Morality is not subjective

[ArtieE]

You realize that is actually a symptom of a psychotic disorder, don't you? Just because there are no moral laws doesn't mean people aren't programed to not "feel" them. I really don't even concern myself with morality, but I do concern myself if my actions will harm someone. There is no cosmic law dictating that or god commanding that I do or anything else like that, but it is the basic-level "response" for being a social animal, and it there are also mutually-benefiting exchanges, which enhance the survival rating of all involved.
It is this inert drive of morality that the position of objective morality is based on, but the argument dies after its first step because it can't be proven that morality is objective, but rather we have evidence that is has evolved as a survival mechanism in social animals, because even other social animals have their rules, practices, and social do's-and-don't's.

"The position of objective morality" is simply based on the fact that some acts are objectively beneficial for survival and some detrimental, whether they are beneficial or detrimental doesn't depend on anybody's subjective opinion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"The position of objective morality" is simply based on the fact that some acts are objectively beneficial for survival and some detrimental, whether they are beneficial or detrimental doesn't depend on anybody's subjective opinion.

That still doesn't make morality objective though. Some systems do not even place a moral value of survival or even acts that are inherently beneficial, such as Jesus' instructions to his followers to sell everything they own and give the money to the poor.

 

[Augustus]

And your point is?

That morality is largely subjective and killing with 'malice aforethought' is often valorised rather than criminalised.

 

[ArtieE]

That still doesn't make morality objective though. Some systems do not even place a moral value of survival or even acts that are inherently beneficial, such as Jesus' instructions to his followers to sell everything they own and give the money to the poor.

In a society where those who have more give to those who have less the chances of survival would increase for all.

 

[Nous]

Why is there "no human context where rape could be considered moral"?

Because:

some rules objectively let us live better in society. Allowing murder to be moral would kill off any species or culture stupid enough to endorse it. Nonetheless, these rules not independent of minds, they are the result of them.

Think of morality as a result of the evolutionary process - a set of guidelines we develop over time to better adapt and survive in our environment.

No other animal has any moral or legal prohibitions against rape or murder, and they seem to survive just fine--at least no species has been known to go extinct due to rape, murder or theft among their own species. Evolution obviously doesn't explain the moral disapproval or legal prohibitions that humans have against rape, murder or theft.

I just said there is no human context where rape would be moral.

And I asked: What would be a context where it would be moral for an intelligent, competent adult [e.g., of another species on another planet] who can discern moral from immoral acts to rape a 4-year-old child [of their own species]?

Obviously, if you can't think of any circumstance in which an act would be moral, then you have no rational reason to conclude that the morality of the act is relative to circumstances.

 

[Nous]

That morality is largely subjective and killing with 'malice aforethought' is often valorised rather than criminalised.

Again, murder is criminalized in every country. Not all killing is criminalized, but murder is.

 

[Mickdrew]

No other animal has any moral or legal prohibitions against rape or murder, and they seem to survive just fine--at least no species has been known to go extinct due to rape, murder or theft among their own species. Evolution obviously doesn't explain the moral disapproval or legal prohibitions that humans have against rape, murder or theft.

Exactly, other animals don't need to have it written out in stone to not kill each other - it's written into their nature. Ofc you will have exceptions, but the whole reason why animals can live in packs together is because they co-operate. Why do they do this? Because it is behavior that promotes survival and makes them more robust as a unit. If animals couldn't co-operate and have their own social system, all mothers would kill their newborns for food and all species would die.
Our morality is the human manifestation of this same mentality. How much or little evolution itself plays is an open question. I don't know, and that was never my point.
My point was we have set out morals not because they are objective facts, but because they help us survive and live together more safely in a community. If you can't understand that, then this is pointless to discuss.

And I asked: What would be a context where it would be moral for an intelligent, competent adult [e.g., of another species on another planet] who can discern moral from immoral acts to rape a 4-year-old child [of their own species]?

Obviously, if you can't think of any circumstance in which an act would be moral, then you have no rational reason to conclude that the morality of the act is relative to circumstances.

Are you seriously going to make me answer this?

Fine. I question your own morality if you're sick enough to ask me (a human being who does see rape as immoral) this, but if you insist:

Another planet entirely, huh? Okay then! That means they might live in an environment completely different to us, and thus might evolve completely differently and form completely new behaviors. Let us call this species "Hypotheticus".
The Hypotheticus is a species where only children between the ages of 3 and 6 can produce offspring, and their bodies are set up in such a way that they must remain still in order to successfully produce offspring. They are not old enough to mentally consent, but one adult Hypotheticus is given a dilemma where it must reproduce non-consensually (or "rape") another one or else everyone it knows will die (because reasons). Oh yeah, the Hypotheticus also doesn't feel pain, so there is no suffering involved.

If this isn't good enough - and you still say rape is still immoral here - then it might very well be a situation where asking for a hypothetical where species forcibly rape other members against their will is against the very idea of prosperity and safety. It would be like asking me to think of a scenario where it would be moral for a random species to kill its own children when they're born - it's just not viable, because that would extinguish the species and they wouldn't survive.

 

[Augustus]

Again, murder is criminalized in every country. Not all killing is criminalized, but murder is.

As I said, it's a tautology. Murder is necessarily illegal, otherwise it's not murder.

It is hard to find a consistent ethical standard that differentiates what counts as murder and what counts as lawful killing across every culture though.

 

[Nous]

No other animal has any moral or legal prohibitions against rape or murder, and they seem to survive just fine--at least no species has been known to go extinct due to rape, murder or theft among their own species. Evolution obviously doesn't explain the moral disapproval or legal prohibitions that humans have against rape, murder or theft.

Exactly, other animals don't need to have it written out in stone to not kill each other - it's written into their nature.

You're seriously claiming that non-human animals don't steal, kill, rape? You need to get closer to reality.

And I asked: What would be a context where it would be moral for an intelligent, competent adult [e.g., of another species on another planet] who can discern moral from immoral acts to rape a 4-year-old child [of their own species]?

Obviously, if you can't think of any circumstance in which an act would be moral, then you have no rational reason to conclude that the morality of the act is relative to circumstances.

Are you seriously going to make me answer this?

Well, why didn't you answer it?

You haven't identified any circumstance in which acts such as rape, murder, theft would be moral acts. And you haven't articulated any reason why such acts are necessarily immoral for humans. And, again, billions or non-humans species do not have or abide by such moral codes, yet they survive just fine. Sometimes, raping, stealing and murdering even aid in their survival.

 

[Nous]

As I said, it's a tautology. Murder is necessarily illegal, otherwise it's not murder.

The fact that murder is currently illegal in every country is not a tautology. It's a contingent fact. Any society can decide any day to legalize the killing with malice aforethought. For prehistoric humans and human ancestors, killing with malice aforethought was not criminalized.

It is hard to find a consistent ethical standard that differentiates what counts as murder and what counts as lawful killing across every culture though.

Not at all. There is a very clear difference between killing with malice aforethought and killing in self-defense, or killing by accident, or killing soldiers from another country who are killing your neighbors.

 

[McBell]

The fact that murder is currently illegal in every country is not a tautology.

not true:

mur·der
ˈmərdər/
noun

1. 1.
   the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
   "the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"

verb

1. 1.
   kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
   "somebody tried to murder Joe"
   

Please note the word "unlawful in both definitions...

un·law·ful
ˌənˈlôfəl/
adjective

1. not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.
   "the use of unlawful violence"
   synonyms: illegal, illicit, illegitimate, against the law;

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You're seriously claiming that non-human animals don't steal, kill, rape? You need to get closer to reality.

Sorry to be answering for someone else --- but of course they do. Species behave according to their evolved nature. So the question, I think, is whether or not part of our evolved nature is to steal, kill or rape.

For the record, I would say -- based solely on the evidence -- that it may not be entirely our evolved nature, but our evolved nature does allow for it.

Well, why didn't you answer it?

You haven't identified any circumstance in which acts such as rape, murder, theft would be moral acts. And you haven't articulated any reason why such acts are necessarily immoral for humans. And, again, billions or non-humans species do not have or abide by such moral codes, yet they survive just fine. Sometimes, raping, stealing and murdering even aid in their survival.

As a social species, dependent upon one another for our very survival, I would assume that there are many reasons such acts might be deemed immoral. An example: a parent in New Orleans after Hurricane Katerina, might break into a vacated drug store to take insulin for a diabetic child. The child's life depends on this, and their are no other options. I put this act of vandalism and theft firmly in the moral column.

I can think of situations in which my life might very well depend on my killing another person, but if that is the case, then even our own human laws would not call that "murder" but "homicide" and would then seek to question why it may or may not be justified. I cannot think of a single example of my life being dependent on raping another person. I might suppose that if I don't get off soon, I'll just explode, but that's pure fantasy. Humans don't explode for want of an orgasm, no matter how horny they are.

 

[Mickdrew]

You're seriously claiming that non-human animals don't steal, kill, rape? You need to get closer to reality.

Uh... hello:
Humans steal, kill, and rape too
I think you need to get back to reality.

Well, why didn't you answer it?

Yes I did. read my post again

You haven't identified any circumstance in which acts such as rape, murder, theft would be moral acts.

Please explain why my example didn't meet your criteria

And, again, billions or non-humans species do not have or abide by such moral codes, yet they survive just fine.

Animals have their own social system too. Some animals betray that, just like some humans do

And you haven't articulated any reason why such acts are necessarily immoral for humans.

Yes I have. Again, read my responses.

Sometimes, raping, stealing and murdering even aid in their survival.

Just like it sometimes benefits humans. That's why many commit these crimes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

not true:

mur·der
ˈmərdər/
noun

1. 1.
   the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
   "the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"

verb

1. 1.
   kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
   "somebody tried to murder Joe"

Please note the word "unlawful in both definitions...

un·law·ful
ˌənˈlôfəl/
adjective

1. not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.
   "the use of unlawful violence"
   synonyms: illegal, illicit, illegitimate, against the law;

Honor killings are generally legal, but I consider those murder. And just because someone has the law on their side doesn't inherently mean a killing isn't murder, such as state-mandated genocide.

 

[McBell]

Honor killings are generally legal, but I consider those murder. And just because someone has the law on their side doesn't inherently mean a killing isn't murder, such as state-mandated genocide.

you are free to humpty dumpty the word to your hearts content.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

you are free to humpty dumpty the word to your hearts content.

But that is why there is variation in the exact definition of murder. Every culture that I am aware of has had concepts of murder being wrong, but each culture also has its own exceptions to that rule.

 

[McBell]

But that is why there is variation in the exact definition of murder. Every culture that I am aware of has had concepts of murder being wrong, but each culture also has its own exceptions to that rule.

what variation?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

what variation?

Slaves, criminals, intruders, adulterous wives, witches/sorcerers, Mormons, Jews, Aboriginals, Christians, Muslims, other ethnicities, the list goes on and on.

 

[McBell]

Slaves, criminals, intruders, adulterous wives, witches/sorcerers, Mormons, Jews, Aboriginals, Christians, Muslims, other ethnicities, the list goes on and on.

Huh?

Perhaps I misunderstood.
It is my impression you are claiming there is a variation of some kind of the definition of the word "murder".

So to be completely honest with you, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in the above quoted post.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is my impression you are claiming there is a variation of some kind of the definition of the word "murder".

Yes, there is variation in the exact definition of murder, because various cultures have had various exceptions as to whom and when you could murder someone that other cultures would consider inappropriate.

So to be completely honest with you, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in the above quoted post.

We probably both think ritual sacrifice is murder. However, the Aztecs obviously did not.