[animatine]

How can morals be anything but subjective?

If everybody values differently, then that in itself makes morality subjective, does it not?

[Infallible]

Obviously.

However, many people will have an overlapping of what they consider moral. Hence, moral law.

[aeterno]

That's subjective

[lightburns]

If you believe that morality is subjective, then what can you say against a murderer? In their moral worldview, they were doing the right thing, and by what basis do you have to tell them that they are wrong?

[animatine]

(Original post by lightburns)
If you believe that morality is subjective, then what can you say against a murderer? In their moral worldview, they were doing the right thing, and by what basis do you have to tell them that they are wrong?

Nothing.

[animatine]

(Original post by Infallible)
Obviously.

However, many people will have an overlapping of what they consider moral. Hence, moral law.

Where does this overlapping sense come from? Doesn't it only exist in your mind?

[there's too much love]

(Original post by animatine)
Where does this overlapping sense come from? Doesn't it only exist in your mind?

Just like how you use language and I use language doesn't overlap, apart from in our minds?

[natchina]

(Original post by animatine)
How can morals be anything but subjective?

If everybody values differently, then that in itself makes morality subjective, does it not?

Murder is not a subjective crime. Neither is rape. Morality is based on the opposite of suffering, which generally, is not subjective.

[animatine]

(Original post by there's too much love)
Just like how you use language and I use language doesn't overlap, apart from in our minds?

A strange analogy, since language is for communication purposes. In any communication, there must be a common format for doing so.

But morals are subject to how we think, how we're raised, how we value, etc. it cannot be anything but subjective.

[Infallible]

(Original post by animatine)
Where does this overlapping sense come from? Doesn't it only exist in your mind?

Well, no. If you were to ask people for their view on certain crimes you would get a general consensus. That is the overlapping.

[animatine]

(Original post by Infallible)
Well, no. If you were to ask people for their view on certain crimes you would get a general consensus. That is the overlapping.

Well morality is subjective, so there can be no overlap.

[there's too much love]

(Original post by animatine)
A strange analogy, since language is for communication purposes. In any communication, there must be a common format for doing so.

But morals are subject to how we think, how we're raised, how we value, etc. it cannot be anything but subjective.

You don't think how people our raised or taught to value things are the same for the most part?

Surely children would only be brought up by their parents, and wouldn't have any schooling etc. if that were the case.

[animatine]

(Original post by natchina)
Murder is not a subjective crime. Neither is rape. Morality is based on the opposite of suffering, which generally, is not subjective.

why is the belief of the murderer any less?

[animatine]

(Original post by there's too much love)
You don't think how people our raised or taught to value things are the same for the most part?

Surely children would only be brought up by their parents, and wouldn't have any schooling etc. if that were the case.

Not really, since all families hold different values. most persons major initial contact is from their families and not society.

[there's too much love]

(Original post by animatine)
Not really, since all families hold different values. most persons major initial contact is from their families and not society.

Genetic fallacy???

[Infallible]

(Original post by animatine)
Well morality is subjective, so there can be no overlap.

Of course there is. People have differing opinions on every topic, but they can also have the same opinion as someone else. How is that anything but an overlap?



Imagine the middle is their view on murder and the outer regions are their opinions on other issues. Their view on murder overlaps, whilst their overall morality is different.

[there's too much love]

(Original post by Infallible)
Of course there is. People have differing opinions on every topic, but they can also have the same opinion as someone else. How is that anything but an overlap?



Imagine the middle is their view on murder and the outer regions are their opinions on other issues. Their view on murder overlaps, whilst their overall morality is different.

This concept might help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity

[lightburns]

(Original post by animatine)
Nothing.

Oh, wow. At least you have a consistent viewpoint.

I disagree with you, because I think 'morality' is a label put on actions based upon a baseline of behaviour. May disagree with what the baseline should be, but it'll be something along the lines of "what allows society to function?" or "what causes happiness/pain?"

I know that it's early days of thinking and rather over-simplified.. But as a basic beginning view, that's mine. The framework which allows people to live together peacefully is 'better' than a framework which causes pain and misery, and this is labelled as 'moral'.

We have to start with the assumption that happiness is good and pain is bad. The outcome is better if we accept this assumption, so we might as well, especially as the assumption is biologically hard-wired (we seek pleasure and avoid pain).

[animatine]

(Original post by there's too much love)
Genetic fallacy???

it's the norm of human interactions, backed by numerous psychological studies.

Since the role of parents is to teach values, how else do values in individuals emerge? they stem primarily from our family, and to a lesser extent our culture and society. Every family, culture and society has different value systems. Even in the UK, which nowadays is a liberal/relativistic culture, some families may be religious whilst others are not, hence those family members' worldviews will be different.

[animatine]

(Original post by lightburns)
Oh, wow. At least you have a consistent viewpoint.

I disagree with you, because I think 'morality' is a label put on actions based upon a baseline of behaviour. May disagree with what the baseline should be, but it'll be something along the lines of "what allows society to function?" or "what causes happiness/pain?"

I know that it's early days of thinking and rather over-simplified.. But as a basic beginning view, that's mine. The framework which allows people to live together peacefully is 'better' than a framework which causes pain and misery, and this is labelled as 'moral'.

We have to start with the assumption that happiness is good and pain is bad. The outcome is better if we accept this assumption, so we might as well, especially as the assumption is biologically hard-wired (we seek pleasure and avoid pain).

How come many societies have and do tolerate great oppression?

The US used to have millions of slaves centuries ago, and didn't even have a Civil War wholly to cease the practice. however, a more peaceful society was not a cause for the Civil War, or even to abolish slavery.