Objective vs Subjective Morals

[Coffee Jesus]

Any moral system which is likely to undermine the welfare of the self is not utilitarian.

And when it undermines the welfare of others, or of the whole species, it's not utilitarian.

Fixed it for you.

[archangle]

Morals are conditional.

In fact, I don't know of anything that is not based on what is going on around it.

[MindForgedManacle]

Still waiting for someone to answer why they think that since one must select a moral framework to work in makes it subjective. My last post went unchallenged...

/solved meta-ethics?

[John V]

Still waiting for someone to answer why they think that since one must select a moral framework to work in makes it subjective.

Because the selection of the framework is itself subjective.

My last post went unchallenged...

/solved meta-ethics?

Sometimes people don't bother challenging when the answer is so obvious.

[Freedom of thought]

I think objective morals are grounded in the process of evolution, which exists independent of ourselves. Evolutionary speaking, the only way for a social species like ourselves can survive is by evaluating the consequences of our actions on others, and by minimizing the suffering we put onto others. If we were all being horrible to each other all the time we wouldn't last long. Of course, there is still always going to be tribalism against competing tribes, this can be seen in the wars that plagued our species. This can also be attributed to religion (my god vs your god) and our 'superiority' complex, were we always think we are superior to the next tribe, when there is little difference between them; This is also another cognitive bias we have. There is no doubting it, human morals come from evolution. I don't think that degrades the meaning of morals at all. Morals therefore aren't 'illusory', they are a real feature of our brains, just as our sight and smell. They help us live happy and productive lives. You can't live a happy life raping, murdering, and inflicting suffering on others. You'd only be happy doing those things if you are mentally deranged. Adding god into the equation because you don't know where they come from is an argument from ignorance. Also, there are objective morals through logic, such as utilitarianism.

[bennyboy]

I think objective morals are grounded in the process of evolution, which exists independent of ourselves. Evolutionary speaking, the only way for a social species like ourselves can survive is by evaluating the consequences of our actions on others, and by minimizing the suffering we put onto others. If we were all being horrible to each other all the time we wouldn't last long. Of course, there is still always going to be tribalism against competing tribes, this can be seen in the wars that plagued our species. This can also be attributed to religion (my god vs your god) and our 'superiority' complex, were we always think we are superior to the next tribe, when there is little difference between them; This is also another cognitive bias we have. There is no doubting it, human morals come from evolution. I don't think that degrades the meaning of morals at all. Morals therefore aren't 'illusory', they are a real feature of our brains, just as our sight and smell.

If the universe is truly deterministic, then you can say that both free will and morality are ultimately objective. But that doesn't help us talk about or establish a set of mores-- it's more a disinterest in doing so.

Anyway, whether we "really" have free will or not, we call subjective those mental processes of which we are consciously aware. If this were not so, then an unconscious person, being part of the universal determinism, would be no less a moral agent than the conscious one-- which represents a semantic failure.

[MindForgedManacle]

Because the selection of the framework is itself subjective.

Eh, so? Clearly you didn't read the post I mentioned, because I rebut that claim, and it's rather simple to show that you don't actually believe that with a simple reductio, or at least that you're blatantly inconsistent if you do:

In science, mathematics and even logic itself, you must (and we indeed do) select frameworks under which to work. For logic, I can even select frameworks where contradictions are allowed (pararaconsistent logic), or select logics which deal with possibility ane necessity (modal logic). For physics, does one wish to work under classical mechanics or quantum mechanics? For math, Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometries?

The reductio is rather simple: If you believe ethics is subjective simply because you must select a framework to work under, you are being inconsistent unless you believe the EXACT same thing about the entirety of mathematics, science and even logic.

Sometimes people don't bother challenging when the answer is so obvious.

Well I hope yours wasn't the answer the others were going to give because it did was silly.