Do you believe in objective morality?

[Jacksprat]

Have not read the whole thread but it surprises me no one has mentioned that there are two different systems here. Ethics is branch that deals with an objective look at morality while morality itself is purely subjective.

What does "morality itself is purely subjective" mean?

 

[Mach]

To answer your poll question, of course not. There is no universality in morality.

Well, that's a universality in and of itself.

 

[soylentgreen]

What does "morality itself is purely subjective" mean?

A simple example is the objective ethical stance of do not kill people. While the subjective moral stance is that of agreeing with the ethics bit still keeping a gun in case that psycho the pro gun people warn you about is ready to attack.
Or in other words. You can have all the objective ethical standards you please, but I will still decide for myself whether I will follow them.

 

[noonereal]

A simple example is the objective ethical stance of do not kill people. While the subjective moral stance is that of agreeing with the ethics bit still keeping a gun in case that psycho the pro gun people warn you about is ready to attack.
Or in other words. You can have all the objective ethical standards you please, but I will still decide for myself whether I will follow them.

Then we would devolve into chaos.

 

[Jacksprat]

A simple example is the objective ethical stance of do not kill people. While the subjective moral stance is that of agreeing with the ethics bit still keeping a gun in case that )psycho the pro gun people warn you about is ready to attack.
Or in other words. You can have all the objective ethical standards you please, but I will still decide for myself whether I will follow them.

Okay, not being contentious (I am a philosopher) but the terms subjective and objective are not clear from what you said. Again, "objective ethical stance" would seem to refer to norms. I don't know what norm would state that self defense does not justify killing.

 

[soylentgreen]

Then we would devolve into chaos.

I do not see why that would happen.
Ethics is merely the reasoned and logical approach to a concept of good and bad. While morality is simply a personal choice.
But even more important is why we have such concepts at all. And that is because we are all born with a degree of empathy and be altruism.
The empathy and altruism does not go away simply because we can make a choice in our behaviour to others.

 

[soylentgreen]

Okay, not being contentious (I am a philosopher) but the terms subjective and objective are not clear from what you said. Again, "objective ethical stance" would seem to refer to norms. I don't know what norm would state that self defense does not justify killing.

A religious or pious person can make the moral decision not to defend themselves if it means harming another.

The norm is the ethical standard of not to kill. But personal choice or a moral stance is whatever a person makes it to be.

 

[Jacksprat]

A religious or pious person can make the moral decision not to defend themselves if it means harming another.

The norm is the ethical standard of not to kill. But personal choice or a moral stance is whatever a person makes it to be.

Self defense is pretty well established in US law. You can't kill someone simply because someone punches you in the arm, but fatal force can be justified. I don't see the value of talking about the objective and subjective.

 

[soylentgreen]

Self defense is pretty well established in US law. You can't kill someone simply because someone punches you in the arm, but fatal force can be justified. I don't see the value of talking about the objective and subjective.

It seems you are making my argument here. An ethical objective standard is that of the right to self defense. While the justification behind any act of self defense is a purely moral choice.

 

[Jacksprat]

It seems you are making my argument here. An ethical objective standard is that of the right to self defense. While the justification behind any act of self defense is a purely moral choice.

I do not understand why you distinguish the ethical from the moral.

 

[soylentgreen]

I do not understand why you distinguish the ethical from the moral.

Because ethics is an objective standard used by most. Where as morality is nothing more than a personal choice.

Both are simply the intellectual understanding that derives from a genetical disposition to be social creatures and therefor requiring the abilities of altruism and empathy.

We do not have morality or ethics simply because some imaginary god said so. Or that it is needed to maintain a society. We have these attributes because we are genetically programmed to be social creatures.

 

[Jacksprat]

morality is nothing more than a personal choice.

I do not agree with that statement.

 

[soylentgreen]

I do not agree with that statement.

That is your moral choice.

 

[Jacksprat]

That is your moral choice.

I don't understand your use of the term "moral." I know the norm that one should not kill others. Someone attacks me and I kill that person in self defense. So killing is justified. The distinction between ethics and morality, subjective and objective, play no role.

 

[soylentgreen]

I don't understand your use of the term "moral." I know the norm that one should not kill others. Someone attacks me and I kill that person in self defense. So killing is justified. The distinction between ethics and morality, subjective and objective, play no role.

They never do play a part. That is just the intellect seeking to justify the actions taken. You are explaining why you acted as you did when you bring morality into the conversation.
The actual action itself would be based on the persons own presence of empathy and altruism. For some the killing of another has little to no effect on these attributes. But to others they could over ride the the action of defending one self.

Morality and ethics are the intellectual reasoning of actions taken. They do not exist outside of philosophical discussions. It is the inherent ability to sympathise show some altruism and empathy that decides whether and how we understand and use morality.

 

[Jacksprat]

They never do play a part. That is just the intellect seeking to justify the actions taken. You are explaining why you acted as you did when you bring morality into the conversation.
The actual action itself would be based on the persons own presence of empathy and altruism. For some the killing of another has little to no effect on these attributes. But to others they could over ride the the action of defending one self.

Morality and ethics are the intellectual reasoning of actions taken. They do not exist outside of philosophical discussions. It is the inherent ability to sympathise show some altruism and empathy that decides whether and how we understand and use morality.

I do not see what empathy has to do with someone killing another in an act self defense.

 

[soylentgreen]

I do not see what empathy has to do with someone killing another in an act self defense.

You seem to be assume everyone will react in the same way when it comes to self defense.
Not everyone shares your taste for killing others, even in self defense.

Moriori​

The Moriori people of Rēkohu (Chatham Islands) are said to have practised pacifism for hundreds of years. A chief named Nunuku ordered two rival tribes to cease fighting, destroy their weapons and make peace. He insisted that in future, serious disagreements would be settled by non-fatal single combat. The Moriori symbolised their rejection of violence by wearing white feathers in their hair, which later became an international symbol of peace.

 

[Jacksprat]

You seem to be assume everyone will react in the same way when it comes to self defense.
Not everyone shares your taste for killing others, even in self defense.

Odd inference to say that my comment exhibited a "taste for killing others." Please justify that accusation.

 

[soylentgreen]

Odd inference to say that my comment exhibited a "taste for killing others." Please justify that accusation.

You are the one insisting in not only the the right to self defense even if it means harm to others. But also to a moral claim to the right to self defense even if it means harm to others.

Yet that is a moral choice and not one shared by everyone.

Not odd to point out that your claim does include the right to kill in self defense.

 

[Jacksprat]

You are the one insisting in not only the the right to self defense even if it means harm to others. But also to a moral claim to the right to self defense even if it means harm to others.

Yet that is a moral choice and not one shared by everyone.

Not odd to point out that your claim does include the right to kill in self defense.

US law gives the right of someone to use fatal force if needed to defend oneself. Are you not familiar with US law?

 

[soylentgreen]

US law gives the right of someone to use fatal force if needed to defend oneself. Are you not familiar with US law?

What has usa law to do with anything?
The law is a limit on actions taken not a target to be reached.

 

[Jacksprat]

What has usa law to do with anything?
The law is a limit on actions taken not a target to be reached.

You had a problem with my statement that killing someone in self defense can be legally justified. Maybe we're talking past each other.

 

[soylentgreen]

You had a problem with my statement that killing someone in self defense can be legally justified. Maybe we're talking past each other.

Again what does the legal situation have to do morality? That it is legal to kill in self defense does not mean we have a moral obligation to kill in self defense.

 

[Jacksprat]

That it is legal to kill in self defense does not mean we have a moral obligation to kill in self defense.

I never stated such a thing.

 

[soylentgreen]

I never stated such a thing.

Then I fail to see the connection between justifying a legal claim to self defense and a moral claim to self defense.
Are you arguing just because we have a legal right to self defense then a moral stance about whether to harm another even in self defense is automatically justified.