on the table and you say "there is a rock on the table" that would be true. And everyone else in the world could look into the room and observe for them themselves that the rock is infact sitting on the table. That's objective truth.
However if you said "this rock is ugly", that is not objective. Differnet people will have different opinion on the prettiness of the rock, because it's an inherently subjective quality. There is not "true" value for the rock's prettiness that can be observed.
The same goes for all moral judgements. You can not observe or meassure a moral quality objetivily because it's a value that is assigned by the judgment of a human brain. It's not an intrinsic quality of nature.
You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what “objective” means.
Objective (adj.)
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
In other words: real, true, or factual
There is such a thing as objective morality, or moral truth.
Inability to determine what that is does not make it any less real.
So there exists an asbolute moral truth, but we have no way to determine what it is? I'm sure we can agree that morals don't have a physical form, so in what way does it "exist"?
The problem I see with that definition is that we are asking to judge an opinion without opinions without opinions the opinion doesn't exist so still no objective morality is still hogwash as it's still a oxymoron if you see morals with zero judgements then everything is newtral right and wrong doesn't mean anything how do you measure the morals of slavery without personal feelings you can't say religion is bad that's a opinion you can't say human suffering is bad that's a opinion you can't say human prosperity is good that's a opinion nothing is inherently good or bad as those are opinions without opinions you can only say you are blind as even saying it's newtral is a opinion granted newtral is a debatable point so even if objective morality exist I'd be the most useless consept ever
you've lost the earth under the terminology. you're upset with some truly awful shit in existence, and seem uncomfortable with calling it anything that might minimize the horror of it. "objectively bad".
what if I told you that it can still be awful without being absolute? judgment requires a subject. passing judgment, that is seeing beauty. being subjective is one of the delights of human experience.
the only thing objective is that harming the subject is the ultimate violence. silencing the subject so that nothing can be called good or bad.
the rest is all up for debate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity_and_objectivity_(philosophy)
Well, let's look at geopolitics. The War in Ukraine. Putin says that the War is important to get rid of Nazis in Ukraine. A lot of ppl in Russia believe him.
I know for myself I don't believe it.
Let's walk through your definition: it's a big thing I think. So either me or they are objectively right. Well depending on if you define this as "actual morality". That concludes in your definition this can be objectively determined.
Well let's walk through Wikipedia's philosophical definition.
Can my opinion be formed independent of mind? That is, without bias, perception, emotions, opinion, imagination or conscious experience? Well I have biases against against Putin because I try to be neutral, but there's a lot of news articles highlighting bad politics from him. I have a certain perception about starting wars on an argumentation without good evidence. My emotions tell me that ppl dying is bad. My opinions tell me that there is no justification for a war if it clearly isn't a very limited defense against an attack. I do have an imagination of what the war looks like and what the consequences will be. And last but not least, ppl talking about how their relatives died or my father talking about his time in the army has left a conscious experience on me in that regard.
As you can see there's a lot going on that wants me to make this "objectively true" for me, but I really can't split all of these influences from my opinion, therefore this is not objectively determined via Wikipedia's definition.
Now I submit to you that you can't find anyone who doesn't have these biases to make the statement that the war is either right or wrong under that definition while being objective, per definition.
Which brings me to the conclusion that on this topic, your definition of it and Wikipedia's definition on it fundamentally differ and bring me to opposite conclusions. This means either your definition is the one we should follow, or Wikipedia's, and I have to say I'm gonna make my choice.
Btw this is in no way a dig at the idea that I wish there was some things that everyone knows are wrong, but I just think ppl are ppl and it doesn't work for most things.