foundation of ethics?

@prolix,

prolix wrote:

I do not believe some morals are objective. Murder is not inherently immoral. Murder is a social concept, and as such, is still a learned moral principle. I believe all morals are subjective.

(Exact words from Wikipedia's article under "Murder")
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime. Most jurisdictions impose a severe penalty for its commission.

I'd say the fact that every civilization, from ancient to modern, has deemed murder as the most serious crime is a good indicator that it is an objective wrong in terms of morality. Sorry but it seems quite clear murder is lightyears beyond a mere belief.

The only time murder has ever been justified legally is if it's self defense, which must follow a corpus delicti of circumstances.

By the way...concepts are objective, just pay a visit to our friend Plato. The blue prints of a house are architectural concepts, but they're also objective. Why? Because even if you destroy the house it's built from, the blue print will always be there - the concept of that particular house will always be there. This is characteristic of objectivity. Therefore, by equating murder to a social concept you've actually provided support to my point without me having to have gone through this lengthy response. Smile

@dancinginchains,

dancinginchains wrote:

I'd say the fact that every civilization, from ancient to modern, has deemed murder as the most serious crime is a good indicator that it is an objective wrong in terms of morality. Sorry but it seems quite clear murder is lightyears beyond a mere belief.

So would you say that 3 billion years ago, before there ever was a human being, murder was an objective moral wrong? In other words, are you arguing that etched in the fabric of reality is a moral stance on human murder?

There's a difference between ubiquity and objectivity. Yes, it is ubiquitous that murder is judged negatively in societies, but that has to do with human psychology and social sensibilities. And given that murder as such doesn't occur in animals, it seems as if there is some instinctual inhibition we have towards killing each other that we have to surmount in order to actually kill someone. Furthermore, it's NOT true that murder has been prohibited in all societies for all time -- it's just that what constitutes murder has been defined differently. Killing Jews was certainly not considered murder under the Nazi regime. Need we find other examples of wanton murder that was tolerated if not condoned by societies?

Quote:

The only time murder has ever been justified legally is if it's self defense, which must follow a corpus delicti of circumstances.

Legality has nothing to do with objective morality. Slavery was once legal as well. Laws can change.

Quote:

By the way...concepts are objective, just pay a visit to our friend Plato. The blue prints of a house are architectural concepts, but they're also objective. Why? Because even if you destroy the house it's built from, the blue print will always be there - the concept of that particular house will always be there. This is characteristic of objectivity.

Not even Plato's own student Aristotle bought this argument. That specific blueprint is objective as a physical object, NOT as a concept. I have a collection of African masks. These are used as parts of masquerades and various traditions in their indigenous cultures. I happen to collect them as souvenirs of my trips and I enjoy them as art. So my concept of them is completely different than the original concept. Similarly, I once had a poster that was a blueprint of a gothic cathedral, that I had framed and displayed as art. It was an aesthetic object to me, it might have been a guide to building that cathedral to others. The concept is something that we apply to an object, whether in creating the object or in appreciating and using it.

In fact the necessity for a blueprint actually helps prove that concepts aren't objective -- because if the concept isn't written down, then we lack access to it, our memory is imprecise, we cannot visualize it well, we cannot communicate it to one another. The blueprint is no more of a concept than a cookie cutter or a stapler is a concept.

@dancinginchains,

dancinginchains wrote:

Truthfully anything can be subjective with regard to morals in the sense that any of us can make a (sometimes seemingly) immoral choice without being stopped or contained by someone else. For instance I can make the choice to stab someone repeatedly with a cleaver and kill them without being held back by someone else. Morality is not universally objective, but only in context of choice to carry out an immoral act.

Now yes I will say there are some moral issues like abortion and same sex marriage which are completely subjective. But it's because there's nothing about them that's as clear cut.

On the other hand, what makes murder and rape so immoral is that the person who commits those acts is taking advantage of their victim's vulnurability and are basically taking their victim's fate into their own hands. To follow through with such an act does require a sort of sadistic mentality, someone who gets their psychological jollies off of having control over someone else. This is especially true with rape.

This is why something like say murder is inherently immoral and has been throughout virtually all walks of history and all cultures. Morality is just like anything else in life: some things are universally objective like murder and rape, somethings are subjective like abortion and same sex marriage. To generalize by saying morality is all objective or all subjective is logically and practically incorrect.

If you can stab some one with a cleaver you haven't watched enough cutups.

Get rid of the formal view of morality as recieved from church or state. Think only of what is good and necessary for one close to you. How far would you go to save their life? What would you not do to help them? The same question raised of similar situations to different people will get the same answer objectively true to each. All people are moral, but where that morality leaves off and a formal relationship begins may be different for each. So as a formal measure of respect we grant that all people have a right to life, and make those situations like war, that might kill, into legal as well as military affairs. We condemn with law and we bless.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

So would you say that 3 billion years ago, before there ever was a human being, murder was an objective moral wrong? In other words, are you arguing that etched in the fabric of reality is a moral stance on human murder?

I apologize for my argument not being clear. I thought it was clear I was referring to strictly human civilization. 3 billion years ago is not relevant to my argument or anything pertaining to philosophy for that matter because there were no human civilizations. Objectivity and subjectivity are both human realizations that didn't exist before human civilization. Therefore 3 billion years ago does not apply at all.

Aedes wrote:

Similarly, I once had a poster that was a blueprint of a gothic cathedral, that I had framed and displayed as art. It was an aesthetic object to me, it might have been a guide to building that cathedral to others. The concept is something that we apply to an object, whether in creating the object or in appreciating and using it.

In fact the necessity for a blueprint actually helps prove that concepts aren't objective -- because if the concept isn't written down, then we lack access to it, our memory is imprecise, we cannot visualize it well, we cannot communicate it to one another. The blueprint is no more of a concept than a cookie cutter or a stapler is a concept.

It seems to me that you're unintentionally equivocating the word concept. Lets say I did the same thing with the blueprints to my house, lets say I hung them as art because I saw aesthetic value in them. It doesn't change the fact that if I wanted to I could still build my house by using those blueprints. Moreover I can keep reconstructing the same house an infinite amount of times from said blueprints. Aesthetic value is subjective, which is why I'm not touching it.

I have to say I love how the conversation has drifted from the original topic. Very Happy

@dancinginchains,

The moral foundation of any ethical system is authoritative censorship.

@Veracity,

Veracity wrote:

The moral foundation of any ethical system is authoritative censorship.

Show me an ethical system in reality.

@Veracity,

Veracity wrote:

The moral foundation of any ethical system is authoritative censorship.

If by ethical system you mean ethics in an objective sense, then I'm afraid I can't support that. Then again I'm a little confused by what you mean when you say "ethical system."

@dpmartin,

I'm further confused by the idea "moral foundation of any ethical system". Morals are held by individuals. Ethics are conventions accepted by groups. Ethical systems nearly by definition are built solely on their constituent moral individuals.

Censorship? You're going to have to explain this a bit more thoroughly.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I'm further confused by the idea "moral foundation of any ethical system". Morals are held by individuals. Ethics are conventions accepted by groups.

You cannot separate man's gregarious nature from the group. All ethics stem from reason and nature's limitation.

Quote:

Ethical systems nearly by definition are built solely on their constituent moral individuals.

Care to explain?

Quote:

Censorship? You're going to have to explain this a bit more thoroughly.

I was being facetious. This site has censored me. Therefore, any moral foundation is based off of authoritative censorship.

@Veracity,

Veracity wrote:

I was being facetious. This site has censored me. Therefore, any moral foundation is based off of authoritative censorship.

How does this site censor? I have yet to see any example set by this site which gives precedence to censorship. The mods here, at least by my observation, are pretty level headed and don't seem the type to ban users simply because they disagree with them. That would be censorship, and so far I'm not seeing it.

@dancinginchains,

dancinginchains wrote:

How does this site censor?

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/new-member-forum/1007-yo-mamma-so-nice-2.html

Quote:

The mods here, at least by my observation, are pretty level headed and don't seem the type to ban users simply because they disagree with them. That would be censorship, and so far I'm not seeing it.

A civil society can only happen through authoritative censorship.

@Veracity,

Veracity wrote:

All ethics stem from reason and nature's limitation.

That's incorrect. There is abundant evidence that humans make irrational moral judgements, then retroactively moralize to make their judgement seem rationally coherent. If you're interested in references, take a look at some of the work done by Josh Knobe, Stephen Pinker, and of course by Jung, Freud, and other psychologists. If you really think that human ethics stem from reason, then you need to read a lot more modern philosophers and psychologists. What is clear is that we are NOT rational animals -- we have many irrational processes and reactions in our minds that compete with reason -- and we are so in awe of our own reason that we often rationalize these irrational things so that we convince ourselves that we're being rational.

Quote:

Care to explain?

I did explain. Individuals have morals and groups have ethics. Therefore the ethics of a group (for instance medical ethics by the medical community) are founded upon the individual constituents of that group and their individual morals. It's not just the sum of the parts, but it's an aggregate that is satisfactory to the group.

Quote:

I was being facetious. This site has censored me. Therefore, any moral foundation is based off of authoritative censorship.

And yet you keep coming back here despite your bitterness. Is that a rational decision?

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

That's incorrect.

You fail to show otherwise.

@Veracity,

Veracity wrote:

You fail to show otherwise.

LOL, no, you failed to look at the references I've suggested. So here you are again:

Start with this review by Steven Pinker:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Then look up Josh Knobe's articles in the academic philosophy literature -- he actually has his articles linked on his web page at UNC.

Then read some Freud and Jung.

Then read some Nietzsche (Genealogy of Morals), Dostoyevsky (Notes from Underground), Camus (The Myth of Sisyphus), and Sartre (Portrait of the Antisemite) to see some philosophers who have discussed this.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

That's incorrect. If you really think that human ethics stem from reason, then you need to read a lot more modern philosophers and psychologists. What is clear is that we are NOT rational animals -- we have many irrational processes and reactions in our minds that compete with reason

I think this is correct. People behave morally out of an emotional attachment, an affection for humanity, even when they do not know them. Morality, when it gains the force of coersion often loses all it has of value as morality. But, in its natural state it is the most optimistic of motivations because it rests on the goodness people continually demonstrate with their own. It is easy enough to say good people do good. Looking beneith the goodness of ones public persona, what is found is a general love of life and of humanity.

Quote:

I did explain. Individuals have morals and groups have ethics. Therefore the ethics of a group (for instance medical ethics by the medical community) are founded upon the individual constituents of that group and their individual morals. It's not just the sum of the parts, but it's an aggregate that is satisfactory to the group.

This is not exatly correct. While we have come to think of ethics as public and morals as private, they are made of the same word, and are meant to describe the same sort of behavior. What you are seeing with the medical community is the desire to make the moral into a physical reality. It does not work. Institutions should die with their founders. Forms of relationship, even moral forms of relationships, should be hard pressed to deliver the good they promise, or to disband.

@dpmartin,

When I studied ethics in college (this was a philosophy department course) my professor specifically defined ethics as defined by group convention, whereas morals were held by individuals. Morality is a different word, which can apply to a group. In colloquial use, however, these words are often blurred and lose their distinction.

Definitions aside, I still maintain that insofar as ethics relate to the moral decisions of a group, it is a distillation of the individual constituents in that group. In other words, there is a process by which individuals with specific views can come together and create conventions that are acceptable to a group.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

When I studied ethics in college (this was a philosophy department course) my professor specifically defined ethics as defined by group convention, whereas morals were held by individuals. Morality is a different word, which can apply to a group. In colloquial use, however, these words are often blurred and lose their distinction.

Definitions aside, I still maintain that insofar as ethics relate to the moral decisions of a group, it is a distillation of the individual constituents in that group. In other words, there is a process by which individuals with specific views can come together and create conventions that are acceptable to a group.

I hate to argue with an aquired meaning, but Morality is a word coined by a Roman to translate the Greek word Ethics, meaning, like Ethics, Custom. And yet ethics can mean character as well, and that is a shared quality between a man and his tribe, and a man and his society.

@dpmartin,

I didn't know that about the origin of the word. That said, the precise meaning of a word in current use is not necessarily identical to its original etymologic derivation. After all, the countries of Ireland and Iran both derive their names etymologically from the Aryans from 3000-4000 years ago.

@dpmartin,

Concerning the difference between "moral" and "ethical", the blur of meaning mentioned by Aedes is not merely a colloquial issue. In Danish, for example, the words are both translated to the same Danish term.

At the same time, there is a useful difference in the "moral" and "ethical" as given by Aedes' professor. And that's what it comes down to. We can use them interchangeably, but if we have a need for this distinction, we should simply make a note of it, and then carry on with the two different definitions.

@Veracity,

Veracity wrote:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/new-member-forum/1007-yo-mamma-so-nice-2.html

A civil society can only happen through authoritative censorship.

I took a look at the link and I still fail to see how that particular instance is censorship. As far as I can recall those individuals weren't banned from the site or anything as a result of that particular instance.

A little intervention in order to keep the peace is not censorship. Now if those particular individuals were banned from the site because they said something either the mods or the admin didn't want them to say...that would be censorship.

It seems to me you're being a bit melodramatic over something rather trivial that doesn't even come close to what censorship really is.

And just to correct you...a civil society can only exist through authoritative intervention and oversight....that is not the same as censorship. The mods were put into place to make sure the forum runs smoothly with as little friction as possible, not to act as mini Hitlers. Plus if I remember right those particular individuals did not comply with the rules of conduct for the forum.

Philosophy Forum

foundation of ethics?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know