Seasons

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.

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.

That is the standard Marxoid view, but is it true? I do not see what John Woolman, a white middle-class Quaker and early abolitionist, had to gain by abolishing slavery. If the abolitionist movement had been fueled by the interests of plutocrats and politicians, the earliest abolitionists in the USA would have been Episcopalians, not Quakers and Unitarians.

Were the early advocates of Woman Suffrage in the USA also tools of plutocrats and politicians? What did the plutocrats and politicians have to gain from woman suffrage?

Was the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's the tool of plutocrats and politicians? Are the opponents of globalization and the agitators to take global warming seriously the tools of plutocrats and politicians? If not, how did they escape such a fate? Ah, but they are closer to us, are they not? We can't be taken in! No, it is only others, dummies like Thoreau or Frederick Douglas, who naively think they are making reforms while really, they are just being manipulated...

I am inclined to the view known as "Rule Utilitarianism." A person's moral prnciples can be seen as a set of rules, but it can also be seen as one big rule, of which all the little rules are corollaries.

Now, of all the candidates for the correct moral rule, which should we choose? Roughly, the RU position is this: an optimal rule will be one which, in the long run and to the best of our knowledge, will maximize human flourishing.

"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.

One might just as well argue: "Mathematics is purely subjective. Mathematics (the discipline) is a human creation. If you don't believe me, try talking about objective Mathematics with my cat."

Or: "Physics is purely subjective. ... with my cat."


Or: "Which phone number is whose is purely subjective. ... try talking about objective phone numbers with my cat."

Morality is a mental construct. We made it up.

No doubt that is true in some sense. In the same sense, Physics is a mental construct; we made it up. It is only because our genes are thus-and-so and our society is thus-and-so that we are able to understand Physics. To conclude from this that Physics is entirely subjective would be a mistake, however.

What our genes give us is an ability (imperfect, no doubt, but also not trivial) to infer the laws of Physics (or some approximation thereto) from our experiences in the world, and to construct societies that will be able to pass many of these insights along to successive generations.

Our genes also give us an ability (imperfect, no doubt, but also not trivial) to infer the principles of Ethics(or some approximation thereto) from our experiences in the world, and to construct societies that will be able to pass many of these insights along to successive generations.

Why should the role of genes and society in the development of Ethics prove that Ethics is merely subjective, while the analogous role of genes and society in the development of Physics does not prove that Physics is merely subjective?

Addendum to message 4387:

In message 4387 I questioned what I called the "Marxoid" view. But even if the Marxoid view is true, I don't think that proves what you seem to think it proves.

It is very, very probable that Physics is in the control of plutocrats and governments; certainly,that is where their funding comes from. We could say that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is was brought about by whomever funded the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies while it supported Einstein's work - presumably that owuld be the US government and the Princeton Trustees. Does this prove that the General theory of Relativity, and Physics in general, is merely subjective?

So even if you could make a case - which I doubt very much you can - that the abolitionists were all funded or somehow controlled or manipulated by governments and plutocrats, that would not prove that the moral wrongness of slavery is nothing more than a convenient falsehood. [I mean, really Bev, I can't believe that you really believe that! My opinion is that you really believe that slavery is wrong, period, full stop, end of story, that is was wrong during the heyday of the Roman Empire, even though hardly anyone questioned it then; and that all this relativism stuff is a veneer of stylish academic doctrine that you picked up in college or somewhere! OK, you may get mad at me now!]