Subjectivist Morality Nihilates Itself

@Bonaventurian,

I actually agree with you here, click. There are certain aspects of morality that are inherently dichotomous, e.g., killing someone = bad ergo not killing someone = good, lying = bad ergo not lying = good, not obeying the spirit of law = bad ergo obeying the spirit of law = good. To say that one's morality in these kinds of situations has made a 180-degree turn in only a day requires the sort of sudden realization that one's previous existence has barred one from realizing. Now while obviously it can happen, that we can see a person following one course of values for a time and then suddenly start following a completely variant course of values, it's so unusual as to be unlikely, and the only way we can have of verifying that this actually happened would for the subject to have been following one course of morality wholeheartedly and then follow the new course just as wholeheartedly. Therefore, I say the OP's supposition is so logically unlikely as to strengthen his position.

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

I actually agree with you here, click. There are certain aspects of morality that are inherently dichotomous, e.g., killing someone = bad ergo not killing someone = good, lying = bad ergo not lying = good, not obeying the spirit of law = bad ergo obeying the spirit of law = good.

So then your an absolutest?

@Bonaventurian,

Indeed.

I think there is an absolute system of ethics and all human systems are simply relative reflections of that system.

@Bonaventurian,

Ahh ok I was just going to be a bit shocked if you called your self a relativist but were making those statements about moral absolutes.

@click here,

What role does empathy and sympathy play in moral decisions? There is no question that human beings have some sort of moral sensibility that is innate in them from infancy, and this moral sensibility is molded and shaped by their environments. The personal feeling that an action is wrong because of one's ability to sense the feeling of another and relate those feeling to themselves is something that the average human is born with. It is, however, more innate in some of us than in others (psychopaths and sociopaths for example).

This moral instinct (empathy and sympathy) is useful for the survival of a social species, but especially for a species that is as social as we are.

My point is, if someone can sense the emotional or physical pain of another because of their ability to empathize with another person, doesn't that mean that there are moral truths that are not merely subject to the person's society?

@hue-man,

At the very least, I think, we can conclude that it is moral in all places and times for a society to cultivate the sort of environment in which people tend to be increasingly compassionate towards their fellow man.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

At the very least, I think, we can conclude that it is moral in all places and times for a society to cultivate the sort of environment in which people tend to be increasingly compassionate towards their fellow man.

This is definitely a complex issue, and to be honest, I am not quite sure where I stand on moral relativism and subjectivism, as I have not dealt with it very thoroughly. I think that the question comes more down to the fact that while people are born with a moral sensibility, these moral feelings continue to be molded and shaped by their environments, which in turn creates differences of opinion as to what is or isn't moral.

I am unsure that there are any objective moral truths, other than the fact that some form of moral sensibility is innate in human beings. However, this innateness is also subject to genetic make-up, and the level of innateness, while nearly the same in everyone (minusing environmental influence), can vary from person to person.

I think that we can say that while all values are indeed subjective in a metaphysical sense, we can objectively judge the goodness or badness of an agent's actions by measuring the effects of such actions. Furthermore, we can say that nearly all human beings with a healthy psychology would say that being stabbed by someone is not desirable, and if that is so, we can say that whether or not you choose to perform that action it is wrong, because you would find the act to be equally undesirable if it was done to you. I'm really starting to think that this problem comes down to empathy. Can empathy be used to support the claim of moral truths that are applicable to virtually everyone?

@hue-man,

I think that at the end of the day while we have moral instincts, those instincts are always shaped by our environment/society. There is virtually no escape from environmental influence.

I think that what is or isn't ethical depends not merely on our instinctive ability to sense such feelings as right and wrong, but also on the type of society we hope for. We must also keep in mind that these values can only be applied to humans, and these values even vary among us.

Maybe it is best to say that morality is always relative and subject to an individual, but that does not mean that we should excuse bad behavior. I think that what we judge as good or bad should depend on the type of society we value, and that is a civil society. After stating that, we can now objectively say what ethics do or do not compliment a civil society.

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

I think that at the end of the day while we have moral instincts, those instincts are always shaped by our environment/society. There is virtually no escape from environmental influence.

I think that what is or isn't ethical depends not merely on our instinctive ability to sense such feelings as right and wrong, but also on the type of society we hope for. We must also keep in mind that these values can only be applied to humans, and these values even vary among us.

Maybe it is best to say that morality is always relative and subject to an individual, but that does not mean that we should excuse bad behavior. I think that what we judge as good or bad should depend on the type of society we value, and that is a civil society. After stating that, we can now objectively say what ethics do or do not compliment a civil society.

So in relation to the moral instincts / ability to sense morals. Would you say that one day science would be able to isolate the physical part of the body that is the cause of this ability?

@click here,

click here wrote:

So in relation to the moral instincts / ability to sense morals. Would you say that one day science would be able to isolate the physical part of the body that is the cause of this ability?

I don't know, maybe. What's the point of your question?

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

I don't know, maybe. What's the point of your question?

Just wanted to see what your answer was.

Philosophy Forum

Subjectivist Morality Nihilates Itself

Quick Links

My Account

able2know