Bad People Don't Exist

[Poetic Justice]

But don't you agree that your feelings can change when you find yourself exposed to new information, or when you come to a realization? I find that this is why understanding each other is so important.

Another reason that morality is subjective.

People make the best decision they can based on the information available to them. I think it is wrong to label someone as bad simply because they don't have access to key pieces of information that would make them realise they are doing something bad.

I also believe it is wrong to assume that you/me/anyone are the ones that have it right and for exactly the reason that I quoted from your post.

Nobody can have access to all information. Even if someone has the exact same information as someone else that doesn't mean they will interpret it in the same way.

No one person can claim to have figured it all out. Nobody.

We are all wrong about things all the time. this will never change.

Because people have access to different information and interpret it different ways, and then go on to base their moral judgements on this information. Morality is subjective

Many people throughout the world believe that women wearing clothes that reveal skin is immoral. You can't just label them as wrong because you disagree. Who's to say that their information isn't better than yours? Going back to my aforementioned list which you conveniently skipped over. Where do you think wearing a short skirt should go on the list? I assure you many would disagree with whatever answer you give.

Therefore morality is subjective. Does this qualify as proof in your opinion?

(Please don't do the line by line thing. Summarize or choose one or two of my comments that helps you sum up what you want to say)

 

[Billy]

Therefore morality is subjective. Does this qualify as proof in your opinion?

No, he wants "objective proof" that its subjective... if that doesn't make your brain feel like its being sucked into a black hole, I dont know what does. While we are on it, can someone please prove why Envy is green? And Love is red? Objective evidence only please! I tried to explain that because there is a difference of opinion on things like morality is proof enough that its subjective on its basis, to which he replied some silly crap about "suffering" being the standard... even though "suffering" is another subjective term.

 

[Jack]

Ignore this post.

 

[ImpureHedonism]

While we are on it, can someone please prove why Envy is green? And Love is red? Objective evidence only please!

Abstract entities cannot have colors, so those are subjective metaphors and not based on anything actual or real other than a vague feeling. That is reason enough to say there isn't an objective reason for these conclusions because colors are perceptual while envy is an abstract concept. Different opinions and claims are *not* reasons to say *any* judgment is subjective, if by subjective you mean based on whatever you feel like. Objective doesn't have to mean a property of an object either and contained within, it only means based on facts that exist in reality. Most moral systems *are* subjective because they don't have a connection to how the world actually works. It does not follow that therefore morality is subjective by nature. Suffering cannot be a standard. What can work as a standard is one's life, because fundamentally by being a living thing that can be destroyed. If there was no alternative like life and death, "morality" would absolutely be superfluous and subjective. I'm not saying this in itself is a conclusive presentation or proof, but it's something for now. Certain actions are necessary to maintain life and happiness, so those actions are considered good because they are good for your life based upon you being human. Note that I'm not saying morality is a property to measure like mass of an object - it's relational when properly explained and thought about.

PoeticJustice, I agree that missing key information is not reason to call someone bad. It depends on why a person makes a choice to deem them bad or good, and how they respond to the consequences of their actions. However, fallibility is not proof of subjectivity, it only means there are reasons to be careful and use reason in order to make the best choices. If 99 people say the world is flat because they see the horizon line, while you say the world is round because you did trigonometry and used some other observations to conclude the world is actually round. Who's to say their information isn't better than yours? (Answer: no one; the facts of reality determine truth). Is the shape of the world subjective because the 100 people in total have different information? (Answer: no; you used an objective method while they used a subjective method). Of course, that doesn't prove morality can be objective, but if you add in my previous paragraph, I hope you see how the two relate.

 

[Jack]

PoeticJustice,

It's more difficult for me not to go line by line because so many various points require nuanced responses, but I'll do my best.

On the whole, I agree with you that people try to do the best that they can on the information available to them. Now understanding that people are trying to do right, would you agree that this requires an implicit intuition that there is some right, or good thing to do? (whether you think it is objective or not)

I also agree that it's silly to think that one just coincidentally happens to have had the perfect experiences to be right about everything in terms of moral truth.

Don't you think that through discussion though, and a desire to understand each other, that people can find common ground, and resolve their differences? If so, then do you think we can see that as discovering moral truth through dialogue?

I agree, we make a lot of mistakes, but certainly this doesn't justify giving up, we can continue to learn and grow.

People certainly have different starting points, and access to different information, and while that's more of an epistemology argument than an ontology argument, I see what you're saying. I would respond by suggesting that certain facets of truth, like the universal experience of suffering, or the ability to communicate experiences, ideas, and perspectives can preclude the limitations set on us by our respective starting points for those seeking to understand. For example, if I do something that offends you, please tell me, so you and I can find a solution together.

I'm not exactly sure what list I missed, but I am sure that my spouting off some moral position wouldn't help anyone when I am unfamiliar with their situations. What might help is two people who find themselves in different positions sat down and discussed the nuances in each other's views.

 

[Jack]

Abstract entities cannot have colors, so those are subjective metaphors and not based on anything actual or real other than a vague feeling. That is reason enough to say there isn't an objective reason for these conclusions because colors are perceptual while envy is an abstract concept. Different opinions and claims are *not* reasons to say *any* judgment is subjective, if by subjective you mean based on whatever you feel like. Objective doesn't have to mean a property of an object either and contained within, it only means based on facts that exist in reality. Most moral systems *are* subjective because they don't have a connection to how the world actually works. It does not follow that therefore morality is subjective by nature. Suffering cannot be a standard. What can work as a standard is one's life, because fundamentally by being a living thing that can be destroyed. If there was no alternative like life and death, "morality" would absolutely be superfluous and subjective. I'm not saying this in itself is a conclusive presentation or proof, but it's something for now. Certain actions are necessary to maintain life and happiness, so those actions are considered good because they are good for your life based upon you being human. Note that I'm not saying morality is a property to measure like mass of an object - it's relational when properly explained and thought about.

PoeticJustice, I agree that missing key information is not reason to call someone bad. It depends on why a person makes a choice to deem them bad or good, and how they respond to the consequences of their actions. However, fallibility is not proof of subjectivity, it only means there are reasons to be careful and use reason in order to make the best choices. If 99 people say the world is flat because they see the horizon line, while you say the world is round because you did trigonometry and used some other observations to conclude the world is actually round. Who's to say their information isn't better than yours? (Answer: no one; the facts of reality determine truth). Is the shape of the world subjective because the 100 people in total have different information? (Answer: no; you used an objective method while they used a subjective method). Of course, that doesn't prove morality can be objective, but if you add in my previous paragraph, I hope you see how the two relate.

This is a good post, and well written.

 

[Poetic Justice]

While we are on it, can someone please prove why Envy is green? And Love is red? Objective evidence only please!

Actually I can explain this

One word.... synaesthesia

 

[Billy]

Actually I can explain this

One word.... synaesthesia

How does that explain how envy is green? I said OBJECTIVE proof that it is green, not personal subjective experiences. I want something that is objective beyond simple perception, something that can be proved mathematically!

 

[Poetic Justice]

It's more difficult for me not to go line by line because so many various points require nuanced responses, but I'll do my best.

On the whole, I agree with you that people try to do the best that they can on the information available to them. Now understanding that people are trying to do right, would you agree that this requires an implicit intuition that there is some right, or good thing to do? (whether you think it is objective or not)

I also agree that it's silly to think that one just coincidentally happens to have had the perfect experiences to be right about everything in terms of moral truth.

Don't you think that through discussion though, and a desire to understand each other, that people can find common ground, and resolve their differences? If so, then do you think we can see that as discovering moral truth through dialogue?

I agree, we make a lot of mistakes, but certainly this doesn't justify giving up, we can continue to learn and grow.

People certainly have different starting points, and access to different information, and while that's more of an epistemology argument than an ontology argument, I see what you're saying. I would respond by suggesting that certain facets of truth, like the universal experience of suffering, or the ability to communicate experiences, ideas, and perspectives can preclude the limitations set on us by our respective starting points for those seeking to understand. For example, if I do something that offends you, please tell me, so you and I can find a solution together.

I'm not exactly sure what list I missed, but I am sure that my spouting off some moral position wouldn't help anyone when I am unfamiliar with their situations. What might help is two people who find themselves in different positions sat down and discussed the nuances in each other's views.

There was no actual list. I put forward a suggestion as to how morality could be objective and what would be needed for it to be so (the list). I then demonstrated that this list would be impossible to produce. I think it's only on the last page somewhere and personally I believe it is the crux of this discussion. I'll let you find it and quote it so you can pick holes in it.... if you can. Heh

And no we can't reach moral truth through discussion. Thats just getting people to agree with you.

If there is ten people listening to a song and nine of them love it. They could in theory explain to the tenth person whats good about it and change his mind. You could point out that they are listening to the wrong part of the song or something. Listen to the strings instead of trying to listen to the beat etc

Getting him to change his mind does not mean that it then becomes objectively good. It just means you've convinced him to share your subjective view

 

[Poetic Justice]

How does that explain how envy is green? I said OBJECTIVE proof that it is green, not personal subjective experiences. I want something that is objective beyond simple perception, something that can be proved mathematically!

My gut is telling me I can do this if I give it more thought. I'll have to get back to you on that with a proper answer

Perhaps something along the lines of an MRI scan that shows colour perception being activated when the word envy is said. You may be right though. Trying to explain that whilst avoiding any mention of subjectivity is gonna be tricky

Edit: Envy isn't green. It only is in some peoples subjective experience. The reason for their synaesthesia cand be stated objectively but not the individual experiences of the person. So you're right

 

[Jack]

There was no actual list. I put forward a suggestion as to how morality could be objective and what would be needed for it to be so (the list). I then demonstrated that this list would be impossible to produce. I think it's only on the last page somewhere and personally I believe it is the crux of this discussion. I'll let you find it and quote it so you can pick holes in it.... if you can. Heh

And no we can't reach moral truth through discussion. Thats just getting people to agree with you.

If there is ten people listening to a song and nine of them love it. They could in theory explain to the tenth person whats good about it and change his mind. You could point out that they are listening to the wrong part of the song or something. Listen to the strings instead of trying to listen to the beat etc

Getting him to change his mind does not mean that it then becomes objectively good. It just means you've convinced him to share your subjective view

If we were to say for the sake of argument that core moral principles were objective, it would be indistinguishable from those same moral principles being universally subjective, but then again, if morality is purely subjective, I find it unlikely that it would be universal (at least not arbitrarily so, and an appeal to God, or Evolution here would be at least trying to argue for some level of objectivity and/or find yourself on another looooong rabbit trail).

If you can agree that we can solve ethical disputes by better understanding each other, can you see how that carries an implication that the moral intuitions and core motivating behaviors that we try to follow are very much the same? (After all, one can understand a perspective without agreeing, and people try to live rightly)

If you've followed me so far, can you see how the more ethical investigation that we perform finding agreement based upon our common moral intuitions, the more we can make a subjective relativist world appear unlikely?

Now about your list, you said that "For morality to be objective you would need a list of all potential outcomes from every potential action. These would need to be put in order of severity so you can say objectively what actions are more or less immoral than other actions."

Immanuel Kant, in his work "The Metaphysics of Morals," laid a groundwork for morality based upon 'pure reason', Kant said that the morality of a particular action was determined in the act, rather than in the consequences. When you decide for yourself "I will steal." or "I will lie." this is what determines the rightness or wrongness of an act. The corollary to Kant's absolutism, (since I'm sure it will come up) is graded absolutism, which would say for example that if you had to lie to the Nazis to protect Jews, you would be right in following the higher law (since you obviously don't have the power to both protect the Jews and tell the truth).

Remember, I'm responding to the proposition that "Morality is subjective", I'm not out to prove moral objectivity here, only respond to the arguments of those maintaining the aforementioned proposition is a 'fact' about our world.

 

[Billy]

If we were to say for the sake of argument that core moral principles were objective

You cant say that for the sake of argument, that's the whole point. For the sake of argument prove why Envy is green.

 

[just me]

This is a somewhat religious/anti-religious argument that has been around several years.

There are people out there that are evil. There are people out there that are good. There are people out there riding the fence.

 

[Billy]

This is a somewhat religious/anti-religious argument that has been around several years.

There are people out there that are evil. There are people out there that are good. There are people out there riding the fence.

Except you are mistaken in your absolutism... evil people dont think they are evil.

 

[Jack]

You cant say that for the sake of argument, that's the whole point. For the sake of argument prove why Envy is green.

Quine shot logical positivism down bro, propositions don't have to be within the grasp of our immediate experience to be meaningful.

Anyway, have some green tea and relax. :tea:

 

[Billy]

Quine shot logical positivism down bro, propositions don't have to be within the grasp of our immediate experience to be meaningful.

Anyway, have some green tea and relax.

Oh dont worry bromosexual, I am relaxed. Stick to the topic.

 

[CindyLou]

Except you are mistaken in your absolutism... evil people dont think they are evil.

that is what makes them evil.

 

[Billy]

that is what makes them evil.

Maybe what they think is good, and what you think is evil?

 

[Poetic Justice]

The first step in becoming evil is to convince yourself that evil exists.

And back to the list. You didn't actually prove me wrong. You just tried to borrow the authority of someone who I guess shares your view. That doesn't mean you or him are right.

For morality to be objective the list must be created. Do you agree?

Edit: And an important part of the list is that the order of the list would have to be indisputable by anyone on the planet. Whether the list be of consequences or intentions.

 

[Jack]

The first step in becoming evil is to convince yourself that evil exists

And back to the list. You didn't actually prove me wrong. You just tried to borrow the authority of someone who I guess shares your view. That doesn't mean you or him are right.

For morality to be objective the list must be created. Do you agree?

I wasn't borrowing his authority, I was pointing out that he offered a different perspective. Essentially, your argument as I understood it seemed to hinge upon the idea of right and wrong based upon beneficial consequences, his was upon moral decisions. Do you see the distinction I am highlighting here?

As far as the need to create a list, I think you may be confusing ontology and epistemology. As ImpureHedonism said, if the earth is round, then it is round, no matter how many people think it is flat. If objective morality exists, it does not matter how many people are mistaken about it. Knowing what is good or what is moral, proving, or refuting it, is all a question of epistemology.