|
|
Post by mr mac on Mar 12, 2010 5:01:02 GMT -5
This may not interest most but lately i've been stuck in a small dilemma. If I believe that morality is objective in this world, when I am faced with an objective viewpoint (my example is utilitarianism (doing stuff for the greater good)) that i disagree with; Does this force me to accept that the world is subjectively moral or does this just mean that morality can be objective in another way? Also I would like to know where people stand on objectivism and subjectivis. Are you Objective? (belief that all right and wrong is determined by one set of rules) or are you subjective? (belief that every situation requires a different set of rules and differs from individual to individual). Thanks to anyone that can help  |
|
darkless
Meteor
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Posts: 70
|
Post by darkless on Mar 12, 2010 9:15:27 GMT -5
Ethics just like normality, sanity and evil is subjective.
|
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Mar 12, 2010 15:38:59 GMT -5
When it comes to Ethics, I most closely follow Emmanuel Kant. He believed that there is one set of ethics that all people should follow, which is determined by which is most logical for the continuation of society. I don't believe that ethics can vary from person to person. You can't say, "Well, for YOU beating your wife, or murdering someone is wrong, but for some people it's okay."
|
|
|
|
Post by swan on Mar 12, 2010 18:55:01 GMT -5
I think in terms of right and wrong that's absolutely subjective and I don't believe something can objective be considered "right" or "wrong". Ethics are different because it's concerned with what is right or wrong in a given community (at least that's what I think Ethics is (are?), I may be wrong ;D) and I think in order for that community to function fluidly there must be some consensus as to what's right and wrong. I hope this doesn't sound confusing or contradictory but what I'm trying to say is
right & wrong = subjective
for society's sake = right & wrong should be considered objective (or at least enough consensus to make laws and rules around what is acceptable)
|
|
LegacyOfPaper
Moon
Why yes, I would like a side of fries
Posts: 178
|
Post by LegacyOfPaper on Mar 12, 2010 19:27:47 GMT -5
I had some philosophical post about the difference between ethics and ethos, but Firefox crashed. Ethics are objective, ethos are subjective is the low calorie version with the depth of a sheet of cardboard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2010 20:19:50 GMT -5
I absolutely love the subject of ethics!
I think ethic is completely objective.
I think ethics can't be subjective because moral values don't depend for each person (you can't say it is ok for a person to murder someone because that person thinks it is ok).
I think ethics can't depend on the society we live in (for example, currently it is universally accepted that slavery is bad, and who thinks otherwise is wrong). Plus, there are compatibility issues: should a tourist follow his own ethics or the ethics of the society where he is in? If there is no agreement on the society about the ethics to use, which should prevail?
I think ethics are not the expression of emotions like "Yay for equality!" or "Boo for racism", as sometimes ethics can be made in a completely rational way without the use of emotions, and sometimes ethics go against our own emotions (for example: "I should do this as it is more correct... but I want to do that instead!").
The only solution left is that ethics is objective/universal. If there is disagreement, there is a simple explanation: we haven't got to the correct ethic yet. Some (or all) are wrong.
Just for curiosity, I am a preferences utilitarianist. That is the ethic code I follow.
EDIT: Just one more thing: I think that laws don't need to defend a moral code at all. All they need to do is to make sure that what a person does doesn't directly affect other persons negatively (for example, homicide negatively affects other persons, but being rude wont affect other persons very much).
|
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Mar 13, 2010 4:58:30 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand the whole Objective, Subjective jargen you're speaking but...
Black and white = Stealing is wrong
Grey = Stealing things you need to survive is OK, stealing things you don't need to live is wrong.
Black and White = Murder is wrong "2 wrongs don't make a right"
Grey = The Death sentence is OK for murderers. Murdering innocence is wrong. "What's the life of 1 murder compaired to the lives of the 100s of people he could kill?"
So which one is the objective and which one is the subjective?
I tend to go with the one that allows acceptions for people who can't afford basic needs to steal them and the one that could potentially save many innocent lives by ending the life of one murder.
Saying that stealing is allways wrong is basically like saying that being poor and homeless is wrong. If you can afford basic needs in life than great for you. Obviously everyone here is well taken care of or they wouldn't be online but there are homeless people out there starveing.
Saying that murder is allways wrong would be like saying we shouldn't have the death sentence. One man could potentially kill 100s of people in his life time if allowed to live out a full life. Why give him the chance? Anyone convicted of murder should be killed on the spot before they can kill again.
Morality isn't allways black and white, at least not in real life. In fiction it tends to be black and white with no grey areas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2010 7:53:03 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand the whole Objective, Subjective jargen you're speaking but... (...) Morality isn't allways black and white, at least not in real life. In fiction it tends to be black and white with no grey areas. What you were talking about was not morality or ethics itself but about ethic codes. The question the author makes is if each person can have a different ethic code and all of them be right, or not (thus the therm subjective - as in depending from person to person - and objective - there is only one universal code everyone must adhere to). About ethic codes, there are more absolute and more "loose" codes. For example: Consequencialism says that an action is good if it promotes the biggest amount of good to the biggest amount of beings. Preferences utilitarianism - based of consequentialism - says that the biggest amount of good is the biggest amount of wishes and preferences from people that are fulfilled. Then Deonthological ethics say that an action is only good if it is done only because it is the right thing to do. If it has any other reason, it is only conforming to good. And actions can only be good if they conform to the categorical imperative, which basically says an action must be able to apply universally - for example, if everybody lied it would be a chaos, so according to the categorical imperative, lying would be bad - and it act as an objective to itself - for example, when you lie you do it so you can get something (as to avoid getting people mad at you or avoid getting them sad) so the categorical imperative says that, for either the lack of universality or an action not being an end (or objective) for itself, lying is a bad action, no matter the intentions. These are the two biggest considered ethic codes. Each one has its advantages and disadvantages. (And if you want to know, I am a preferences utilitarianist) Edit: I forgot to say that I think there is a universal ethical code, and we simply still do not know it. I think ethics can't be subjective for the reasons I provided in my previous comment. And one more thing: while ethics may or may not be objective or subjective, I think ethic codes can't be classified like that, because they are always a set of rules. Even if those rules don't say exactly what we should do, they say how we should think as to come to what we should do, thus being objective. |
|
ElfLady
Planet
I'm a crazy!
Posts: 409
|
Post by ElfLady on Mar 13, 2010 10:31:51 GMT -5
Wow, I would totally answer, but between you all you've been able to explain most of my thoughts. ^_^
I shall return to this thread when I have more time!!!
*Fiona bookmarks*
|
|
|
|
Post by swan on Mar 13, 2010 14:22:16 GMT -5
Stealing things you need to survive is OK, stealing things you don't need to live is wrong. This brings up an interesting subject, do you judge the act or the intentions? Society is built around rules that must be followed for the sake of order (this is vitally important) so how should people be judged when they break these rules? I think judging the act would be objective, but judging the intentions is subjective. Just some food for thought |
|
|
|
Post by mr mac on Mar 14, 2010 0:15:08 GMT -5
Thanks for answering my questions guys you've been a great help  I noticed many of you don't believe that ethics can be subjective and although I believe that there is an absolutist view that we haven't fully defined yet, I want to just throw something out there. If the world were completely subjective and everyone had there own set of what was right or wrong. Would it not be right for a person who believes that stealing is right to steal from another person who believes that stealing is right? This can also extend to any action such as murder and other things that you can think of whether they were good or bad. So basically you can perform any action on another person who believes that that action is right (as do you) no matter who. It seems like a perfectly fine subjective view (although this would be extremely hard to live with in society) that can work. If you agree or disagree please comment, I'm loving your answers so far you guys are awesome!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2010 8:43:49 GMT -5
If the world were completely subjective and everyone had there own set of what was right or wrong. Would it not be right for a person who believes that stealing is right to steal from another person who believes that stealing is right? This can also extend to any action such as murder and other things that you can think of whether they were good or bad. So basically you can perform any action on another person who believes that that action is right (as do you) no matter who. But what if a person thinks it is right to steal from a person who thinks stealing is wrong? It seems like a perfectly fine subjective view (although this would be extremely hard to live with in society) that can work. Ethic involves dealing with other persons. If only one person existed in the entire universe, ethic would be non-existant. So, if ethic involves dealing with other persons, how would it be possible for ethic to be very hard to live with in society? If a subjective ethic is hard to live with in society, then in my opinion it must be wrong. |
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Mar 14, 2010 9:08:28 GMT -5
I think ethics are subjective, however, some are objective. There really are just a bunch of thin lines being crossed, or not crossed, in the area of ethics. However, as one of my teachers put it the other day, in some countries it is considered a form of respect if you eat your grandma when she dies. Here, it'd be considered cannibalism. Are they wrong for doing that? I don't think so.
On the other hand, I've also read a story about a girl in a middle-eastern country (I can't remember which one, apologies) who was raped by her brothers. She was fourteen. All of the brothers got a slap on the wrist, while the girl's mother murdered her for tarnishing the family's dignity. Yeah, that's the objective part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2010 13:45:50 GMT -5
However, as one of my teachers put it the other day, in some countries it is considered a form of respect if you eat your grandma when she dies. Here, it'd be considered cannibalism. Are they wrong for doing that? I don't think so. I think you're confusing traditions with ethics. You should have said that in some countries there is a tradition of eating your dead grandma. Furthermore, there are ethic codes in which certain forms of cannibalism are ok. For example: in utilitarianism, eating your grandma when she dies is totally acceptable, as long as nobody is harmed during the process (that is, for example, the grandma must be already dead when she is eaten). The immorality our society considers about such type of cannibalism is mainly due to emotions, and due to the consideration of other types of cannibalism which are harmful to humans. So there is a tradition of eating your grandma when she dies as a sign of respect, and the (possibly) wrong moral code which states that such type of cannibalism is bad. There is nothing subjective in what you said. |
|
|
|
Post by mr mac on Mar 15, 2010 2:16:08 GMT -5
ptmb, you are absolutely right. Traditions should not be confused with ethics as there are mostly no real evident reasons for traditions to take place. In fact they are completely different things.
However if something is hard to live by due to its complexity does this actually make it wrong? Communism was very simple but because of its simplicity it was completely taken advantage of by corrupt people. I beg the question; does complexity concrete a maoral code or does it just make it impossible?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2010 15:27:41 GMT -5
However if something is hard to live by due to its complexity does this actually make it wrong? Communism was very simple but because of its simplicity it was completely taken advantage of by corrupt people. I beg the question; does complexity concrete a maoral code or does it just make it impossible? Hum... you caught me there... First I think you're confusing simplicity/complexity on the idea/project itself and complexity in its application. Communism is very simple by itself, but applying it to a society is extremely hard. This is because such a simple idea requires a lot of complex systems to keep it working: as the complete control of each individual's amount of money by the government, knowing each family's needs at all times, absolute control of all markets, etc. By analogy, a subjective ethic system is amazingly simple: do what you want as long as who you do it to accepts such ethic practice as true too. But applying it would have major drawbacks and difficulties. For example: some people could have ethic codes which go against such rules (for example, being ok to steal from who thinks stealing is wrong). We sometimes are unable to know which ethic code the other person practices. How should people act with each other when their ethic codes are opposite? These and several other questions make a subjective ethic much hard to apply in society. Have in mind tough that I don't think the simplest answer is always the best solution. For example: Neo-capitalism/Neo-liberalism, in which there is almost no complexity in applying, is not usable because the market can't regulate itself healthily. In this case softer forms of capitalism/liberalism, or even socialism would apply better. Not because they are the simplest, but because they are possible to apply decently and there are models of societies which work very well with them (for example, all northern European countries are socialist, and they have the best life standards in the world). By analogy, applying an exact ethic code with absolute specifications of what to do at each time to society would be terrible, as one of the following would happen: Or the ethic code would be unable to fill all possible cases, leaving obviously unethical situations being ethical; or it would be so big it would be impossible for anybody to use it. Long story short: the problem is not the complexity on the idea itself, but the complexity in applying it to real life. Yet, that doesn't mean the easiest to apply solutions are the ideal, nor does it mean that the most complex solutions are bad, they are just less likely to be good. |
|
