Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 4,366 - 4,377 of 6,170
If I judge that torturing babies just for fun is morally wrong, I am no doubt implying a personal preference not to torture babies for fun, but I am also implying a lot more. If I judge that torturing babies just for fun is morally wrong, it would be inconsistent of me to be completely tolerant of other people who torture babies for fun. On the contrary, to be consistent I would have to consider myself as having a moral duty to try to prevent people from torturing babies just for fun, and also a moral duty to try to convert them to my point of view, if I can do either of these things without immorality on my own part.
{DEVILSADVOCATE}
Ah, but what if a crazed sadist is holding you hostage in an orphanage full of helpless babies. And he tells you that if you will torture one baby to death for him, he'll spare all the others.
But if you refuse, he'll torture them all to death one by one. And repeat the offer before starting on the next one.
How many babies are you going to watch him torture to death before you agree to save the rest by killing just one more?
And no, you can't overpower him, or escape. He's 6'8", armed to the teeth, and you're locked in.
{/DEVILSADVOCATE}
but I think each case needs to be looked at, and all the facts and circumstances should be considered, and that rules were made for people rather than people being made to serve rules.
But if morals are merely subjective and personal, what would it mean to "look at" a case, and what would such looking be? If I am trying to find some objective truth, it behooves me to look for evidence. But if morals are purely subjective, where is there evidence to be found? If I think that torturing babies is morally obligatory on even-numbered days and morally forbidden on odd-numbered days, and if morals are purely subjective, then it is so, for me.
Just because morals are personal and relative doesn't mean I won't promote mine own.
No, it doesn't. Just as the fact that my preference for Lima beans is subjective (let's assume that this is so) doesn't prevent me from (should I have the power) forcing everyone to eat Lima beans only. You never know what a human might do; they are not tied to canons of rationality or even sanity.
But if I think of my bean preference as purely subjective, it is hard to see any rational reason for my enforcing it. It would just be an utterly arbitrary thing to do, like demanding that everyone wear a pink tie on Fridays.
but if you believe that it is objectively morally wrong to wear pink ties on Fridays, that makes your enforcement bahavior more understandable.
if my moral beliefs are just subjective and relative, imposing them on others would be like imposing my preference for Lima beans on others: very silly.
But there is a difference between subjective morals and subjective taste. In the case of morals, there is the problem of how one's morals effect other people. In that case, there has to be a balance, or the people with opposing morals just battle it out by whatever means are available. One of the ways the dominate groups or most powerful group in any culture imposes it's values are through laws. The other ways are through ethical standards (say within a profession) and codes and through social pressure and norms, including religious teachings.
Take the idea that some consider sex immoral unless the two people are a married couple, a man and a woman, who are completely monogamous for life and only have sex for the purposes of procreation. This is personal belief. It may offend them if you do not share it, and if you flaunt your sinful ways. They may try to get laws passed or enforced against your sexual behaviors. They may shun you or say rude thing about you. They may stand on the sidewalk outside your house and hold a loud prayer vigil.
The difference between the people trying to get you to change behavior and people stopping someone from killing a baby for fun is that (1) Killing a baby is seen by the majority as "bad", (2) killing a baby effects others more directly than your sex life, and (3) laws are on the side of those against killing babies. I would try to save the babies regardless those factors, but more people would agree with my actions than the actions of the people with the anti sex vigil. That's because as society we deem baby killing bad and you picked something far enough on the "evil" side to get that group reaction. It's still a matter of degree.
But if morals are merely subjective and personal, what would it mean to "look at" a case, and what would such looking be?
It would ultimately be subjective (as is almost all of human experiences, because even in science data is interpreted by subjective people), and would reflect the biases of those who are doing the analysis. As I said to Psimagus, we are imperfect people with imperfect knowledge, but that doesn't mean we should not try to do the best we can given whatever we have to work with. Trails are subjective. Moral judgment of others and self are subjective. Psychiatric and medical treatment is subjective. Ultimately, my actions and judgments are subjective.
If I am trying to find some objective truth, it behooves me to look for evidence.
I am not sure people can ever reach an "objective truth" because we are limited by our sense and our perceptions, and the way our brain filters every new bit of stimuli through a network of past experiences, expectations and unconscious filters. I think there is an objective truth, but I think we each only get a little of it. To see the whole truth, you'd have to collect all the pieces together and transcend humanity and the limitations of a single perspective in time and space. (i.e. become "god").
Although all we can hope for is imperfect understanding (unless we get the omniscience thing down), I think we should still look for evidence and use the tools of logic, critical thinking, creative thinking and empathy to try to come to a subject truth that is as honest as we can make it. Such "truths' are relative to what we know at the time, and may be adjusted later if new evidence is presented or we learn more about how things work. I think human truths are only "true" until further notice.
But if morals are purely subjective, where is there evidence to be found? If I think that torturing babies is morally obligatory on even-numbered days and morally forbidden on odd-numbered days, and if morals are purely subjective, then it is so, for me.
It may be so for you. I can try to convince you you are wrong, or I can stop you through whatever I have at my disposal, but I cannot change your moral values or your choices. I'd still do whatever I could to live by my own morals, that includes interfering with our actions when yu do something I see as "bad".
I also stop my cat from killing birds when I see her chase them (if I can). I will never convince her it's immoral to kill baby birds. It's not "bad" enough for me to cripple or kill me cat to prevent, but I try to stop it when I see it. It's matter of degree.
See the killing of babies is subjective from the point of view of my cat. I don't care. It's still a matter of my values.
The difference between the people trying to get you to change behavior and people stopping someone from killing a baby for fun is that (1) Killing a baby is seen by the majority as "bad", (2) killing a baby effect others more directly than your sex life, and (3) laws are on the side of those against killing babies.
I'm nt sure I understand you. In Nazi Germany, a genocidal campaign was invoked against Jews and others. It might be argued that (1) Jews were seen by the majority as "bad", (2) various activities of Jews impinged upon other people's lives in various ways, and (3) Laws were on the side of those killing Jews.
In no way this this make it morally permissible to kill Jews!
Likewise, the early proponents of abolition of slavery were a tiny minority, as were the early proponents of women suffrage. In both cases the law at that time was against them. Did this make them immoral?
Also, if you define morality in terms of the dictates of the ambient society, I don't see how you can possibly consider it to be a merely subjective matter. Surely it is objectively true or false that the laws in Germany supported the persecution of Jews. Likewise, it is objectively true or false that the majority of Germans were anti-semitic. I don't think you can be a social relativist and a subjectivist both.
I think there is an object truth,
Well, is there or isn't there? If there is (about moral questions), then moral questions and opinions are not merely subjective.
I agree that some moral questions are very difficult, but that is not evidence in favor of mere subjectivity. If something is merely subjective, it is easy to evaluate. For example, if the beauty of a painting were something merely subjective, all I would have to do would be to look at it, and if it looked beautiful to me, then it would be beautiful. Likewise, if moral correctness were merely subjective, then all I would have to do is take my immediate reaction to the issue, and that would be correct. The fact that certain issues are difficult to resolve shows that they are not purely subjective matters.
Posts 4,366 - 4,377 of 6,170
{DEVILSADVOCATE}
Ah, but what if a crazed sadist is holding you hostage in an orphanage full of helpless babies. And he tells you that if you will torture one baby to death for him, he'll spare all the others.
But if you refuse, he'll torture them all to death one by one. And repeat the offer before starting on the next one.
How many babies are you going to watch him torture to death before you agree to save the rest by killing just one more?
And no, you can't overpower him, or escape. He's 6'8", armed to the teeth, and you're locked in.
{/DEVILSADVOCATE}
Hee hee Irina,
Well it may just be that I have brain damage http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-empathy22mar22,
1,3646035.story?track=rss. However, I don't think you are fairly portraying my position. I never said we had to be tolerant of harmful behavior.
You mistake the assertion that morals are subjective and relative with the assertion that no laws or ethical rules should ever be enforced. I think they should be enforced, but I think each case needs to be looked at, and all the facts and circumstances should be considered, and that rules were made for people rather than people being made to serve rules.
Just because morals are personal and relative doesn't mean I won't promote mine own. As I said, it's my vote as t how I think people "should be" and part of how I think people should be is that they should stop people from hurting others or themselves. Just because it's subjective and relative doesn't mean I won't act on it.
Do you think it's immoral for a cat to play with a wounded mouse? It is different for humans, largely because we evolved moral capacity and most human societies have chosen life and protecting young as positive morals. If you have ever spend quality time with a 4 year old you will know that humans are not born with morals either.
Well it may just be that I have brain damage http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-empathy22mar22,
1,3646035.story?track=rss. However, I don't think you are fairly portraying my position. I never said we had to be tolerant of harmful behavior.
You mistake the assertion that morals are subjective and relative with the assertion that no laws or ethical rules should ever be enforced. I think they should be enforced, but I think each case needs to be looked at, and all the facts and circumstances should be considered, and that rules were made for people rather than people being made to serve rules.
Just because morals are personal and relative doesn't mean I won't promote mine own. As I said, it's my vote as t how I think people "should be" and part of how I think people should be is that they should stop people from hurting others or themselves. Just because it's subjective and relative doesn't mean I won't act on it.
Do you think it's immoral for a cat to play with a wounded mouse? It is different for humans, largely because we evolved moral capacity and most human societies have chosen life and protecting young as positive morals. If you have ever spend quality time with a 4 year old you will know that humans are not born with morals either.
Bev:
You wrote:
You mistake the assertion that morals are subjective and relative with the assertion that no laws or ethical rules should ever be enforced.
I don't think so. Try as I may, I do not remember ever believing or saying such a thing. But I can understand why you might think that, because indeed, if my moral beliefs are just subjective and relative, imposing them on others would be like imposing my preference for Lima beans on others: very silly.
You wrote:
But if I think of my bean preference as purely subjective, it is hard to see any rational reason for my enforcing it. It would just be an utterly arbitrary thing to do, like demanding that everyone wear a pink tie on Fridays.
but if you believe that it is objectively morally wrong to wear pink ties on Fridays, that makes your enforcement bahavior more understandable.
Psimagus:
But your question is a good one, and the answer is, to the best of my present knowledge, that the right thing to do would be to kill one of the babies in order to save the others.
Which is not so different from what we do when we require the inoculation of babies with various deadly diseases. A small number of babies will die from the inoculation, but the remainder will be safer from the disease.
Battlefield triage is another example. It aims to save the greatest number of people in the end, in a way that seems fair. Actually, the medical profession and society in general practices triage in lots of ways, without coming out and calling it that. There are few countries that couldn't budget more money for medical purposes than they do; this amounts to a decision to let some people die. Likewise, when a government makes pollution controls less stringent than they might be, this means that some people will die.
The notion that human life cannot be measured by a finite amount of money is often paid lip service, but no one acts that way. Go to, say, the construction industry, and see how much more people are paid for the more dangerous jobs (where the death rates are known quantitatively). with a little elementary decision theory, you can then calculate the value of a human life according to the construction industry.
But your question is a good one, and the answer is, to the best of my present knowledge, that the right thing to do would be to kill one of the babies in order to save the others.
Which is not so different from what we do when we require the inoculation of babies with various deadly diseases. A small number of babies will die from the inoculation, but the remainder will be safer from the disease.
Battlefield triage is another example. It aims to save the greatest number of people in the end, in a way that seems fair. Actually, the medical profession and society in general practices triage in lots of ways, without coming out and calling it that. There are few countries that couldn't budget more money for medical purposes than they do; this amounts to a decision to let some people die. Likewise, when a government makes pollution controls less stringent than they might be, this means that some people will die.
The notion that human life cannot be measured by a finite amount of money is often paid lip service, but no one acts that way. Go to, say, the construction industry, and see how much more people are paid for the more dangerous jobs (where the death rates are known quantitatively). with a little elementary decision theory, you can then calculate the value of a human life according to the construction industry.
I might add that workers who accept hazardous jobs in order to get more money are acquiescing in this.
In fact, if we regarded our own lives as infinitely precious, we'd behave in ways that would by current standards be regarded as pathological.
In fact, if we regarded our own lives as infinitely precious, we'd behave in ways that would by current standards be regarded as pathological.
Addendum to message 2007:
I add that in real life, it would be hard to be sure of all the information you posit. Why should I trust such a person, for example, to keep his end of the deal? How could I know that it was absolutely impossible to overpower him? My answer above is, however, based on an acceptance of all your conditions.
Hmmm...an aspect of it that I hadn't thought of before has just occurred to me. I'm not sure my answer is correct unless we add the condition that only a small number of people will ever know what I did. Otherwise, one might argue that giving in to one madman will encourage others.
I add that in real life, it would be hard to be sure of all the information you posit. Why should I trust such a person, for example, to keep his end of the deal? How could I know that it was absolutely impossible to overpower him? My answer above is, however, based on an acceptance of all your conditions.
Hmmm...an aspect of it that I hadn't thought of before has just occurred to me. I'm not sure my answer is correct unless we add the condition that only a small number of people will ever know what I did. Otherwise, one might argue that giving in to one madman will encourage others.
But there is a difference between subjective morals and subjective taste. In the case of morals, there is the problem of how one's morals effect other people. In that case, there has to be a balance, or the people with opposing morals just battle it out by whatever means are available. One of the ways the dominate groups or most powerful group in any culture imposes it's values are through laws. The other ways are through ethical standards (say within a profession) and codes and through social pressure and norms, including religious teachings.
Take the idea that some consider sex immoral unless the two people are a married couple, a man and a woman, who are completely monogamous for life and only have sex for the purposes of procreation. This is personal belief. It may offend them if you do not share it, and if you flaunt your sinful ways. They may try to get laws passed or enforced against your sexual behaviors. They may shun you or say rude thing about you. They may stand on the sidewalk outside your house and hold a loud prayer vigil.
The difference between the people trying to get you to change behavior and people stopping someone from killing a baby for fun is that (1) Killing a baby is seen by the majority as "bad", (2) killing a baby effects others more directly than your sex life, and (3) laws are on the side of those against killing babies. I would try to save the babies regardless those factors, but more people would agree with my actions than the actions of the people with the anti sex vigil. That's because as society we deem baby killing bad and you picked something far enough on the "evil" side to get that group reaction. It's still a matter of degree.
It would ultimately be subjective (as is almost all of human experiences, because even in science data is interpreted by subjective people), and would reflect the biases of those who are doing the analysis. As I said to Psimagus, we are imperfect people with imperfect knowledge, but that doesn't mean we should not try to do the best we can given whatever we have to work with. Trails are subjective. Moral judgment of others and self are subjective. Psychiatric and medical treatment is subjective. Ultimately, my actions and judgments are subjective.
I am not sure people can ever reach an "objective truth" because we are limited by our sense and our perceptions, and the way our brain filters every new bit of stimuli through a network of past experiences, expectations and unconscious filters. I think there is an objective truth, but I think we each only get a little of it. To see the whole truth, you'd have to collect all the pieces together and transcend humanity and the limitations of a single perspective in time and space. (i.e. become "god").
Although all we can hope for is imperfect understanding (unless we get the omniscience thing down), I think we should still look for evidence and use the tools of logic, critical thinking, creative thinking and empathy to try to come to a subject truth that is as honest as we can make it. Such "truths' are relative to what we know at the time, and may be adjusted later if new evidence is presented or we learn more about how things work. I think human truths are only "true" until further notice.
It may be so for you. I can try to convince you you are wrong, or I can stop you through whatever I have at my disposal, but I cannot change your moral values or your choices. I'd still do whatever I could to live by my own morals, that includes interfering with our actions when yu do something I see as "bad".
I also stop my cat from killing birds when I see her chase them (if I can). I will never convince her it's immoral to kill baby birds. It's not "bad" enough for me to cripple or kill me cat to prevent, but I try to stop it when I see it. It's matter of degree.
See the killing of babies is subjective from the point of view of my cat. I don't care. It's still a matter of my values.
In no way this this make it morally permissible to kill Jews!
Likewise, the early proponents of abolition of slavery were a tiny minority, as were the early proponents of women suffrage. In both cases the law at that time was against them. Did this make them immoral?
Also, if you define morality in terms of the dictates of the ambient society, I don't see how you can possibly consider it to be a merely subjective matter. Surely it is objectively true or false that the laws in Germany supported the persecution of Jews. Likewise, it is objectively true or false that the majority of Germans were anti-semitic. I don't think you can be a social relativist and a subjectivist both.
I agree that some moral questions are very difficult, but that is not evidence in favor of mere subjectivity. If something is merely subjective, it is easy to evaluate. For example, if the beauty of a painting were something merely subjective, all I would have to do would be to look at it, and if it looked beautiful to me, then it would be beautiful. Likewise, if moral correctness were merely subjective, then all I would have to do is take my immediate reaction to the issue, and that would be correct. The fact that certain issues are difficult to resolve shows that they are not purely subjective matters.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar