[calisthenics]

(Original post by Freiheit)
I don't think laws can promote order if the order/standard set is subjective between individuals, this is what I was trying to say. I fail to see how the law can play any useful role in a society based on subjective laws. If person A gets sentenced to prison for murder should he not go to prison because his morals dictate murder is not wrong?

PS- its just a friendly discussion and nothing more- response to the poster mentioning "Jeremy Paxman interrogation"

Law and morality are distinct.

[Freiheit]

(Original post by nexttime)
You do exactly what we do. We recognise that the majority of people think murder should not be allowed. Therefore it is not allowed. It doesn't matter if its 'subjective' or 'objective' - morals are all about majority opinion. If the minority don't like it, tough.

The notion that all laws must be undisputedly, objectively 'correct' is ludicrous and almost makes me think you don't know what 'objective' is Not intending to antagonise, but it really is a ridiculous notion.

Can you quote the part where I wrote that all laws must be objective please. I can't recall writing that but I may have.
If morals are about the opinion of the majority, it still doesn't not make it justified or "right" to hold that view because nobody is "wrong". The convict's opinion is just different from the majority. It's like saying theft is justified because everyone else thinks so.

[Freiheit]

(Original post by calisthenics)
Law and morality are distinct.

At the end of the day, I doubt we will ever reach a conclusion in which we both agree on but at least the discussions were interesting.

[nexttime]

(Original post by Freiheit)
Can you quote the part where I wrote that all laws must be objective please. I can't recall writing that but I may have.

I thought the phrase "I fail to see how the law can play any useful role in a society based on subjective laws" was pretty clearly a general statement, but if you opinion is 'murder cannot be illegal because its not objective, but other laws are ok even though they are also not objective' then i must say i find your position somewhat contradictory.

If morals are about the opinion of the majority, it still doesn't not make it justified or "right" to hold that view because nobody is "wrong".

It is though. The majority are 'right' and by not conforming you are being 'immoral'. It is similar to how different clothes can cause offence, or different words - what objective reason do you have for that? Is exposing skin objectively 'wrong'? Is it written in nature that the f word must never be said?

The only people that do hold such views are the religious. Maybe it is their need for rigid definitions of 'right' and 'wrong' that lead them to write down supposedly objective moral codes in the first place?

The convict's opinion is just different from the majority.

Indeed - there is nothing 'objective' about it. What is your point?

It's like saying theft is justified because everyone else thinks so.

If the majority thought that theft is justified, then that is now moral. Indeed, that is exactly what taxation is, isn't it? Equally, plenty of westerners would not convict the starving woman for stealing an apple (although they might if it was an unattractive man - attractiveness plays a major part in our society's morals). People romanticise the 'Robin Hood' concept. On the other hand, most westerners would find the idea of chopping off hands for theft immoral. Doesn't the fact that there are different opinions on the matter tell you something? Need i put forward more examples?

EDIT: I have got involved in these kinds of debates before. For some unfathomable reason, it seems very common for people to forego all logical argument and just refuse to accept that there is no 'inherent' moral code written into nature, in an almost religious manner. No matter what you say they just don't budge, whilst not really arguing back. I hope you will forgive my non-response should i feel we are hitting a dead end.

[Implication]

(Original post by Freiheit)
I think anyone can do what they feel like when morality is subjective because only an individual's view of their own morals matter. Do you not believe it is important to attach some objective values to society regardless of the origin of those morals?
Out of interest, are you a fan of the British legal system?

If values are "attached" to society by anything, then they are by definition not objective. The origin is exactly what is important when asking if morals are objective or not.

But yes, ultimately, if there is nothing factual about the universe that makes molesting children wrong, then molesting children is not objectively wrong. So what? That doesn't make it desirable or useful for a society to allow child molestation, however, and I think for this reason that laws do have a use.

As it so happens I am not a fan of the legal system, but I will hold my hands up and say that I honestly don't know how or even if I would change it if I had the opportunity.


n.B. I consider "subjective morality" to be an odd term. If morality is not objective, then I don't think it's really accurate to refer to it as morality.

[Jcoe88]

In order for morals to be objective, there must be an end goal or an answer to the question; in better terms "the abstract concept of morality".

This means that we, as people, are trying to attain X, whatever X is. To many, however, morality surely cannot work that way since if X existed, it would denote God or, at the least, something supranatural.

Although, when one plays a game of chess there is an optimum move. That move is not overt and the goal of playing chess is not to win the game but to get as close to the optimum moves given the individual circumstance. In essence, there is an objective goal measured by 'what is mathematically the perfect solution?'.

If we apply this logic to morality, or Politics in general, it suggests that there is a perfect way to balance interest V treating others correctly; we just don't know it yet. In which case, morality is abstract, yes, but also objective.

This explains why humankind is learning lessons bit by bit. At first we learnt that murder was wrong, this was a simple lesson. As we develop we realise more and more things are wrong, and we universally agree. The world is still only just coming to terms with the idea that sexism, racism and homophobia are wrong. We will learn these lessons; as we mature.

[nexttime]

(Original post by Jcoe88)
In order for morals to be objective, there must be an end goal or an answer to the question; in better terms "the abstract concept of morality".

This means that we, as people, are trying to attain X, whatever X is. To many, however, morality surely cannot work that way since if X existed, it would denote God or, at the least, something supranatural.

Although, when one plays a game of chess there is an optimum move. That move is not overt and the goal of playing chess is not to win the game but to get as close to the optimum moves given the individual circumstance. In essence, there is an objective goal measured by 'what is mathematically the perfect solution?'.

If we apply this logic to morality, or Politics in general, it suggests that there is a perfect way to balance interest V treating others correctly; we just don't know it yet. In which case, morality is abstract, yes, but also objective.

This explains why humankind is learning lessons bit by bit. At first we learnt that murder was wrong, this was a simple lesson. As we develop we realise more and more things are wrong, and we universally agree. The world is still only just coming to terms with the idea that sexism, racism and homophobia are wrong. We will learn these lessons; as we mature.

The start of this post seemed to sum up the situation so well, and then... draws a conclusion inconsistent with what was said. As you say, morals have an aim, but what that aim is is surely completely different depending on your perspective i.e. the desired result is subjective, therefore the 'correctness' of the means, i.e. morals, is also subjective.

The world's morals are changing because we are becoming more prosperous and what is beneficial to our society changes. If the apocalypse strikes and we are all thrown into a fight for survival, attitudes will again change. I'd suggest that even the "simple" question of murder is not dealt with in our society - the definition is as open to dispute as anything else.

This notion of 'developing to an optimum', presumedly something that nature itself has determined in a way a deity might, is just ridiculous.

[Jcoe88]

The contradiction was intentional, I walked the idea through.

Nature no, but an abstract reality yes. As I said, imagine a chess board before you make a move. Nature has not made that move, but there is that perfect move. The problem is not that there isn't an answer to everything, it's just that we wont, and probably never will, know what that answer is considering how intricate the balancing would be.

You're welcome to disagree with what i've written, I certainly do - but I enjoy food for thought.

[Stratos]

An appeal to morality of any kind is like a appeal to god, there is no evidence for it existing however people still believe in it for irrational reasons. Which is why I as a atheist would find it necessary to appeal to rationale only meaning I disbelieve in moral properties, and moral subjectivity is absurd as there is no value in statements and beliefs which lack truth. And what purpose is there in clinging to beliefs without value?

(Original post by Jcoe88)
The contradiction was intentional, I walked the idea through.

Nature no, but an abstract reality yes. As I said, imagine a chess board before you make a move. Nature has not made that move, but there is that perfect move. The problem is not that there isn't an answer to everything, it's just that we wont, and probably never will, know what that answer is considering how intricate the balancing would be.

You're welcome to disagree with what i've written, I certainly do - but I enjoy food for thought.

I've read your chess board analogy and one statement stood out, it was that statement where you said morality is that abstract end point where we balance interest with treating other people correctly but what made you believe that morality at all has to do with self interest and the treatment of other people, morality could just as easily be murder and torture the good is not exclusive to what you believe is good after all or what billions do, the good can be everything and so can the bad be, basically it is not tied to us.

[nexttime]

(Original post by Jcoe88)
The contradiction was intentional, I walked the idea through.

Nature no, but an abstract reality yes. As I said, imagine a chess board before you make a move. Nature has not made that move, but there is that perfect move. The problem is not that there isn't an answer to everything, it's just that we wont, and probably never will, know what that answer is considering how intricate the balancing would be.

You're welcome to disagree with what i've written, I certainly do - but I enjoy food for thought.

Unfortunately, i don't think much 'thought' needs feeding here! Your aim in life is entirely up for debate, hence morals must be subjective. Only religious people can think otherwise, and that is an entirely different debate!

[Jcoe88]

Think collectively.

[OedipusTheKing]

(Original post by nexttime)
Unfortunately, i don't think much 'thought' needs feeding here! Your aim in life is entirely up for debate, hence morals must be subjective. Only religious people can think otherwise, and that is an entirely different debate!

Well actually many secular philosophers have argued that there are objective moral values, it's not dependent on religion.

Kant's deontology, Plato's meta-ethics and ethical naturalism are three examples right there. Of course these all suffer from problems, particularly the last as it is subject to Moore's naturalistic fallacy.

[yomomalomo]

Subjective, end thread. Anyone who thinks otherwise please quote me. (from a secular point of view)

[OedipusTheKing]

(Original post by yomomalomo)
Subjective, end thread. Anyone who thinks otherwise please quote me. (from a secular point of view)

Searle's point:

Jones said, “I promise to give you, Smith, five dollars.”
Jones promised to give Smith five dollars.
Jones undertook an obligation to give Smith five dollars.
Jones is under an obligation to give Smith five dollars.
Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars.

The obligation to pay Smith five dollars, the obligation that one ought to keep their promises, is here objective. The objectivity comes from the analytic definiton of the term 'promise'.

[Destroyer25]

Didn't realize we had a thread on this, as I posted a video on this matter in my own thread dedicated to it.

Link: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1948430

While different societies have different morals and values, within each individual society morals must be objective in order for society to function. If one group of people value Democracy and another group don't, then those two groups can't coexist. If everyone doesn't agree on what values society should be based on then there is no functioning society.

[nexttime]

(Original post by OedipusTheKing)
Searle's point:

Jones said, “I promise to give you, Smith, five dollars.”
Jones promised to give Smith five dollars.
Jones undertook an obligation to give Smith five dollars.
Jones is under an obligation to give Smith five dollars.
Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars.

The obligation to pay Smith five dollars, the obligation that one ought to keep their promises, is here objective. The objectivity comes from the analytic definiton of the term 'promise'.

So the argument is that breaking a promise is immoral because we define breaking a promise as immoral. To translate, something is immoral if we define it as immoral.

I'm no philosopher but...I don't think that argument achieves much.

(Original post by Destroyer25)
Didn't realize we had a thread on this, as I posted a video on this matter in my own thread dedicated to it.

Link: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1948430

While different societies have different morals and values, within each individual society morals must be objective in order for society to function. If one group of people value Democracy and another group don't, then those two groups can't coexist. If everyone doesn't agree on what values society should be based on then there is no functioning society.

huh? There are many anarchists out there who function perfectly normally. A moral value doesn't have to be objective for it to be accepted.

So, can different societies with different 'objective' truths co-exist? Shouldn't they also destroy each-other by your argument?

I will look at the video when i have more time - work to do

[Destroyer25]

(Original post by nexttime)
huh? There are many anarchists out there who function perfectly normally.

I'm talking about Anarchist societies.

(Original post by nexttime)
A moral value doesn't have to be objective for it to be accepted.

So, can different societies with different 'objective' truths co-exist? Shouldn't they also destroy each-other by your argument?

History shows that different societies who have different values and moral tend to fight a lot. I'm talking specifically about individual societies though. If you have a state, in which society is divided over their fundamental beliefs on morals and values, then you haven't got a functioning society. If one group thinks murder is ok and the other doesn't, that society doesn't function.

(Original post by nexttime)
I will look at the video when i have more time - work to do

It's only 3 minutes long.

[nexttime]

(Original post by Destroyer25)
I'm talking about Anarchist societies.

I don't see what you mean. We as a society have widely differing views on many issues, and our values have changed dramatically over time, most of us attest to their subjective and variable nature, and yet we are a very stable society.

History shows that different societies who have different values and moral tend to fight a lot. I'm talking specifically about individual societies though. If you have a state, in which society is divided over their fundamental beliefs on morals and values, then you haven't got a functioning society. If one group thinks murder is ok and the other doesn't, that society doesn't function.

Some societies are divided and some aren't. So what?*I don't see how that relates to what is morally right, or the nature of what those things are right or wrong. You are saying we should just pretend our values are objectively and inarguably true for the sake of creating a stable ruling government?

It's only 3 minutes long.

His arguments just seem to focus on the 'usefulness' of a human rights system to base other laws on. That doesn't mean its objective.

What does the word 'objective' mean to you, out of interest? How can a moral value be objective?

[herbforde]

I don't think subjective morality can be proven.

[Destroyer25]

(Original post by nexttime)
I don't see what you mean. We as a society have widely differing views on many issues, and our values have changed dramatically over time, most of us attest to their subjective and variable nature, and yet we are a very stable society.

Some societies are divided and some aren't. So what?*I don't see how that relates to what is morally right, or the nature of what those things are right or wrong. You are saying we should just pretend our values are objectively and inarguably true for the sake of creating a stable ruling government?

That is true, but the values and morals that form the basis of our society do not, which is the argument I am making. Just 20 years ago homosexuality was widely seen as an abomination, now homosexuals enjoy much more acceptance in society. However, our fundamental freedoms, like speech, the press and association are things that don't change. Those are the things that society needs to view objectively, as they guarantee the stability of society. Seeing homosexuality as right or wrong falls more into the category of socioeconomic (subjective) preferences. It's not something that is necessarily critical to the stability of society, and thus it's not something that everyone must agree on.

(Original post by nexttime)
His arguments just seem to focus on the 'usefulness' of a human rights system to base other laws on. That doesn't mean its objective.

Human rights don't work unless they are objective. Otherwise they are pointless, as what I consider a right you may not.

(Original post by nexttime)
What does the word 'objective' mean to you, out of interest? How can a moral value be objective?

In this context, it means that everyone agrees on what morals and values should be the basis of society. If these values were subjective then society wouldn't function, as everyone would have a different view of what freedom is, whether it's right or wrong to murder, etc.