Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

[shunyadragon]

No, it doesn't. The fact that people may have interpreted General Relativity in some different way than it's normally interpreted doesn't mean that there are "subjective attributes" to that theory.

.
That is in the definition of 'subjective,' which is making variable value judgments that vary from one individual to another, or one group to another.

 

[Logikal]

You are presenting a 'subjective' decision and a very human problem, and not one that substantiates an sort of 'objective oral standard.'



There is no objective evidence for the existence of any sort of "objectively moral standard," and the science of evolution makes no such claim. There is a vast amount of evidence that morals and ethics naturally evolved, and science of anthropology and sociology provide further foundations for the natural basis of morals and ethics.

So here we have the argument that there is no evidence that there is any sort of objective moral standard. If there is no evidence of an objective moral standard then objective morality cannot exist. Sir would you say that resents your thought process?

How would you put the argument in proper form? In this way we will see how it fails.

 

[Logikal]

No, but it indicates that there are 'subjective attributes' of the 'Golden Rule.'

Human interpretation has nothing to do with any objective rules. Objective rules are to be completely FREE of emotion.

Because many people don't practice this is not an excuse to deny objective claims. You are confusing theory with practical application when you think like that.

 

[ArtieE]

So you can't argue your claim about humans--of all creatures on earth--somehow evolving a special sort of "survival instinct" that somehow has given us the objective moral standard?

We evolved a survival instinct: "the instinct in humans and animals to do things in a dangerous situation that will prevent them from dying". Collins Dictionary. Our whole notion of right and wrong behavior and morality is based on whether the behavior is advantageous or disadvantageous for survival.

 

[Logikal]

We evolved a survival instinct: "the instinct in humans and animals to do things in a dangerous situation that will prevent them from dying". Collins Dictionary. Our whole notion of right and wrong behavior and morality is based on whether the behavior is advantageous or disadvantageous for survival.

This is HOW BEAST BEHAVE!!!!! Here you are praising how beasts behave ???
I have never met any human being that for one second believes human beings are BELOW BEASTS. I don't think you belleive that beast are ABOVE YOU or BEAST ARE EQUAL to you for one second. You are probably arrogant about being ABOVE BEAST! I cant see how you believe ACTING LIKE BEASTS is the best thing for HUMAN BEINGS TO DO. Can you address this? How can human being be SUPERIOR TO BEAST and good ole ARTIE is saying let's do what the BEASTS are doing that is morality.

Do beast have a notion of morality?

 

[shunyadragon]

Human interpretation has nothing to do with any objective rules. Objective rules are to be completely FREE of emotion.

Yes, it does. There are no objective moral rules that may objectively determined

Because many people don't practice this is not an excuse to deny objective claims. You are confusing theory with practical application when you think like that.

Practical application of the many variations moral and ethics is the 'subjective' nature of morals and ethics.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Except that objectively speaking we are members of a species that evolved a set of instincts like the survival instinct and some behaviors are objectively inherently right and some are objectively inherently wrong for members of a species with a survival instinct.

How does agreement on the morality of a behavior among a single species make it objective?

Unless I'm misreading, what you're saying is that our random biologies have somehow managed to align our moral proclivities with those which also happen to be objectively correct... I deeply disagree with this.

Objective morality, as I see it, would exist regardless of our input or even existence. I will not disagree that we are more inclined towards certain attitudes and because of our biologies were are more apt to agree on moral standards. But I don't think any of that lends itself to support the idea of that same morality somehow being objectively true.

 

[Nous]

That is in the definition of 'subjective,' which is making variable value judgments that vary from one individual to another, or one group to another.

Again, the fact that people may interpret a rule (or law) in varying ways doesn't imply that the rule (or law) is "subjective".

 

[jonathan180iq]

What you describe is what every average Joe believes who has not been made aware morals has a specific category in the field of philosophy and is well defined in that field or has been bamboozled to believe everything is subjective because that is what people who careless about philosophy been taught to think.

If you look up normative ethics you may rethink your viewpoint. What you think and the populous agree to means nothing as far as the topic goes. It is not majority rules in proper or pure moral theory.

I'm well aware of the studie of Normative Ethics and it does nothing to change my view. In fact, it strengthens it.

Let's test it...

Pick something which you find to be immoral (or that many people agree is an immoral behavior) and then explain to me why it is immoral.

 

[Nous]

We evolved a survival instinct: "the instinct in humans and animals to do things in a dangerous situation that will prevent them from dying".

How did humans survive before the change in allele frequency that achieved that survival instinct?

And why don't lions and tigers and bears, who possess at least as much survival instinct as humans do, abide by the "objective moral" rules?

Your inability to answer such simple questions just demonstrates how senseless your idea is.

 

[Nous]

Do beast have a notion of morality?

It's quite mind-boggling that someone would claim that objective moral standards were selected by natural selection--as though humans are the only things subject to evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again, the fact that people may interpret a rule (or law) in varying ways doesn't imply that the rule (or law) is "subjective".

Again, again and again does not help your argument. I never said that the rule (or law) is subjective. Neither can you establish the fact that they are objective.

The varibility of the human interpretation of the many variations of morals and ethics are indeed 'subjective' attributes of morals and ethics by definition. The variation of individual and group decisions concerning morals and ethics are indeed open to interpretation based emotion and personal interpretation.

Not all aspects of morals and ethics are not 'quantifiable and measurable.'

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-objective-and-subjective

"An objective perspective is one that is not influenced by emotions, opinions, or personal feelings - it is a perspective based in fact, in things quantifiable and measurable.

A subjective perspective is one open to greater interpretation based on personal feeling, emotion, aesthetics, etc."

 

[jonathan180iq]

So as long as the child rapist does not agree that raping 3-year-old children is wrong, raping children isn't wrong.

Thank God most people have a better moral compass than you do.

Yep. I'm a supporter of child rapists. You got me...
I hope the invisible magic man in the clouds doesn't punish me too severely for a hypothetical situation that you've invented.

Attempting to equate an argument against objective morality with my personal moral code, based on a situation that you created, is a bit beneath you, isn't it? If it's not, it should be.

You're welcome to disagree with me - but try show me how or why it's objectively wrong rather than taking a parting personal shot based on your imaginary situation.

Of course it's wrong. I think it's repugnant to even bring it up. But the standard by which you and I make that judgement is not founded an any objective truth - it's simply something that we agree on and collectively find revolting. Before you take the next swipe, I'll go ahead and admit that I'd impart my moral code into that situation and forcibly remove the perpetrator form the victim. I would also have no qualms about severely punishing the perpetrator for his actions. I am, however, honest enough to realize that I have no objective basis for doing so other than my own personal convictions.

 

[Nous]

I never said that the rule (or law) is subjective.

This is among the things you have said:

No, but it indicates that there are 'subjective attributes' of the 'Golden Rule.'

Prove your claim that people's varying interpretations of a rule or law means that the rule or law has "subjective attributes."

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I do not believe that stating there is no morality external to culture and society means you must agree that morality subjective to those societies and culture must therefore be arbitrary. Therefore that arguments like 'you must judge all actions morally equitable If you accept morality is subjective' does not follow.

I believe that morals arrived by taking a pragmatic approach to analyzing information and establishing the help/harm ratio consequences of a behavior is less arbitrary and more respectable than morality by authority.

I do not believe 'God says so' constitutes objective morality, only agreement with the subjective POV of that God.

 

[Nous]

Yep. I'm a supporter of child rapists. You got me...
[. . . ]
Of course it's wrong.

Make up your mind. Rape of children isn't a joke where one should use a funny emoticon for it.

But the standard by which you and I make that judgement is not founded an any objective truth

Of course it is. Here's the objective truth: One should not cause another creature to suffer simply for one's own temporary pleasure.

That objective truth is deduced from the Golden Rule.

There is no need to be so confused.

 

[shunyadragon]

How did humans survive before the change in allele frequency that achieved that survival instinct?

And why don't lions and tigers and bears, who possess at least as much survival instinct as humans do, abide by the "objective moral" rules?

Your inability to answer such simple questions just demonstrates how senseless your idea is.

genetic selection for survival happens over a long period of time and is different for different species over time.

You ignorance of the basics of the science of evolution is overwhelming.

 

[Nous]

genetic selection for survival happens over a long period of time and is different for different species over time.

You ignorance of the basics of the science of evolution is overwhelming.

I haven't said anything erroneous, and you haven't shown that I have said anything erroneous. It's your ignorance that makes you say such an ignorant thing.

And you didn't answer any of the questions you quoted. Is that also due to your ignorance?

 

[shunyadragon]

I haven't said anything erroneous, and you haven't shown that I have said anything erroneous. It's your ignorance that makes you say such an ignorant thing.

And you didn't answer any of the questions you quoted. Is that also due to your ignorance?

genetic selection for survival happens over a long period of time and is different for different species over time. Citing very different species facing widely different paths of evolution facing different pressures is not a legitimate question that can be answered.

 

[Nous]

genetic selection for survival

Cite the evidence for this "genetic selection for survival".

Why is it that humans are the only animals that have this alleged special kind of genetic survival instinct that provides us with objective moral standards, and are the only animals who commit suicide?

Name an animal that doesn't have the alleged genetic survival instinct.