Evil

[Mudhammam]

You sound like me about a month ago, Rob. Lol. I was compelled to think that morality was subjective for the very reasons you put forth. However, I found there to be some devastating problems with that view. I'll put them forth the best that I can at the moment. Bear in mind, many others have stated the problems far more effectively (most philosophers - not that consensus equals truth but it should perhaps cause reason for further consideration - are moral realists).

When I say someone is "wrong" to do something, I mean it is wrong according to my morality and belief system, nothing more.

What does that actually mean? You're saying that something which is deemed "wrong" (by you) can simultaneously be "right" if measured by a morality or belief system that is contrary to yours. But that's nonsense. One of those belief systems must be wrong, for both cannot be right and wrong with respect to the same truth claim. Obviously, they amount to contradictory judgments. If, however, you don't mean to say anything which can be deemed true, and that your morality is really neither right nor wrong but simply a matter of taste - like preferring chocolate or vanilla, as what some people like others dislike - then 1) you're not discussing morality at all (as morality pertains to good and bad, or right and wrong, intention, action, judgment, etc.) and 2) you cannot claim anyone to be right or wrong in their belief systems, or the judgments which proceed, including yours. So, why should I or anyone else accept your morality or belief system if you cannot even claim it to be right?

I can never say it is objectively wrong. Right and wrong mean nothing until defined, that's the whole problem with objective morality. Since no two people would ever completely agree on what "right" and "wrong" mean, any objective standard is useless.

I think you overstate the problem, as the difficulty of definition - and disagreements about how concepts relate to the world - is certainly not limited to morality. People commonly disagree over how to define the following: "truth", "objectivity", "matter", "being", "real", "nothingness". So then what? What objective standard should we appeal to? Our subjective experiences which is all we ever know? Which ones - the sensual or the intellectual? Or should we just remain silent?

No, I don't think the morality of ISIS is inherently inferior, because I don't think it means anything to say that.

Do you really believe that? I have my doubts...

It is only inferior once we agree such basic things as human life and wellbeing are of prime importance.

Why should the number of people who agree on any given subject have any bearing on whether or not their judgment is right? What does it matter, truthfully speaking, if one person makes a correct determination or if five (or five hundred, or five hundred million, etc.) others agree with that one person?

 They may say serving their God is of more importance. Who gets to say what is "more important"? It comes down to a societal agreement. So they say we are wrong, because our priorities are backwards. If we can't agree on what is important and valuable, we can't compare values. And since ISIS clearly don't agree, we're only judging them from our point of view.

As rational beings, we define and give meaning to all of our experiences in the world. Why should difficulty in agreement over our terms or the goals each wishes to achieve have any effect on whether or not truth exists - in either metaphysics or meta-ethics?

It would be nice to say Western morality is objectively better than Isis, but without first defining exactly what morality means and how it is measured, this is a meaningless statement. My whole point is that these moral values are up for debate, there are no "correct" ones without simply begging the question.

You could apply this to many other contentious issues in which I highly doubt you'd want to say that the truth of the matter is relative. The situation we confront in defining the Good is no different than other areas that have proven to be immense, slippery tasks. I don't think it really means that we cannot have some notion upon which to build, and you seem to discount the possibility of opposed viewpoints even reaching agreement - which is actually far more widespread on a great number of fundamental moral questions than you give credit for - by eliminating any meaningful statements about which truly is better or worse; insofar as you insist that right or wrong has no inherent meaning outside of what each person decides (yet apparently, this does make it inherently right for them, although I don't really understand how that could be meaningful), how could disagreement ever get resolved?

I've said in another thread, I think owning animals and killing them for food is immoral. Society generally says it is not. Who is correct? It depends on how you define morality, and clearly it depends on how treatment of animals figures into it as compared to humans. What is the "correct" way to do this? What is the correct way to value them? I hold that there isn't one.

Then how can you hold it to be immoral? You're really saying it's both - depending on who is speaking - and that's no different than to say it is neither. Again, disagreement over a given topic doesn't equal there being no right or wrong, or true or false, judgments about it.

Finally, let me ask: How could you ever be wrong about a given moral judgment if what is wrong is what you decide? If you change your mind about eating meat, and tomorrow decide it to be right - were you previously wrong in your view? How is that possible if what is right (or wrong) has no inherent meaning or truth value apart from your subjective opinion about it? That is, you're right now - according to you, which is the only criteria your subjectivism allows - and you'll be right when you change your mind. How does that work?