Moral Objectivism VS Moral Skeptcism

[DZComposer]

I figure it's time for a philosophy thread, so let's start with one of my favorite subjects: Moral Truth.

At issue is this question: Are moral/ethical claims backed by objective truth, or are they merely opinions enforced by individuals or societies.

I personally don't believe there is objective truth in a moral claim. I am a moral relativist, with some subjectivist leanings.

The immediate question is what is moral truth?

Moral truth assumes that there can be factual claims of morality. For instance, some believe that the statement "murder is wrong" is as true as the statement "2+2=4."

I object to this view of morality. We know that 2+2=4 is a fact because it can be clearly demonstrated. If I take two beans, and add another two beans, simple counting confirms that I now have four beans.

How do I objectively test whether or not murder is wrong? If I murder someone, yes, I would be arrested and punished, but that does not prove that murder is objectively wrong. It merely means that a governing body chose to make murder illegal.

Now, I am not saying that morality does not exist. That is more of a nihilist view than the view I take. I do think that morality exists, but rather than being a "law of the universe," it is an opinion. Most moral claims, IE "murder is wrong,"are popular opinions. You won't find many who claim that murder is wrong. But that does not make it fact.

["User"]

Welcome to the Postmodernism Era.  :shock:

[Guest DRL]

I am relatievely open minded in regards to morals

with scientific purpose, and yet mostly opposed to

religious morals. For example, as I view it, there is

a lot to learn from Stem Cell Reseach, and nothing

to gain from a Church.

Furthermore, I find that murdering is wrong - that is,

when the murdered person is not a high-level criminal.

High level criminals, to me, range from rapers to drug

trafickers. I believe that murdering an animal (personal

choice) and/or a citizen (law) is wrong, BUT, I no longer

view rapers or drug trafickers as human/civilized beings

at all. Hence why I have no trouble ordering their execution.

Overall, this (should) be an interesting discussion. I have

stated some of my most radical views here.

[Sabre]

This should go in the mature board ...oh wait...

Seriously though, I never understood this kind of debate because whatever you choose doesn't change a thing.

[Milkyway64]

This should go in the mature board ...oh wait...

Seriously though, I never understood this kind of debate because whatever you choose doesn't change a thing.

It changes your views and way of life. Duh.

Past that, it can make a difference to those around you. For instance, stealing. If you believe it's A-OK as long as you're not caught and do it, you generally make that person's life shittier and if they suspect you it only gets worse.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

I guess it's...relative, to some...or based on a judgment call, I dunno... :banghead:

[Robert Monroe]

Morals are objective and based in and around a people's culture.

Now you can go BUT THINGS LIKE MURDER AND THEFT ARE IMMORAL AND THATS FACT. But the fact of the matter is the MORALITY aspect is not fact. Yes, murder and theft are bad, but they aren't bad, universally, for moral reasons, they are bad because they undermine societal roles. If ignored, murder and theft would destroy peace and coexistance among citizens, and ergo cause the civilization to collapse.

The matter of how morally bad it is is just optional icing on the douchebaggery cake.

[Guest DRL]

Morals are objective and based in and around a people's culture.

Now you can go BUT THINGS LIKE MURDER AND THEFT ARE IMMORAL AND THATS FACT. But the fact of the matter is the MORALITY aspect is not fact. Yes, murder and theft are bad, but they aren't bad, universally, for moral reasons, they are bad because they undermine societal roles. If ignored, murder and theft would destroy peace and coexistance among citizens, and ergo cause the civilization to collapse.

The matter of how morally bad it is is just optional icing on the douchebaggery cake.

But that does not makes it inmoral, but

'counter/in-productive'.

[Vy'drach]

It also depends on what your definition of the offense is. If murder to you means the cold-blooded killing of an innocent human being posing no physical threat to your and yours, then yes, I believe it is wrong. If it means the cold-blooded killing of any human being, then it is situational. Killing a family for just being there: bad. Killing a rapist trying to have a go at you or your girlfriend: not bad (I dare to say quite good, in fact).

[DZComposer]

But that does not makes it inmoral, but

'counter/in-productive'.

I think you missed his point. His point was that many things that we consider immoral as a society are things that, if allowed to happen en masse, would be counter-productive to society. He also points out that this doesn't make these things "truths," but merely "best practices."

However, I don't like using productivity as a measure of morality, because then you have to cost/benefit everything and ideas like euthanizing people who are unable to work productively come into play. I'm uncomfortable with that idea.

Morals are objective and based in and around a people's culture.

That is called Moral Relativism, and it is a form of Moral Skepticism. Since morality is derived from the culture, it is not objectively true, as different cultures may have different opinions about the same moral question.

I  fall into this camp myself, but I also have some Moral Subjectivist leanings. Moral subjectivism is the belief that morality comes form the individual.

[Fana McCloud]

Furthermore, I find that murdering is wrong - that is,

when the murdered person is not a high-level criminal.

High level criminals, to me, range from rapers to drug

trafickers. I believe that murdering an animal (personal

choice) and/or a citizen (law) is wrong, BUT, I no longer

view rapers or drug trafickers as human/civilized beings

at all. Hence why I have no trouble ordering their execution.

Rapists? Debatable, though I personally think that killing someone for it goes too far (and I'm a woman). Punishments should have some kind of parity. I'm all for letting him go to jail so that he can be educated by his cellmate "Bubba". ;P

Drug traffickers? I call that a victimless crime, and it shouldn't even be punished, let alone with execution. If we set aside the fact that police can get shot for interfering (and that's the risk they take), all that selling dugs is is a business transaction between two consenting adults. Drug traffickers do so illegally, pharmaceutical companies on the other hand do so with legal sanction. They both sell pretty much the same products, with a few exceptions and albeit packaged differently or in different forms. All this because we want to maintain doctors as gatekeepers to drug use because we have a desire to protect people from their own ignorance, without actually educating them. Anyone want to try and uphold that particular disparity as a just cause? (Though maybe in another thread, don't want to hijack the purpose of this one completely.)

And therein lies the problem. Nobody would be capable of showing me evidence that their moral views are inherent laws of the universe to the point where it'd be non-debatable. You could say that physically damaging a person creates pain, but you could never successfully extrapolate from that some universal law that inflicting pain is bad. Does that mean that any creature that kills for food is bad too? It isn't? Then why should it only apply within one's own species then? It just becomes a long string of questions that never ends or ends in "because I don't like it." But disliking something doesn't give me universal moral authority to have it erased from the world, and it doesn't cause it to cease to be by the rules of the universe, so how could it ever be "objective"?

[Guest DRL]

Rapists? Debatable, though I personally think that killing someone for it goes too far (and I'm a woman). Punishments should have some kind of parity. I'm all for letting him go to jail so that he can be educated by his cellmate "Bubba". ;P

It happens in our country, and believe me,

it does not works. At all. All it does is create

a resentfull individual, who consumes resources

in a cell (I assume you give him food, and to

his cellmates if he does have such.)

I do understand that some rapists do not rape

because they want to, but maybe because they

have mental issues. However, such cases are

very, VERY rare.

As I see it, giving food to a person who will be

forever in jail is a waste of resources. Better give

the same food to that poor kid in an orphanage,

he did not rape anyone and is hungry.

Drug traffickers? I call that a victimless crime, and it shouldn't even be punished, let alone with execution. If we set aside the fact that police can get shot for interfering (and that's the risk they take), all that selling dugs is is a business transaction between two consenting adults. Drug traffickers do so illegally, pharmaceutical companies on the other hand do so with legal sanction. They both sell pretty much the same products, with a few exceptions and albeit packaged differently or in different forms. All this because we want to maintain doctors as gatekeepers to drug use because we have a desire to protect people from their own ignorance, without actually educating them. Anyone want to try and uphold that particular disparity as a just cause? (Though maybe in another thread, don't want to hijack the purpose of this one completely.)

The victims are the 'clients'. Sometimes people are hooked up on

drugs against their will, and not allways the 'adults' are in condition

to consider the effects. Think of it this way: You are an illiterate, poor

kid who has to work. Some madman comes up to you and gives a 'free

sample' of that thing, and you take it as candy. Next thing, you are stealing

to get money for buying more of those drugs.

Furthermore, by executing drug traffickers you are setting an example.

'Do not do this - Or this happens'. Same to non-mental-ill rapists. By

executing them, you are setting an example some, not all, but some will

follow. That way some would-be victims are saved and drug traffic

is reduced.

[Robert Monroe]

I think you missed his point. His point was that many things that we consider immoral as a society are things that, if allowed to happen en masse, would be counter-productive to society. He also points out that this doesn't make these things "truths," but merely "best practices."

However, I don't like using productivity as a measure of morality, because then you have to cost/benefit everything and ideas like euthanizing people who are unable to work productively come into play. I'm uncomfortable with that idea.

I don't base my morals in productivity per se, I'm just saying a lot of morals have a "productive" purpose along side the morality aspect of them.

Personally, I base my morals in my upbringing.

It also depends on what your definition of the offense is. If murder to you means the cold-blooded killing of an innocent human being posing no physical threat to your and yours, then yes, I believe it is wrong. If it means the cold-blooded killing of any human being, then it is situational. Killing a family for just being there: bad. Killing a rapist trying to have a go at you or your girlfriend: not bad (I dare to say quite good, in fact).

Murder =/= self defense. Murder is the taking of an innocent life.

Drug traffickers? I call that a victimless crime, and it shouldn't even be punished, let alone with execution. If we set aside the fact that police can get shot for interfering (and that's the risk they take), all that selling dugs is is a business transaction between two consenting adults. Drug traffickers do so illegally, pharmaceutical companies on the other hand do so with legal sanction. They both sell pretty much the same products, with a few exceptions and albeit packaged differently or in different forms. All this because we want to maintain doctors as gatekeepers to drug use because we have a desire to protect people from their own ignorance, without actually educating them. Anyone want to try and uphold that particular disparity as a just cause? (Though maybe in another thread, don't want to hijack the purpose of this one completely.)

Most drug traffickers are violent vigilantes who have no problems with solving problems with violence and death. The selling of drugs themselves is nothing really bad, but the fact it creates miniature wars that have destroyed the Cental and South American societies IS.

[Fana McCloud]

It happens in our country, and believe me,

it does not works. At all. All it does is create

a resentfull individual, who consumes resources

in a cell (I assume you give him food, and to

his cellmates if he does have such.)

I do understand that some rapists do not rape

because they want to, but maybe because they

have mental issues. However, such cases are

very, VERY rare.

As I see it, giving food to a person who will be

forever in jail is a waste of resources. Better give

the same food to that poor kid in an orphanage,

he did not rape anyone and is hungry.

The victims are the 'clients'. Sometimes people are hooked up on

drugs against their will, and not allways the 'adults' are in condition

to consider the effects. Think of it this way: You are an illiterate, poor

kid who has to work. Some madman comes up to you and gives a 'free

sample' of that thing, and you take it as candy. Next thing, you are stealing

to get money for buying more of those drugs.

Furthermore, by executing drug traffickers you are setting an example.

'Do not do this - Or this happens'. Same to non-mental-ill rapists. By

executing them, you are setting an example some, not all, but some will

follow. That way some would-be victims are saved and drug traffic

is reduced.

Unfortunately, the main issue with the death sentence becomes "which crimes are worthy of it"? That could EASILY become a slippery slope - that's why I try to maintain an attitude of parity and teaching criminals what it feels like to have the same crime inflicted upon themselves. You can't learn from your mistakes when you're dead, after all. If all mistakes in life were worthy of death, we'd all be dead.

EDIT: And people should be punished for giving drugs to children, I agree with that, but once you're an adult, you have to stand on your own knowledge. Plenty of "legal" drugs are addictive, so that's not the issue - the issue is having the knowledge to not let it control you.

Most drug traffickers are violent vigilantes who have no problems with solving problems with violence and death. The selling of drugs themselves is nothing really bad, but the fact it creates miniature wars that have destroyed the Cental and South American societies IS.

Well yes, and they should be punished on the basis of murder, not the fact that they traffic drugs. Also, who do you think is more at fault for that reality? The drug traffickers, or the politicians who uphold laws that interfere with a trade that so many people obviously want badly enough to engage in illegally en masse (both buyers and sellers alike)? The drug traffickers' only alternative to keep their business open is to defend it - violently if necessary - because police are constantly trying to break it up and steal their product. Tragically they also tend to kill a lot of innocent people because they do indeed have rather calloused attitudes. But in that case they should be labeled murderers, not drug traffickers, because that's the actual crime that we are so deeply concerned about. But our drug laws only serve to induce their crimes.

[Vy'drach]

Murder =/= self defense. Murder is the taking of an innocent life.

Some would argue that and say murder is the taking of any human life. But let us forget the self-defense, say you found out a guy raped your daughter, or girlfriend. So you grab a 12 gauge, load it, find him, and blow his head off. The man posed no real physical threat to you, you sought him out simply to kill him. That would legally be considered murder. Question is though, is it really so wrong? I say as long as it is the right guy, no, it is not. I have seen a video where a guy who had raped a man's son was being escorted by police, with a smug look on his face, then the boy's father stepped out of the crowd, and blew the man's brains out (literally, as you see in the video). He then dropped the gun, put his hands up, and later stood trial for murder, was found guilty, and was sentenced to two-years of probation or something extremely light like that. I know he didn't go to prison. I heard that, looked at my mom, and said, "That judge would of given him a medal for what he did, if he could of." To me, that is justice well-served (shame the rapist got off with practically the only way to cause instant death, though).

[Robert Monroe]

Some would argue that and say murder is the taking of any human life. But let us forget the self-defense, say you found out a guy raped your daughter, or girlfriend. So you grab a 12 gauge, load it, find him, and blow his head off. The man posed no real physical threat to you, you sought him out simply to kill him. That would legally be considered murder. Question is though, is it really so wrong? I say as long as it is the right guy, no, it is not. I have seen a video where a guy who had raped a man's son was being escorted by police, with a smug look on his face, then the boy's father stepped out of the crowd, and blew the man's brains out (literally, as you see in the video). He then dropped the gun, put his hands up, and later stood trial for murder, was found guilty, and was sentenced to two-years of probation or something extremely light like that. I know he didn't go to prison. I heard that, looked at my mom, and said, "That judge would of given him a medal for what he did, if he could of." To me, that is justice well-served (shame the rapist got off with practically the only way to cause instant death, though).

It is wrong because you are not in the position to administer justice. You are not an appointed official to maintain to society in which you live, you are a vigilante, you are acting on your own accord. You instill violence by responding out of anger and personalized justice.

[Guest DRL]

Unfortunately, the main issue with the death sentence becomes "which crimes are worthy of it"? That could EASILY become a slippery slope - that's why I try to maintain an attitude of parity and teaching criminals what it feels like to have the same crime inflicted upon themselves. You can't learn from your mistakes when you're dead, after all. If all mistakes in life were worthy of death, we'd all be dead.

Thing is, these people rarely learn.

In my country, 90% of the criminals that

leave jails are soon behaind bars again.

This tells us something: Words, or good

intentions do not work. You have to be firm.

And to me, I do not think 'all' crimes are

death-worty. Only high level ones (drug traffic,

rape, for example).

EDIT: And people should be punished for giving drugs to children, I agree with that, but once you're an adult, you have to stand on your own knowledge. Plenty of "legal" drugs are addictive, so that's not the issue - the issue is having the knowledge to not let it control you

But sometimes people do not know what is right or

wrong for them. This is the issue in South and

Central America: People are told one thing, and

then they are trapped in something they did not

want to. Blame the low literacy, but well, you just

can not let people who is smarter or more literate

abuse of their knowledge and do damage.

Well yes, and they should be punished on the basis of murder, not the fact that they traffic drugs. Also, who do you think is more at fault for that reality? The drug traffickers, or the politicians who uphold laws that interfere with a trade that so many people obviously want badly enough to engage in illegally en masse (both buyers and sellers alike)? The drug traffickers' only alternative to keep their business open is to defend it - violently if necessary - because police are constantly trying to break it up and steal their product. Tragically they also tend to kill a lot of innocent people because they do indeed have rather calloused attitudes. But in that case they should be labeled murderers, not drug traffickers, because that's the actual crime that we are so deeply concerned about. But our drug laws only serve to induce their crimes.

The drug traffickers, of course! If they

know that what they are doing is pure

damage, why do it? To me, drugs have

to be burn down, and the ones who trafficke

them executed. Why? Again, because this

sets an example and prevents others from

following. By executing those who sell, you prevent

them from selling more and prevent potential suppliers

to become sellers.

You threat them as if they were 'legimate' bussiness.

Well, if you have the money to do a legimate bussiness,

DO IT. Pay your taxes, earn a lot, but DO NOT do

illegal stuff.

Illegal drugs destroy families, increase crime, and only

do bad for the economy (they do not pay taxes nor

do any other productive work.)

Most drug traffickers are violent vigilantes who have no problems with solving problems with violence and death. The selling of drugs themselves is nothing really bad, but the fact it creates miniature wars that have destroyed the Cental and South American societies IS.

Hence why here we hate them soo much.

They do damage, claim to do legimate bussiness,

and then they want their pockets full at the

expense of poor people.

Those people are not 'executives' - they

are evil criminals who deserve to be

punished.

Some would argue that and say murder is the taking of any human life. But let us forget the self-defense, say you found out a guy raped your daughter, or girlfriend. So you grab a 12 gauge, load it, find him, and blow his head off. The man posed no real physical threat to you, you sought him out simply to kill him. That would legally be considered murder. Question is though, is it really so wrong? I say as long as it is the right guy, no, it is not. I have seen a video where a guy who had raped a man's son was being escorted by police, with a smug look on his face, then the boy's father stepped out of the crowd, and blew the man's brains out (literally, as you see in the video). He then dropped the gun, put his hands up, and later stood trial for murder, was found guilty, and was sentenced to two-years of probation or something extremely light like that. I know he didn't go to prison. I heard that, looked at my mom, and said, "That judge would of given him a medal for what he did, if he could of." To me, that is justice well-served (shame the rapist got off with practically the only way to cause instant death, though).

I agree completely with you.

[Fana McCloud]

Thing is, these people rarely learn.

In my country, 90% of the criminals that

leave jails are soon behaind bars again.

This tells us something: Words, or good

intentions do not work. You have to be firm.

And to me, I do not think 'all' crimes are

death-worty. Only high level ones (drug traffic,

rape, for example).

What constitutes a "high level crime" is relative and could also lead to a slippery slope - I do not think that producing or selling drugs alone should be a high crime - lying or purposefully hiding the possible pitfalls of drugs, and selling them to children, could possibly constitute as such. I also think that if someone proves to have not learned their lesson in regards to a very serious crime, that could possibly be grounds for incarcerating them indefinitely - though not without some attempt to try and rehabilitate them (throwing someone in a jail cell does not rehabilitate). Every person has worth and dignity - I don't believe that we have the right to kill people that we collectively deem unworthy, regardless of what they may have done.

But sometimes people do not know what is right or

wrong for them. This is the issue in South and

Central America: People are told one thing, and

then they are trapped in something they did not

want to. Blame the low literacy, but well, you just

can not let people who is smarter or more literate

abuse of their knowledge and do damage.

That begs the question: then who is most qualified to decide what is "right or wrong" for everyone? People who are smart will ALWAYS be in the position to abuse their knowledge, and get away with it, regardless of what anyone does. The only way to counteract that is to do the utmost to educate everyone.

You threat them as if they were 'legimate' bussiness.

Well, if you have the money to do a legimate bussiness,

DO IT. Pay your taxes, earn a lot, but DO NOT do

illegal stuff.

Illegal drugs destroy families, increase crime, and only

do bad for the economy (they do not pay taxes nor

do any other productive work.)Hence why here we hate them soo much.

They do damage, claim to do legimate bussiness,

and then they want their pockets full at the

expense of poor people.

Those people are not 'executives' - they

are evil criminals who deserve to be

punished. I agree completely with you.

I have a better solution that will get rid of most, if not all of the killing of innocents: make the sale of these drugs legal. No more black market, no more need to protect their business from the police, no more killing. The fact that it is illegal is what CAUSES all the senseless death in the first place. Then educate people about the risks of these drugs - that will be easier to do when people aren't afraid of being arrested for asking openly for advice or help. And have systems in place to help rehabilitate the people who do get addicted, which with any luck will be far fewer than there are now thanks to allowing people to be fully educated. The war against drugs is a war that is unwinnable - because it goes against the wishes of a LARGE segment of society. It would do less harm than is being caused now by the drug war to simply end the prohibition on these drugs.

[Vy'drach]

It is wrong because you are not in the position to administer justice. You are not an appointed official to maintain to society in which you live, you are a vigilante, you are acting on your own accord. You instill violence by responding out of anger and personalized justice.

I have no trust in the "officials" at all. A friend of mine was standing trial for kidnapping with intent, for letting a guy he didn't really know all that well use his cell-phone, and got a bag out of the trunk of a car. The prosecutor was labeling him as the "mastermind" behind it all, when the only support to that claim was the testimony of the ones who actually did it, and had reduced sentences for the claim. Even the little girl kidnapped said he wasn't, but the prosecutor still lied through her teeth to try and get him sentenced to life-imprisonment. Why? So she'd have more wins under her belt, get hired more, and make more money. Finally, after two hung juries, he was acquitted. He had to sell his home to pay the legal fees.

I have no faith in the judicial system here in America. Murderers and rapists have gotten off with nothing or slaps on the wrist, while things like tax evasion and such get people imprisoned for most their life. That is not justice.

If someone comes into my home and is a threat to me and mine, well, let's just say I won't hold anything back, and their one warning to, "Get the fuck out" will be the sound of us pumping shotguns.

[DZComposer]

Hold the phone, here. When trying to define worlds like Murder, let's look at what they mean. Murder is a legal term. Murder is the intentional act of killing a person illegally. Most of the time, killing someone is illegal, but in situations like war and capital punishment, the killing is legal, and thus not murder.

[Robert Monroe]

If someone comes into my home and is a threat to me and mine, well, let's just say I won't hold anything back, and their one warning to, "Get the -F-Bomb- out" will be the sound of us pumping shotguns.

Defending your turf is not the same thing as HUNTING SOMEONE DOWN AND SHOOTING THEM.

Hold the phone, here. When trying to define worlds like Murder, let's look at what they mean. Murder is a legal term. Murder is the intentional act of killing a person illegally. Most of the time, killing someone is illegal, but in situations like war and capital punishment, the killing is legal, and thus not murder.

Thank you DZ.

[Vy'drach]

Defending your turf is not the same thing as HUNTING SOMEONE DOWN AND SHOOTING THEM.

Not saying it was, just saying that the only deciding the "officials" are going to have on the intruder is whether his death was instant, and whether I committed justifiable homicide.