Views on the nature of Morality

[GurrenLagann]

What are your views on the nature of morality? By which I mean, do you think morality is objective, subjective or relative?

I'm assuming that none of you believe there can be an absolute morality.

[Mathias]

Agreed, is subjective and we are influenced by our "environment".

[Colanth]

Morality is an idea so it's subjective.  There have been differing views on what's moral and what's not through the ages, so it's relative.  Relative and subjective are orthogonal.

[GurrenLagann]

Morality is an idea so it's subjective.  There have been differing views on what's moral and what's not through the ages, so it's relative.  Relative and subjective are orthogonal.

Unfortunately, I'll have to parrot what Bill Craig says to this because I think he nails it on this point. What you're referring to is Moral Epistemology, how we come to know what is moral, not Moral Ontology, what is actually moral and the morality that we come to know through epistemology.

[aitm]

If it feels good, do it. If some one bigger or with a gun tells you to stop, you stop. Then you kill them and do it anyway.....

[Jmpty]

Have you read Michael Sandel's "Justice?"

[Teaspoon Shallow]

The age of consent varies in many countries.  Each has developed what they consider is an appropriate age.
This is what they define as "moral".

Does that mean one country is more moral that another if the ages vary?

I would suggest this example demonstrated "morals" are subjective.  

Nature has not developed the human body so all males and females are capable of sex at exactly the same age.
Yet different societies make rules on what is moral and what is not.

[Colanth]

Morality is an idea so it's subjective.  There have been differing views on what's moral and what's not through the ages, so it's relative.  Relative and subjective are orthogonal.

Unfortunately, I'll have to parrot what Bill Craig says to this because I think he nails it on this point. What you're referring to is Moral Epistemology, how we come to know what is moral, not Moral Ontology, what is actually moral

"What is actually moral" assumes that morality is objective.  Since there's no such thing as morality unless there's a sentient mind (morality, unlike copper, exists only in at least one sentient mind), morality isn't objective, so there's no such thing as "what is actually moral" unless you redefine the word "morality".

[GurrenLagann]

Morality is an idea so it's subjective.  There have been differing views on what's moral and what's not through the ages, so it's relative.  Relative and subjective are orthogonal.

Unfortunately, I'll have to parrot what Bill Craig says to this because I think he nails it on this point. What you're referring to is Moral Epistemology, how we come to know what is moral, not Moral Ontology, what is actually moral

"What is actually moral" assumes that morality is objective.  Since there's no such thing as morality unless there's a sentient mind (morality, unlike copper, exists only in at least one sentient mind), morality isn't objective, so there's no such thing as "what is actually moral" unless you redefine the word "morality".

Someone like Craig (not me) would respond that God's commands constiture our moral duties, and what God commands is good because its goodness is grounded in his nature, hence he answers your question (for his side). /devil's advocate


I realized I never gave my views on morality. I suppose I would have to say, I'm not really sure. Sam Harris' argument from "The Moral Landscape" on how science can determine what is objectively moral (good book, by the way) can be summarized as follows:

-When we speak of morality, we always smuggle in things which concern the well-being of conscious creatures.

-So, morality can be equated with that which promotes the well-being and flourishing of concious creatures.

-The well-being of concious creatures falls within the purview of science: medicine, psychology, neurology, biology, etc.

-Well-being may be hard to define. However, physical health is also hard to define, yet we do know things that about what makes people not be physically well, so to with overall well-being.

-Therefore, science can tell us what is objectively moral, since morality can be equated with promoting the well-being of concious creatures.


What do you all think of Harris' attempt?
Harris pretty much convinces me that an science of morality could be feasible, whether or not his own try at it is completely sound.

[the_antithesis]

What are your views on the nature of morality? By which I mean, do you think morality is objective, subjective or relative?

I'm assuming that none of you believe there can be an absolute morality.

Morality is an evolved trait that stems from our nature as pack animals. It has to do with getting along with the group, or tribe. This is usually balanced and sometimes in conflict with the well-being of an individual. Our ability to empathize with an individual allows us to care about an individual who may be at odd with the group, such as, say, burning a witch at the stake.

[Philosophos]

Morality is an amalgam of a bunch of confused concepts and emotive statements that are either false or nonsensical. Occasionally moral statements can be true as long as they're held to a specific standard either implicit or explicit (e.g. kindness is GOOD (for creating social bonds and being nonthreatening to others), you SHOULD try to be fair (if you care about treating people equally in some regard or another). However, there is no absolute morality or categorical imperatives. And pretending as such often turns out to do more harm than good, as moral language confuses people, distracts them from the actual issues that could be addressed directly if people weren't engaged in distracting wild goose chases about who's "accountable" for what and what actions are "permissible" or "Justified", and has the ability to mobilize people to commit great acts of harm for completely made-up reasons. Just like religion. I find ethical realism and religion to hold many parallels. They both cause harm due to convincing people to do harmful things for made-up reasons, it mobilizes people to do dangerous things who wouldn't normally mobilize, and it has lots of magical properties assuming really bizarre facts of the world (that something's "good") which somehow compel people to do something through a vague, almost magical mechanism (imperatives).

To riff off of Steve Weinberg: "Kind people will be kind. Cruel people will be cruel. But to get kind people to do cruel things, that takes morality."

In short, using fancy philosophical terms, I'm a moral abolitionist and metaethical pluralist who holds moral statements to be a mix of emotive exclamations, false or nonsense statements, and implicit end-relational claims. I am sympathetic, however, to virtue ethics, and find utiliarianism to be of use under certain circumstances (although it is not "morality" in and of itself).

[bennyboy]

Individual morality is just the tendency to act on ideas about how the world should be.  In a social context (i.e. as an institution), morality is the willingness to act on the ideas OF OTHERS about how the world should be.  Obviously, these are going to come into conflict.

But saying you want to discard morality is goofy.  It's equivalent to saying you don't think people should act on ideas of what the world should be like-- which is an expression of YOUR idea of what the world should be like.  So is saying "We should all be free to define morality as we see fit."-- because that's an appeal to a social agreement, i.e. the beginning of a new kind of moral institution.

[Colanth]

I realized I never gave my views on morality. I suppose I would have to say, I'm not really sure. Sam Harris' argument from "The Moral Landscape" on how science can determine what is objectively moral (good book, by the way) can be summarized as follows:

-When we speak of morality, we always smuggle in things which concern the well-being of conscious creatures.

Which, since it requires the existence of at least one conscious mind, makes it subjective.

-Therefore, science can tell us what is objectively moral, since morality can be equated with promoting the well-being of concious creatures.

Nonsense.  I can prove that 1 = 2 much more easily (and with just as false a premise).

What do you all think of Harris' attempt?

Since morality is an opinion, it's inherently subjective - by definition.  Any attempt to "prove" that there can be an objective morality is an attempt to prove the blackness of white.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Morality is an idea so it's subjective.  There have been differing views on what's moral and what's not through the ages, so it's relative.  Relative and subjective are orthogonal.

Exactly.

[GurrenLagann]

Which, since it requires the existence of at least one conscious mind, makes it subjective.

Er, no. If there is a rough idea of what one is talking about when you say "well-being", it necessarily cannot be subjective by definition, anymore than claiming that physical health is just a subjective term that can't be grasped.

Nonsense.  I can prove that 1 = 2 much more easily (and with just as false a premise).

Exaggeration, and I'd like to see you do it, rather than merely assert it. ;-)

Since morality is an opinion, it's inherently subjective - by definition.  Any attempt to "prove" that there can be an objective morality is an attempt to prove the blackness of white.

You could only really show conclusively (or convincingly imo) that morality is just an opinion if you overcome the fact that there is a difference between moral epistemology and moral ontology.

And the blackness of white is exactly zero. ;-)