Seasons

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.

In no way this this make it morally permissible to kill Jews!

It was to the Nazi. It's not to me. I want to live in a world where it is not moral, so I live in a way that promotes my values and beliefs, and encourage others to do the same. It's still subjective.

but I cannot change your moral values or your choices.

??? People change their moral values all the time as a result of interaction with others. The early abolitionists had no power to force the abolition of slavery. They convinced people that slavery was morally wrong.

The Nazis thought it was the right thing to do, yes. But they were mistaken.

If you don't say the Nazis were wrong, in some deeper sense of "wrong" than disagreeing with Bev, then it just becomes a matter of taste. The Nazis had a taste for killing Jews and you don't. Any attempt on your part to enforce your values would just be egotism and selfishness.

Likewise, if morals are just what society dictates, then Might makes Right.

If the Nazis had won, those of us who are not Jewish might be all sitting here celebrating the extermination of the Jews, having been brought up in a Nazi society, with Nazi schools, etc.. To my way of thinking, that would have been a tragic outcome. But if right and wrong are no more than what society says, or what the individual believes, then what would be tragic about it? Our consensus on the matter would make it right.

if you define morality in terms of the dictates of the ambient society,

I don't. I define laws and norms in terms of society. Morals are based on personal values, choices, and beliefs. They can be learned and influenced, but ultimately you chose them. They are subjective.

[re:objective truth"] Well, is there or isn't there? If there is (about moral questions), then moral questions and opinions are not merely subjective.

Sorry, I meant in general, there is one whole universe with principles and entities that exists outside of myself. However, this "objective truth" is not fully knowable for a human because for limitations in the human condition. None of us have perfect knowledge, and the more we learn, the more we have to learn.

I also think humans create various constructs in the mind (e.g. language, math, science, stories, myths, religion, art...etc) to make sense of what knowledge they are able to gain, and to help them explain and predict and explore. These constructs are useful, but they are created in the mind and have no objective reality, although they may effect how we perceive reality and how we act in reality. For example, there is no one "objective" language., however it is useful to learn many languages, and thinking in one language may get different results than thinking in another.

I do not think there is an objective moral truth any more than there is one objective language truth, or one objective story truth. these are things we made up to help us make sense of our existence (BTW this is also related to why I think lies are an evolutionary advantage, if you remember our earlier debate).

I think we are born with the capacity for morals and values (just as we are born with the capacity for language and math) and we learn and develop our morality just as we develop all our other mental constructs and beliefs. I think this construct evolved because those with the ability to have morals helped each other to survive, and the group of those with a moral capacity survived and passed on their genes (just as people with the capacity for language had a better rate of survival and passed on their genes more often). I think specific morals are largely learned, and also chosen as one reaches natural stages of cognitive and emotional development that prompts one to think of such choices. I think it is vital for each person's development as a person to develop moral values and think about the values they have and the choices they make, even though those morals are subjective. The creation of morals and the examination of one's values and choices is so very human, it is one of the things that separates us from animals. Having this unique human capacity makes it almost a waste not to develop one's morals, subjective as they may be.

Sorry, I meant in general, there is one whole universe with principles and entities that exists outside of myself.

Well, we don't disagree, then.

But I'm puzzled. Why did you say "they are subjective" in your first response paragraph in message 2007?

However, this "objective truth" is not fully knowable for a human because for limitations in the human condition. None of us have perfect knowledge, and the more we learn, the more we have to learn.

We don't disagree about that, either.

People change their moral values all the time as a result of interaction with others. The early abolitionists had no power to force the abolition of slavery. They convinced people that slavery was morally wrong.

HA! That was mostly about economic issues of an industrial north conflicting with a agricultural south with a slave based economy, coupled with a power struggle between various states and the Federal government. Even Lincoln tried to preserve slavery as long as he could, specifically making the emancipation proclamation apply only to rebel states he did not control (hoping the uprising would help his military position) and specifically excluding slaves is collar states that he had already controlled. He finally end slavery under pressure, but he didn't want to do it (his wife's family had slaves in a collar state).

However, I do think you can (a) teach morals to others (especially children) and (b) influence their moral values. You cannot, however, make them change their morals is they are not willing to change on their own. It is their choice. It's in their mind. It does not exist outside of their mind (though it influences their actions which influence all of us). This is why I mention laws and norms and the like. I wasn't defining morals in terms of the norm. I was describing factors that general influence specific moral values.

But I'm puzzled. Why did you say "they are subjective" in your first response paragraph in message 2007?

"They" in that case was mean to refer to morals. Morals are a human creation. They are subjective. If you don't believe me, try talking about objective morals to my cat.

The existence of an "objective" reality does not mean humans do not create constructs that exists within their own mind. The universe is "objective" although I will never know everything there is to know about it. My experience and beliefs and values are subjective. Two different animals.

I do not think there is an objective moral truth any more than there is one objective language truth, or one objective story truth. these are things we made up to help us make sense of our existence (BTW this is also related to why I think lies are an evolutionary advantage, if you remember our earlier debate).

You appear to be oscillating. Are there objective moral truths or not, according to you?

these are things we made up to help us make sense of our existence

But you appear to know that they are made up, so I don't see how they can help you to make sense out of your existence.

I think we are born with the capacity for morals and values (just as we are born with the capacity for language and math) and we learn and develop our morality just as we develop all our other mental constructs and beliefs. I think this construct evolved because those with the ability to have morals helped each other to survive, and the group of those with a moral capacity survived and passed on their genes (just as people with the capacity for language had a better rate of survival and passed on their genes more often). I think specific morals are largely learned, and also chosen as one reaches natural stages of cognitive and emotional development that prompts one to think of such choices. I think it is vital for each person's development as a person to develop moral values and think about the values they have and the choices they make, even though those morals are subjective. The creation of morals and the examination of one's values and choices is so very human, it is one of the things that separates us from animals. Having this unique human capacity makes it almost a waste not to develop one's morals, subjective as they may be.

Almost a waste? You take back with one hand what you give with the other.

I am probably misunderstanding you, but you appear to be saying that morals are convenient illusions. That it's not true that it's wrong to torture babies for fun, but that we have found it convenient to believe such things (in spite of their falsity) because it increases our species' ability to survive and allows us to avoid wasting our innate capacities.

Whereas I think that it is true that it is morally wrong to torture babies for fun. So I guess we disagree after all.

Are there objective moral truths or not, according to you?

NO, a thousand times no. There is an objective reality. That is reality, not morality. I mentioned it because some philosophers contend that life is subjective and is a product of mind, and we are really a butterfly dreaming or some such. I am allowing that there are some things which are objective and can be investigated, although ultimately, we have to filter what we learn through human perceptions. Morality is not one of these things. It does not exist outside the human experience.

Morality is not a part of this objective truth. I am not oscillating. I am describing "objective" as something separate and apart from morality, and indeed, something ultimately unattainable.

Morality is a mental construct. We made it up. Like language. Like a personal "god" (sorry Prob). It's subjective. Ironically, that also makes it obtainable, though changeable.