"All Morality is Subjective"
All morality is subjective.
Isn't this statement itself subjective? How do we know that it is true? Is it a guess? Is it divine revelation?
I search in vain for evidence that suggests that it is more than an opinion. And since it is only an opinion, I suspect that it isn't true at all. At least we have no way of knowing that it is true.
Let me posit an alternative theory, viz.: all morality is objective. Is there evidence that supports that claim? I think the answer is yes, so long as we make several stipulations. First, morality must allow for superficial cultural and temporal differences. Secondly, we can assume that morality-- actions that we construe as right or wrong-- flow from the minds of humans that that inhabit essentially the same bodies that all humans have ever since we were human. Thus, if we strip away the cultural and temporal overlay, all humans will have the same kinds of reactions that humans have always had, since those reactions are rooted in blood and muscles, pain and pleasure. Thus, the objective basis of all morality and ethics and indeed all law and religion is our own bodies. It is our emperically factual inability to reply in the negative to William Shakespere's Merchant of Venice "If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die?" There may be rare individuals that do not bleed when pricked, do not laugh when tickled, and do not die when poisoned, but not so many that it voids the notion that humanity shares a common morality.
But morality IS cultural and HAS hugely changed with time.
Again, that's not a fact. It's an assertion that might have some truth, although in all frankness I believe the truth is generally exaggerated. I might agree with your statement if it was stated as follows:
Culture informs morality and morality sometimes changes over time.
There is a cart and horse problem here. Does morality shape culture or culture shape morality? The most logically way to approach is that both interact with each other. Fine. So where does culture come from? That too comes from the reality of our existence has humans living in different climates and processing different information to survive. And I certainly don't see any great upward evolution in morality since historical records were started 5,000 years ago.
If you take these two away then what objecive moral "truths" are you left with? Just two or three would do for a start.
That's easy. What do all humans seek? It's better to live than to die, to eat than to starve, to be safe then to be in danger, to perpetuate ones genes then to not perpetuate ones genes, to perpetuate ones traditions and mores than to not perpertuate ones traditions and mores, and so on.
Consider also the taboos that bind our life, certain words that cannot be said, certain gestures that cannot be made, and so on. One such universal taboo is that we are repelled by what comes out of our body but not what goes into our body (except at oriental buffets). Is it really true that such taboos are taught? Perhaps there is a special class in pre-school (between Animal Sounds and Exploring Our Room), but that of course begs the question as to why they were taught. The simplest explanation is probably the most accurate explanation-- such taboos, such a sense of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate, is encoded in us, much like language ability and grammer is encoded in us, awaiting for the cultural overlay to make its societal application. This is not to say that there are wide variations between cultures in what is considered right or wrong. But beneath it all there is an implacable core of similitude of emotions and reactions that we call morals that defines us not as canninabals or interior decorators but as humans.
That specific individuals have no interest in breeding or living large doesn't change the thrust of my argument, that morality largely derives from the reality of our collective existence. If you were a jellyfish, I would agree that your morality and my morality in its essence would be different But this isn't the case with two humans, regardless of whether you are living in ancient Rome or modern Chicago, regardless of whether you are a bushman or a CEO. Your morality derives from your thoughts which is nothing more or less than your biochemistry.
Please be clear what you mean by morality.
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner") refers to conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right or wrong. Ethics are generally principles that determine rules of conduct. It provides the basis from which moral rules can be deduced. The question is: Is there an objective meta-ethical justification for any rule of conduct? Those like myself who say yes are described as moral realists-- there are true moral statements which reflect objective moral reality. Conversely, moral skeptics would say morality is derived from primarily theistic culture.
Evidence that true moral statements exist can be even seen on this forum from those who argue for moral relativism on one hand and then on the other make countless adament normative claims-- that abortion on demand is right or wrong, that the war in Iraq is right or wrong, that capital punishment is right or wrong, and so on. Am I wrong by suggesting that the folks on this forum no less aggrieved be the genocides inflicted on three separate continents-- German Europe in the 1940s, Cambodian Asia in the 1970s and Rwandan Africa in the 1990s? If so, what are the source of those feelings? And I might also inquire what common element existed in humans in different times and places for the genoicdes to occur in the first place? On the face of it, on these three instance, cultural differences was paper thin and ultimately irrelevant in the face of the similitude of immoral outcomes. On what is this rightness or wrongness founded? Nothing? Is it just a matter of the biggest mob or the loudest voice? Does it
all depends on how you’re raised
It all depends on what is praised
What’s right today is wrong tomorrow
Joy in France is England’s sorrow
It all depends on point of view
Australia or Timbuctoo
In Rome do as Romans do
If taste just happen to agree
Then you have morality
When there are conflicting trends
It all depends, it all depends
You can say that everyone has a right to their opinion, but my obvious response is: why? Even that is a moral rule. As the father of two boys, I also see them display an inherent sense of justice and injustice, to the point where if there is a piece of cake left, I have one kid cut the cake and the other pick the first piece.
Now as to scientific evidence for my position, that morals are founded in the realness of our common biology, you may want to consider evolutionary biology. Thus, their argument goes, morality is a product of emotions that were selected in because they aided in the survival of the species. The maternal bond and the anti-incest Westermarck effect are just two examples. The development of empathy, modesty, and reciprocity in higher mammals and indeed language and its derivatives such as gossip and barter are more examples that helped develop morality. Neuropsychology also provides additional evidence, in the development of such constructs as guilt, what Phil Roberts, Jr. describes as a "maladaptive byproduct of the evolution of rationality."
http://www.rationology.net/
In some tribes it was acceptable to eat your enemies etc. etc. what more proof do you need?
You are confusing custom with morality. That we are repulsed by cannibalism says nothing about the rightness or the wrongness of the conduct of tribes in New Guinea that ate people. In this case, it could be immoral to refuse to partake in cannibalism. However, it doesn't follow that the New Guineas lack the codes of conduct that we recognize, such as honesty, fidelity, courage, love of family, and so on. Under some conditions such as famine, cannibalism becomes morally acceptable, such as in the case of the 1972 Uruguayan Flight 571 crash where the survivors decided to eat the frozen bodies of the deceased to survive. You cite it as an example of moral relativity when I suspect you are no less aghast than I at Albert Fish or Jeffery Dahmer's cannibalization. But why should that be so? Whence is the source of this stigma? The source most likely is our common evolutionary past, as that gives answer to the question: how can you have a moral law without a moral lawgiver?
Broadly, morality is rules of conduct, which I contend arise from our biogenetic hard wiring, somewhat analogous to a computer's mother board. Isaac Asimov imagined such rules for robots:
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/AbstractRobotRules.html
I surmise that we have the same kind of rules, and in fact any kind of scientific determinism couldn't be operative without such rules, (not that I believe in determinism-- but that belongs in another thread.). As I said in the last post, such rules have a sociobiological rationale relating to our survival. Here is a start of what I conjecture to be some rules:
1. Thou shalt honor the tribe.
2. Thou shalt protect thy family.
3. Thou shalt not fornicate with thy children.
4. Thou shalt not do ill against any man unless the tribe requires it of you.
5. Thou shalt preserve thy life.
Just to get this right you are saying that the 4 "rules" you propose are common to all humans - regardless of culture or time - is that correct?
I don't know, but I doubt it. Definitive rules applicable to all humans in all cultures through all recorded time would constitute a series of highly complex algorithms, allowing for countless exceptions and contradictions. Religious moral codes such as the Golden Rule, the Eqyptian Ma'at, the Hindu yamas, and the Ten Commandments are crude representations of these algorithms, as is our Black Letter law. The precept "Thou Shalt Not Kill" does not apply when the tribe or state orders someone to kill. The church, law, and common sense may tell us that a man cannot kill his wife's lover, and yet some juries refuse to condemn. And then you also have the conflict of two opposing imperatives, for example: "Thou Shalt not Kill" versus "Thou Shalt Protect Thy Family." I saw this scenerio in a play where a mother suffocated her crying baby to prevent Nazis from discovering her family. This of course gets into situational ethics. But, again, just because we need to contextualize these moral principles and optimum moral principles are sometimes difficult to derive, it doesn't follow that there isn't a core set of moral rules that allow us to make those determinations in the first place.
In my view, the Kantian formulations of the imperative are a good start as they place ethics above the tribe so that they don't need to be contextualized by time and place:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means"[
Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.
The "thou shalts" that I mention in the last post however derive from biological necessity, making the perpetuation of the species the highest good. Kant 's imperatives that formulates moral laws seem to be driven in contrast rational necessity, rendering his meta-ethical position as objectivist. Thus, reason rather than emperical, cultural, or emotional factors ensures morality has universal validity. Kant's moral universalism combined with his presuppositions of man's moral autonomy and freeedom of will has helped shape what we accept as givens: legal and political concepts such as human equality and civil rights.
To date you have not given one example of such a moral absolute, but you have given moral "rules" that by your own admission are relative and dependent on culture and time, This seems to be directly contrary to your intital response to my post that morallity is subjective:-Are you saying that moraility is or is not relative? You seem to be arguing that it both is not, and that it is, at the same time. If it is NOT subjective then please give me a moral rule that stands the test of non-subjectivity (i.e. universally applies irrespective of the personal, cultural or time context) - just one would do as a start.
Morality is not relative.
Here are three examples of moral absolutes that I contend transcend culture and time, that are universally applicable and non-subjective, which you will recognize are from the Decalogue:
1. Thou shalt not murder.
2. Thou shalt not steal.
3. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
"Hold on", I can imagine you saying. "People and nations countenance murder, theft, and adultery all the time and everywhere. Surely, these aren't moral absolutes." But this is where I disagree. I would ask you to give me by contrast examples of societies, cultures, or nations where murder, theft, and adultery are a moral good. I cannot think of any. Even in organizations that we regard as depraved, such as the Thuggee cult to Kali or the Jim Jones cult that resulted in so many of their own deaths, there never was an acceptance of a moral standard that murdering each other or wanton murder was a moral good. The claim that there is no honor among thieves is false, by this token. Even thieves have their ethical boundries, their own often harsh sense of integrity and justice. This is reflected in their own codes of honor, such as the Mafia omerta-- code of silence. There are of course different standards of definition and punishment as to what is theft, say, in different countries and times. But that doesn't negate that all humans regard theft however they define it as a moral wrong.
My hypothesis in summary is as follows:
1. Every human is born with moral programming.
Some of this programming we call instincts, such as the mother child bond. Some of it is taboos, such as the incest taboo. Some of it is supersitition, that leads to religions. Some of it appears to be integrated with our ability to use language and reason. However, I doubt that there is a "moral gene". It appears to relate to the development of pattern recognition relating to a number of emergent cognitions. So, one such program might be: thou shalt not murder. If the child grows up to be a judge or a soldier, he will qualify that absolute. But the absolute still remains.
2. This programming is primarily the result of natural selection.
The prescription against adultery seems counter intuitive on its face, but makes more sense when looked at society broadly, causing as it does social instability and other problems.
3. Heavily larded on top of this biogenetic programming is culture.
It doesn't nullify the programming but adapts and applies it to the circumstances of time and place. It is commonly argued that the mechanism for transferring moral law is tradition and revelation. However, I believe that at best this is a half truth, as tradition and revelation must be rooted in something other than itself. For example, although Sharia Law may repulse us, it still shares the same foundation that US Constitutionalism has, namely an attempt to create societal standards and promote stability, to punish or reward, and to seek fairness and justice. Although we may consider North Korea to be a benighted nation, for example, is there any doubt that concepts such as honesty and fairness nevertheless prevail even in the Hermit Kingdom. It is those principles-- not the specific rules that apply to the Iranians or the Koreans-- that are part of our common genetic grammer, I contend.
4. Finally, I state the obvious: That not everyone is normal.
There are people that lack a conscience or reasoning or common sense, and perhaps that is the way they were wired at birth. But we recognize such defectives because we are not wired as they are.
Isn't this statement itself subjective? How do we know that it is true? Is it a guess? Is it divine revelation?
I search in vain for evidence that suggests that it is more than an opinion. And since it is only an opinion, I suspect that it isn't true at all. At least we have no way of knowing that it is true.
Let me posit an alternative theory, viz.: all morality is objective. Is there evidence that supports that claim? I think the answer is yes, so long as we make several stipulations. First, morality must allow for superficial cultural and temporal differences. Secondly, we can assume that morality-- actions that we construe as right or wrong-- flow from the minds of humans that that inhabit essentially the same bodies that all humans have ever since we were human. Thus, if we strip away the cultural and temporal overlay, all humans will have the same kinds of reactions that humans have always had, since those reactions are rooted in blood and muscles, pain and pleasure. Thus, the objective basis of all morality and ethics and indeed all law and religion is our own bodies. It is our emperically factual inability to reply in the negative to William Shakespere's Merchant of Venice "If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die?" There may be rare individuals that do not bleed when pricked, do not laugh when tickled, and do not die when poisoned, but not so many that it voids the notion that humanity shares a common morality.
But morality IS cultural and HAS hugely changed with time.
Again, that's not a fact. It's an assertion that might have some truth, although in all frankness I believe the truth is generally exaggerated. I might agree with your statement if it was stated as follows:
Culture informs morality and morality sometimes changes over time.
There is a cart and horse problem here. Does morality shape culture or culture shape morality? The most logically way to approach is that both interact with each other. Fine. So where does culture come from? That too comes from the reality of our existence has humans living in different climates and processing different information to survive. And I certainly don't see any great upward evolution in morality since historical records were started 5,000 years ago.
If you take these two away then what objecive moral "truths" are you left with? Just two or three would do for a start.
That's easy. What do all humans seek? It's better to live than to die, to eat than to starve, to be safe then to be in danger, to perpetuate ones genes then to not perpetuate ones genes, to perpetuate ones traditions and mores than to not perpertuate ones traditions and mores, and so on.
Consider also the taboos that bind our life, certain words that cannot be said, certain gestures that cannot be made, and so on. One such universal taboo is that we are repelled by what comes out of our body but not what goes into our body (except at oriental buffets). Is it really true that such taboos are taught? Perhaps there is a special class in pre-school (between Animal Sounds and Exploring Our Room), but that of course begs the question as to why they were taught. The simplest explanation is probably the most accurate explanation-- such taboos, such a sense of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate, is encoded in us, much like language ability and grammer is encoded in us, awaiting for the cultural overlay to make its societal application. This is not to say that there are wide variations between cultures in what is considered right or wrong. But beneath it all there is an implacable core of similitude of emotions and reactions that we call morals that defines us not as canninabals or interior decorators but as humans.
That specific individuals have no interest in breeding or living large doesn't change the thrust of my argument, that morality largely derives from the reality of our collective existence. If you were a jellyfish, I would agree that your morality and my morality in its essence would be different But this isn't the case with two humans, regardless of whether you are living in ancient Rome or modern Chicago, regardless of whether you are a bushman or a CEO. Your morality derives from your thoughts which is nothing more or less than your biochemistry.
Please be clear what you mean by morality.
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner") refers to conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right or wrong. Ethics are generally principles that determine rules of conduct. It provides the basis from which moral rules can be deduced. The question is: Is there an objective meta-ethical justification for any rule of conduct? Those like myself who say yes are described as moral realists-- there are true moral statements which reflect objective moral reality. Conversely, moral skeptics would say morality is derived from primarily theistic culture.
Evidence that true moral statements exist can be even seen on this forum from those who argue for moral relativism on one hand and then on the other make countless adament normative claims-- that abortion on demand is right or wrong, that the war in Iraq is right or wrong, that capital punishment is right or wrong, and so on. Am I wrong by suggesting that the folks on this forum no less aggrieved be the genocides inflicted on three separate continents-- German Europe in the 1940s, Cambodian Asia in the 1970s and Rwandan Africa in the 1990s? If so, what are the source of those feelings? And I might also inquire what common element existed in humans in different times and places for the genoicdes to occur in the first place? On the face of it, on these three instance, cultural differences was paper thin and ultimately irrelevant in the face of the similitude of immoral outcomes. On what is this rightness or wrongness founded? Nothing? Is it just a matter of the biggest mob or the loudest voice? Does it
all depends on how you’re raised
It all depends on what is praised
What’s right today is wrong tomorrow
Joy in France is England’s sorrow
It all depends on point of view
Australia or Timbuctoo
In Rome do as Romans do
If taste just happen to agree
Then you have morality
When there are conflicting trends
It all depends, it all depends
You can say that everyone has a right to their opinion, but my obvious response is: why? Even that is a moral rule. As the father of two boys, I also see them display an inherent sense of justice and injustice, to the point where if there is a piece of cake left, I have one kid cut the cake and the other pick the first piece.
Now as to scientific evidence for my position, that morals are founded in the realness of our common biology, you may want to consider evolutionary biology. Thus, their argument goes, morality is a product of emotions that were selected in because they aided in the survival of the species. The maternal bond and the anti-incest Westermarck effect are just two examples. The development of empathy, modesty, and reciprocity in higher mammals and indeed language and its derivatives such as gossip and barter are more examples that helped develop morality. Neuropsychology also provides additional evidence, in the development of such constructs as guilt, what Phil Roberts, Jr. describes as a "maladaptive byproduct of the evolution of rationality."
http://www.rationology.net/
In some tribes it was acceptable to eat your enemies etc. etc. what more proof do you need?
You are confusing custom with morality. That we are repulsed by cannibalism says nothing about the rightness or the wrongness of the conduct of tribes in New Guinea that ate people. In this case, it could be immoral to refuse to partake in cannibalism. However, it doesn't follow that the New Guineas lack the codes of conduct that we recognize, such as honesty, fidelity, courage, love of family, and so on. Under some conditions such as famine, cannibalism becomes morally acceptable, such as in the case of the 1972 Uruguayan Flight 571 crash where the survivors decided to eat the frozen bodies of the deceased to survive. You cite it as an example of moral relativity when I suspect you are no less aghast than I at Albert Fish or Jeffery Dahmer's cannibalization. But why should that be so? Whence is the source of this stigma? The source most likely is our common evolutionary past, as that gives answer to the question: how can you have a moral law without a moral lawgiver?
Broadly, morality is rules of conduct, which I contend arise from our biogenetic hard wiring, somewhat analogous to a computer's mother board. Isaac Asimov imagined such rules for robots:
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/AbstractRobotRules.html
I surmise that we have the same kind of rules, and in fact any kind of scientific determinism couldn't be operative without such rules, (not that I believe in determinism-- but that belongs in another thread.). As I said in the last post, such rules have a sociobiological rationale relating to our survival. Here is a start of what I conjecture to be some rules:
1. Thou shalt honor the tribe.
2. Thou shalt protect thy family.
3. Thou shalt not fornicate with thy children.
4. Thou shalt not do ill against any man unless the tribe requires it of you.
5. Thou shalt preserve thy life.
Just to get this right you are saying that the 4 "rules" you propose are common to all humans - regardless of culture or time - is that correct?
I don't know, but I doubt it. Definitive rules applicable to all humans in all cultures through all recorded time would constitute a series of highly complex algorithms, allowing for countless exceptions and contradictions. Religious moral codes such as the Golden Rule, the Eqyptian Ma'at, the Hindu yamas, and the Ten Commandments are crude representations of these algorithms, as is our Black Letter law. The precept "Thou Shalt Not Kill" does not apply when the tribe or state orders someone to kill. The church, law, and common sense may tell us that a man cannot kill his wife's lover, and yet some juries refuse to condemn. And then you also have the conflict of two opposing imperatives, for example: "Thou Shalt not Kill" versus "Thou Shalt Protect Thy Family." I saw this scenerio in a play where a mother suffocated her crying baby to prevent Nazis from discovering her family. This of course gets into situational ethics. But, again, just because we need to contextualize these moral principles and optimum moral principles are sometimes difficult to derive, it doesn't follow that there isn't a core set of moral rules that allow us to make those determinations in the first place.
In my view, the Kantian formulations of the imperative are a good start as they place ethics above the tribe so that they don't need to be contextualized by time and place:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means"[
Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.
The "thou shalts" that I mention in the last post however derive from biological necessity, making the perpetuation of the species the highest good. Kant 's imperatives that formulates moral laws seem to be driven in contrast rational necessity, rendering his meta-ethical position as objectivist. Thus, reason rather than emperical, cultural, or emotional factors ensures morality has universal validity. Kant's moral universalism combined with his presuppositions of man's moral autonomy and freeedom of will has helped shape what we accept as givens: legal and political concepts such as human equality and civil rights.
To date you have not given one example of such a moral absolute, but you have given moral "rules" that by your own admission are relative and dependent on culture and time, This seems to be directly contrary to your intital response to my post that morallity is subjective:-Are you saying that moraility is or is not relative? You seem to be arguing that it both is not, and that it is, at the same time. If it is NOT subjective then please give me a moral rule that stands the test of non-subjectivity (i.e. universally applies irrespective of the personal, cultural or time context) - just one would do as a start.
Morality is not relative.
Here are three examples of moral absolutes that I contend transcend culture and time, that are universally applicable and non-subjective, which you will recognize are from the Decalogue:
1. Thou shalt not murder.
2. Thou shalt not steal.
3. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
"Hold on", I can imagine you saying. "People and nations countenance murder, theft, and adultery all the time and everywhere. Surely, these aren't moral absolutes." But this is where I disagree. I would ask you to give me by contrast examples of societies, cultures, or nations where murder, theft, and adultery are a moral good. I cannot think of any. Even in organizations that we regard as depraved, such as the Thuggee cult to Kali or the Jim Jones cult that resulted in so many of their own deaths, there never was an acceptance of a moral standard that murdering each other or wanton murder was a moral good. The claim that there is no honor among thieves is false, by this token. Even thieves have their ethical boundries, their own often harsh sense of integrity and justice. This is reflected in their own codes of honor, such as the Mafia omerta-- code of silence. There are of course different standards of definition and punishment as to what is theft, say, in different countries and times. But that doesn't negate that all humans regard theft however they define it as a moral wrong.
My hypothesis in summary is as follows:
1. Every human is born with moral programming.
Some of this programming we call instincts, such as the mother child bond. Some of it is taboos, such as the incest taboo. Some of it is supersitition, that leads to religions. Some of it appears to be integrated with our ability to use language and reason. However, I doubt that there is a "moral gene". It appears to relate to the development of pattern recognition relating to a number of emergent cognitions. So, one such program might be: thou shalt not murder. If the child grows up to be a judge or a soldier, he will qualify that absolute. But the absolute still remains.
2. This programming is primarily the result of natural selection.
The prescription against adultery seems counter intuitive on its face, but makes more sense when looked at society broadly, causing as it does social instability and other problems.
3. Heavily larded on top of this biogenetic programming is culture.
It doesn't nullify the programming but adapts and applies it to the circumstances of time and place. It is commonly argued that the mechanism for transferring moral law is tradition and revelation. However, I believe that at best this is a half truth, as tradition and revelation must be rooted in something other than itself. For example, although Sharia Law may repulse us, it still shares the same foundation that US Constitutionalism has, namely an attempt to create societal standards and promote stability, to punish or reward, and to seek fairness and justice. Although we may consider North Korea to be a benighted nation, for example, is there any doubt that concepts such as honesty and fairness nevertheless prevail even in the Hermit Kingdom. It is those principles-- not the specific rules that apply to the Iranians or the Koreans-- that are part of our common genetic grammer, I contend.
4. Finally, I state the obvious: That not everyone is normal.
There are people that lack a conscience or reasoning or common sense, and perhaps that is the way they were wired at birth. But we recognize such defectives because we are not wired as they are.
Labels: ethics
posted by My Mall and News at
8:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home