Absolute Morals and evolution
 

I (and others) say Absolute Morals don’t exist if no God. Others say they either do/can/might exist on their own. Chez, kid, M to the 6th, et al what say you to the following:

Perhaps, survival of the fitness and/or natural selection is the Moral Absolute if no God.?

If this is so, what does this entail? Does any life form have the Absolute right to destroy any “enemy” it deems fit. Are there parameters for this? Is it ok to kill or rule over other life forms simply because we can and/or choose to? Do we have a right to direct selection within our own species?

Man kills animals for food. Do we have a moral obligation to kill only for food? What about when we kill more animals than we can eat? Does this extend to plant life - all life forms?

Do we have the right to kill other life forms that do not endanger us (man)? Do we have the right to kill life forms because they endanger us? Why is it ok for Nature to select which species survives? Why can’t man decide too what species survives? Can we? We seem to direct this evolution to an extent anyway? We try to eradicate diseases. Is that “fair” to natural selection?

How “naturally selective” is evolution now that the life from of homosapiens has evolved?

Are there Absolutes for evolution - are we ignoring them? Should we ignore them if it benefits our species?

Even if this is not a Moral Absolute - how do we still answer these questions "ethically"? Should we try to at all - or is that anathema from an evolutionary point of view?

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

Questions about absolute morals are really boring me as they may not exist, and if they do there is nothing different I (or you) are going to do differently as we are already acting according to the moral standard we feel is valid. Chez has this issue right, in that sense. So to be quite frank, all your blustering (and NotReady's) about absolute morality only possible through God is a completely moot point. I do what is "right" by my conscience and reason. Whether that is "absolute" or "relative" is irrelevant as nobody can show what is "absolute" anyway.

I'll address the specific questions related to your post later. Got to watch more White Sox now.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

I agree that without a final arbiter (god if you will) there are no absolute morals. Since I don't believe in god, I don't believe in absolute morals.

But that does not mean that moral standards don't exist. Standards do exist. Right and wrong based on those morals exist. The standards may vary among different cultures but generally share many similar values. Murder is probably wrong in most societies. Perhaps if we find life on another planet their morals would be totally different from ours.

Standards evolve along with the species. What is acceptable today may not have been in the past or even in the future.

As for killing animals - I personally have a problem with killing for any other reason except food. But is it wrong? To me yes - to the present standard - probably not.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

Just to set the record straight - I only entered the AM discussion. I didn’t bring the subject up. Especially as I never thought there was anything to discuss relative to it.

So let’s forget about AM relative to evolution. Any thoughts on the rest - that is man more or less “messing” with evolution?

Just so your p.s about watching the game - no problem.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

As I've said I doubt the existence of AM but here's a thought.

'I don't want to cause needless suffering'

is a moral fact about me. The argument against AM usually takes the form 'but what if someone wants to cause needless suffering, then it would be ok' but maybe thats the wrong way to think about it.

Could any rational person want to cause needless suffering?

It may be that to understand the concept of suffering in others requires a level of empathy which makes you not want to cause it without some other need.

Then an absolute moral law would be.

'It is immoral to cause needless suffering.'

chez

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

I only heard Dawkins talk for a few minutes in an interview (hope I can catch the rerun - interesting chap) and he seems to feel the same as you, chez.

Two things:

[ QUOTE ]
Could any rational person want to cause needless suffering?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring the question for a minute, what about those that are not rational? The insane for example - or those that simply chose not to be rational.

[ QUOTE ]
'It is immoral to cause needless suffering.'

[/ QUOTE ]

What about “needed” suffering? If I need you to suffer for a bit so I can experiment on your brain - is that ok? Or some other extreme (even not so extreme) example.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
I only heard Dawkins talk for a few minutes in an interview (hope I can catch the rerun - interesting chap) and he seems to feel the same as you, chez.

Two things:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could any rational person want to cause needless suffering?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ignoring the question for a minute, what about those that are not rational? The insane for example - or those that simply chose not to be rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Insane probably, in the same way the insane could believe they are Napolean or 2+2=5.

Pretending to be insane doesn't make any difference. Someone who pretends to believe they are Napolean, doesn't believe they are Napolean. Similarly, someone who pretends not to recognise that needless suffering is wrong does recognise that needless suffering is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
What about “needed” suffering? If I need you to suffer for a bit so I can experiment on your brain - is that ok? Or some other extreme (even not so extreme) example.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't pretend to have nearly all the answers, I'm not even claiming that the initial bit is true, but I think it depends [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

It may not even depend, the answer may just be no (its the answer I like the most)

That Dawkins chap is too clever by half.

chez

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

I would like to ask Dawkins (like I said, I only caught the end of the interview and I don't think he addresses it anyway - I'll have to do a search on the net) why "needless pain" is so (only) important to him. (Not that there is anything wrong with that.) That does seem to be a line in the sand to not cross - and probably the only line that "can" be drawn (to the atheist) theoretically, perhaps. Maybe it is just because we are human and "feel" it. Obviously, one can't argue against drawing any line at all.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

I believe morality is relative. However, in a certain situation, there may very well be a definite/absolute right or wrong thing to do. But, being finite beings, we can't really know what that would be. We just make a best guess.

I outlined my morality in a previous post, but here it is:

* Something is GOOD to the extent that it increases happiness or decreases suffering
* Something is BAD to the extent that it decreases happiness or increases suffering
* Something is RIGHT/MORAL to the extent that it was intended to do GOOD
* Something is WRONG/IMMORAL to the extent that it was intended to do BAD

Living in a shared reality, what is good to me, may be bad to you. So, in the utilitarian sense, we must somehow estimate the total amount of good or bad in any situation to determine the right thing to do.

Chez's statement about it being wrong to needlessly cause suffering, fits in with my moral precepts. Causing suffering is bad. Needlessly would mean that it was not causing a greater good. Therefore, increasing suffering, while not increasing happiness is bad (and wrong if it's intentional).

I agree with the 2nd poster that even if there are absolute moral codes, we can't know them. And, I have yet to hear any that are universal, unconditional, and apply to any and all situations.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe morality is relative. However, in a certain situation, there may very well be a definite/absolute right or wrong thing to do. But, being finite beings, we can't really know what that would be. We just make a best guess.

I outlined my morality in a previous post, but here it is:

* Something is GOOD to the extent that it increases happiness or decreases suffering
* Something is BAD to the extent that it decreases happiness or increases suffering
* Something is RIGHT/MORAL to the extent that it was intended to do GOOD
* Something is WRONG/IMMORAL to the extent that it was intended to do BAD

Living in a shared reality, what is good to me, may be bad to you. So, in the utilitarian sense, we must somehow estimate the total amount of good or bad in any situation to determine the right thing to do.

Chez's statement about it being wrong to needlessly cause suffering, fits in with my moral precepts. Causing suffering is bad. Needlessly would mean that it was not causing a greater good. Therefore, increasing suffering, while not increasing happiness is bad (and wrong if it's intentional).

I agree with the 2nd poster that even if there are absolute moral codes, we can't know them. And, I have yet to hear any that are universal, unconditional, and apply to any and all situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever come across a moral precept in which causing needless suffering isn't bad/wrong?

And why do you think BAD is bad (if you see what I mean)?

chez

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
I (and others) say Absolute Morals don’t exist if no God. Others say they either do/can/might exist on their own. Chez, kid, M to the 6th, et al what say you to the following:

[/ QUOTE ]

A nice series of questions that I will answer from the personl(obviously!) view of one of the "et als"

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, survival of the fitness and/or natural selection is the Moral Absolute if no God.?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope there is no Absolute morality absent God whether or not natural selection is true. Natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with morality on any level whatsoever.

[ QUOTE ]
If this is so, what does this entail? Does any life form have the Absolute right to destroy any “enemy” it deems fit.


[/ QUOTE ]

By "if this is so" I assume you mean natural selection is true not the statement that natural selection defines , if true, morality (which it doesn't to repeat my previous answer)

[ QUOTE ]
Are there parameters for this? Is it ok to kill or rule over other life forms simply because we can and/or choose to? Do we have a right to direct selection within our own species?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no Absolute answer to ok to kill or rule or direct human evolution (eugenics). I believe it is wrong in some cases but that is my personal morality.

[ QUOTE ]
Man kills animals for food. Do we have a moral obligation to kill only for food? What about when we kill more animals than we can eat? Does this extend to plant life - all life forms?

[/ QUOTE ]

No moral obligation to kill only for food. I happily take antibiotics to kill bacteria that make me ill. I have had (dead of old age not ilness as it happens) Christian Scientist ancestors who wouldn't take antibiotics...is your faith that strong!?). Yep..I'll kill plants I don't eat too.....what about you, you don't scrape the green stuff off you window frames to keep them clean?

[ QUOTE ]
Do we have the right to kill other life forms that do not endanger us (man)?


[/ QUOTE ]
Yep. for food if nothing else...I have no problem with eating fish etc.


[ QUOTE ]
Do we have the right to kill life forms because they endanger us?

[/ QUOTE ]
yes. I've had my jabs to kill life-endagering life forms.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it ok for Nature to select which species survives?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok doesn't come into it. It is just the way things are. (Just as it is "OK" for the sun to rise and ice to melt when it warms up?)

[ QUOTE ]
Why can’t man decide too what species survives? Can we?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lack of organisation, common purpose. You tell me why all smallpox stocks have not been destroyed to make the smallpox virus extinct. (I know the reason but do you think this organism should be destroyed which IS within the power of Man)

[ QUOTE ]
We seem to direct this evolution to an extent anyway? We try to eradicate diseases. Is that “fair” to natural selection?

[/ QUOTE ]

No absolute code so "fairness" doesn't come into it. FREE YOUR MIND. Thereis no absolute code, OK, fairness, right or wrong. Proper become superfluous. we are part of nature.

[ QUOTE ]
How “naturally selective” is evolution now that the life from of homosapiens has evolved?

[/ QUOTE ]

We are part of nature. Natural selection carries on with us in the "equation". Only God makes things "unnatural"..by acting outside the bounds of natural law.

[ QUOTE ]
Are there Absolutes for evolution - are we ignoring them? Should we ignore them if it benefits our species?

[/ QUOTE ]
No absolutes. Nothing to ignore.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if this is not a Moral Absolute - how do we still answer these questions "ethically"? Should we try to at all - or is that anathema from an evolutionary point of view?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personal and collective ethics do come into it. We should and do try to. We have endagered species lists and international agreements to save extinctions. We also strive to make things extinct, eg dangerous diseases (polio).


[ QUOTE ]
If no God, the assumption, then no Absolute rigt to do anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. And no absolute bar to do anything.

[ QUOTE ]
It may not be "right" according to an individual's moral code

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Or it may be "wrong"!

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

Trantor,

[ QUOTE ]
Nope there is no Absolute morality absent God whether or not natural selection is true. Natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with morality on any level whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know (agree) with this. I just brought it up for discussion.

I do want to get into really what I think is a good topic - but have to do a few things for a bit now: Man viz a viz evolution, now that man exists and how that changes (can direct) things.

Chat later

RJT

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

As for killing animals - I personally have a problem with killing for any other reason except food. But is it wrong? To me yes - to the present standard - probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respect the Hindu's belief in sanctaty of all life but I, personally, have no problem swatting a mosquito, for example.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever come across a moral precept in which causing needless suffering isn't bad/wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe so. There might be some strange cults that think pain/suffering is good... but, not that I know of.

[ QUOTE ]
And why do you think BAD is bad (if you see what I mean)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I see what you mean... but I think BAD is bad because it decreases happiness or increases suffering. I know that's by definition... I can try to expound if you want me to?

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever come across a moral precept in which causing needless suffering isn't bad/wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe so. There might be some strange cults that think pain/suffering is good... but, not that I know of.

[ QUOTE ]
And why do you think BAD is bad (if you see what I mean)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I see what you mean... but I think BAD is bad because it decreases happiness or increases suffering. I know that's by definition... I can try to expound if you want me to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not just any old definition, you're trying to capture what we mean by morality. Otherwise you could have just as well chosen to maximise life expectancy or gene spread or shoesize.

It seems you've chosen happiness because you recognise happiness as a good thing and suffering as a bad thing.

Why is that, and why does it seem to be the case that everyones agrees that your precept is basically correct?

chez

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
It seems you've chosen happiness because you recognise happiness as a good thing and suffering as a bad thing.

Why is that, and why does it seem to be the case that everyones agrees that your precept is basically correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Happiness is "good", because, by definition, I'm calling things good that increase happiness. I know this is circular. But, it's different than most circular arguments (ie: "God exists because the Bible says so, and it's true because God wrote it."). For the most part, I think happiness being "good", and things being "good" to the extent that they increase happiness, is self-evident.

I'm not sure this is universal... but it seems to apply to most people. When people examine their hearts... to determine what matters to them... ultimately, they will be deciding that which will make them the most happy. "Good" is just a term we use to describe an event/action/thing. If that thing is helpful to people... it is in line with what matters to them... it makes them happy.... we call that "good". "Bad" would be the opposite. It would be something that is hurtful, hinders their life-goals, makes them unhappy.

I should interject here, that by "happiness", I don't mean "happy-go-lucky". I mean true happiness, and contentment. People struggle in life to find what will make them happy. And, when they find it... it is "good". [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

What are your thoughts, Chez? Why is "good" good and "bad" bad? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems you've chosen happiness because you recognise happiness as a good thing and suffering as a bad thing.

Why is that, and why does it seem to be the case that everyones agrees that your precept is basically correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Happiness is "good", because, by definition, I'm calling things good that increase happiness. I know this is circular. But, it's different than most circular arguments (ie: "God exists because the Bible says so, and it's true because God wrote it."). For the most part, I think happiness being "good", and things being "good" to the extent that they increase happiness, is self-evident.

I'm not sure this is universal... but it seems to apply to most people. When people examine their hearts... to determine what matters to them... ultimately, they will be deciding that which will make them the most happy. "Good" is just a term we use to describe an event/action/thing. If that thing is helpful to people... it is in line with what matters to them... it makes them happy.... we call that "good". "Bad" would be the opposite. It would be something that is hurtful, hinders their life-goals, makes them unhappy.

I should interject here, that by "happiness", I don't mean "happy-go-lucky". I mean true happiness, and contentment. People struggle in life to find what will make them happy. And, when they find it... it is "good". [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

What are your thoughts, Chez? Why is "good" good and "bad" bad? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it seems self-evident, thats why it seems a good candidate for an AM law. As I said in a previous post ^^

[ QUOTE ]
It may be that to understand the concept of suffering in others requires a level of empathy which makes you not want to cause it without some other need.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe something similar for happiness: Its impossible to understand the concept of happiness without recognising it as a good thing.

I'm not claiming this is correct or even clear. Maybe its just an impressive sounding way of waving my hands about.

chez

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

The problem with defining right absolutely as "survival of the fittest" is that it fails to recognize the difference between power and goodness. One can have power without being good, and one can be good without having power.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
* Something is GOOD to the extent that it increases happiness or decreases suffering
* Something is BAD to the extent that it decreases happiness or increases suffering

[/ QUOTE ]
Not all pleasures are good. Not all pain is bad. Therefore, the standard for "good" must come from something else.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* Something is GOOD to the extent that it increases happiness or decreases suffering
* Something is BAD to the extent that it decreases happiness or increases suffering

[/ QUOTE ]
Not all pleasures are good. Not all pain is bad. Therefore, the standard for "good" must come from something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say pleasure. I said happiness. And, "suffering" being the opposite of that. When you say "not all pleasures are good"... what do you mean by "good"? When I say that, I mean: "not all pleasures increase happiness".

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

There are no gods and morality is objective. Human morality is based on human nature, which has evolved over thousands of years and is objective. Learning this is hard and most people don't bother and cop out with a belief in subjective morality.

*edit - The fact that 99% of humanity share the same core beliefs about right and wrong is great evidence.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are no gods and morality is objective. Human morality is based on human nature, which has evolved over thousands of years and is objective. Learning this is hard and most people don't bother and cop out with a belief in subjective morality.

*edit - The fact that 99% of humanity share the same core beliefs about right and wrong is great evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we would need 100% to even consider this as evidence.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

The other 1% are people with mental defects and have problems such as having no capacity for moral thought, etc...

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are no gods and morality is objective.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, how exactly would one measure, calculate, or determine this objective morality?

Would it be right or wrong to purposefully hurt someone's feelings? If, for instance, somebody grew up with their dad always calling them "retard"... and you knew that... so you call them "retard" in order to hurt their feelings. Obviously, most people don't share this personal history that would make them very upset if you were to call them a "retard"... so, it seems pretty subjective and relative to me.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* Something is GOOD to the extent that it increases happiness or decreases suffering
* Something is BAD to the extent that it decreases happiness or increases suffering

[/ QUOTE ]
Not all pleasures are good. Not all pain is bad. Therefore, the standard for "good" must come from something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say pleasure. I said happiness. And, "suffering" being the opposite of that. When you say "not all pleasures are good"... what do you mean by "good"? When I say that, I mean: "not all pleasures increase happiness".

[/ QUOTE ]
I was using pleasure and happiness synonymously. Not all things that bring happiness are accepted as good. Not all things that decrease happiness are accepted as bad. This is why the standard for good must come from eleswhere.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, how exactly would one measure, calculate, or determine this objective morality?


[/ QUOTE ]

Determine it by starting from basic ideas/principles. Rand laid a solid groundwork in this regard.

[ QUOTE ]
so, it seems pretty subjective and relative to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're using the word "subjective" in two different ways here. When we say morality is "subjective", we mean that right and wrong depend on the person acting. That two people could perform the same action in identical circumstances and one would be right and the other wrong... that the beliefs of the actor are what determine right and wrong, not the situation.

Your example merely shows that the same action in *different* circumstances could have different moral results. I'm not arguing against that and that is not the traditional meaning of "subjective morality".

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not all things that bring happiness are accepted as good. Not all things that decrease happiness are accepted as bad. This is why the standard for good must come from eleswhere.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's also important to note that this is an iterative process. Happiness depends on achieving values, but values can change over time. Our brains have feedback mechanisms that allow us to change who we are and what we desire, and therefore change what makes us happy.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* Something is GOOD to the extent that it increases happiness or decreases suffering
* Something is BAD to the extent that it decreases happiness or increases suffering

[/ QUOTE ]
Not all pleasures are good. Not all pain is bad. Therefore, the standard for "good" must come from something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say pleasure. I said happiness. And, "suffering" being the opposite of that. When you say "not all pleasures are good"... what do you mean by "good"? When I say that, I mean: "not all pleasures increase happiness".

[/ QUOTE ]
I was using pleasure and happiness synonymously. Not all things that bring happiness are accepted as good. Not all things that decrease happiness are accepted as bad. This is why the standard for good must come from eleswhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note: I'm using the term "happiness" to mean "true happiness" -- not "pleasure" or "bliss"... but a deep, lasting, contenting, type of happiness. Almost by definition, then, those things are "good".

Also of note, I mentioned before that we live in a shared reality. So, what might be "good" for one person, may be "bad" for a multitude. In the utilitarian, sense, then, we would strive to increse the net "good" over the entire population.

If you disagree, please expound. What brings this type of happiness but would be "bad"? What other criteria besides "happiness" would you use to determine what is "good"?

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so, it seems pretty subjective and relative to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're using the word "subjective" in two different ways here. When we say morality is "subjective", we mean that right and wrong depend on the person acting. That two people could perform the same action in identical circumstances and one would be right and the other wrong... that the beliefs of the actor are what determine right and wrong, not the situation.

Your example merely shows that the same action in *different* circumstances could have different moral results. I'm not arguing against that and that is not the traditional meaning of "subjective morality".

[/ QUOTE ]

If a different person in the same situation is considered a *different* circumstance, then the word "subjective" is meaningless in this context. I am saying that different people, in the same circumstance, might change whether an event/action is "good" or "bad" -- and therefore "right" or "wrong". "Subjective" means particular to a certain person -- personal. If the persons involved must be identical, then subjectivity is removed from the equations. But, in the real world, people are not identical, and therefore morality is sometimes subjective (ie: it depends on the persons involved).

Also, I do think the beliefs of the actors are a factor in deciding if something is "right" or "wrong" (using my previous definitions). If someone believes he is helping someone, but is really hurting them, then I would submit that would not be "as wrong" as someone that was intentionally doing the same action, knowing they were hurting someone.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
Note: I'm using the term "happiness" to mean "true happiness" -- not "pleasure" or "bliss"... but a deep, lasting, contenting, type of happiness. Almost by definition, then, those things are "good".

[/ QUOTE ]
By that definition, I'll agree with that. Here's where we will probably differ, though. I believe that morality is absolute. The joy of which you speak when defining "good" comes directly from God's unchanging nature. He is the source of "true happiness". God, by definition, is good.

[ QUOTE ]
Also of note, I mentioned before that we live in a shared reality. So, what might be "good" for one person, may be "bad" for a multitude. In the utilitarian, sense, then, we would strive to increse the net "good" over the entire population.

[/ QUOTE ]
It begs the question to say that moral right is that which brings the greatest good. Either "right" and "good" are defined in terms of each other, which is circular reasoning, or they must be defined according to some standard beyond the utilitarian process. This takes us back to "true happiness" or "joy" and ultimately to God.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that morality is absolute. The joy of which you speak when defining "good" comes directly from God's unchanging nature. He is the source of "true happiness". God, by definition, is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I believe that morality is relative. What brings true happiness to one person, may not bring true happiness to someone else. People are different. Happiness is a subjective, then.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also of note, I mentioned before that we live in a shared reality. So, what might be "good" for one person, may be "bad" for a multitude. In the utilitarian, sense, then, we would strive to increse the net "good" over the entire population.

[/ QUOTE ]
It begs the question to say that moral right is that which brings the greatest good. Either "right" and "good" are defined in terms of each other, which is circular reasoning, or they must be defined according to some standard beyond the utilitarian process. This takes us back to "true happiness" or "joy" and ultimately to God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I defined "right" in terms of "good": an action is "right" if it is intended to do "good". "Good" is defined in terms of "happiness": something is "good" to the extent that it increase happiness. Happiness is vaguely defined... and mostly self-evident. This is not circular.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
And I believe that morality is relative. What brings true happiness to one person, may not bring true happiness to someone else. People are different. Happiness is a subjective, then.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're stuck on details and missing the general principles. Differences in details don't make morality subjective. The general principles are objective.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I believe that morality is relative. What brings true happiness to one person, may not bring true happiness to someone else. People are different. Happiness is a subjective, then.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're stuck on details and missing the general principles. Differences in details don't make morality subjective. The general principles are objective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Differences in people, makes morality subjective... else the word subjective is meaningless in this context. Anyway, perhaps I'm misunderstaning what you are saying, so a more detailed explanation would be helpful.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
And I believe that morality is relative. What brings true happiness to one person, may not bring true happiness to someone else. People are different. Happiness is a subjective, then.


[/ QUOTE ]
We've already established that we are speaking of "true happiness" and not "bliss" or "pleasure". That being said, another word for this "true happiness" is "joy" or "fulfillment". As a Christian, the source of that completness is God, and He is constant. Just something to think about...

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
Differences in people, makes morality subjective... else the word subjective is meaningless in this context. Anyway, perhaps I'm misunderstaning what you are saying, so a more detailed explanation would be helpful.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. When we talk about morality being subjective or objective, we're asking the question, "Can opposite actions in identical circumstances be morally equal?". If the answer is yes, then one action could be right for one person but wrong for the other in *identical* circumstances (that point is important).

What we are *not* asking is, "Can the same action in different circumstances have different moral values?" That question doesn't really tell us anything because the answer is obviously "yes".

So when you're saying that moral specifics can be different for two people, therefore morality is subjective, you're saying something like "John enjoys music so he should try to be a better musician to be happier, but since Jerry doesn't like music, this wouldn't be a moral goal for him since it wouldn't make him happy. Therefore, since being a better musician is a personal choice, morality is subjective." This line of argument misses the point. In general, people should act to achieve their values (which makes them happy). That's an objective moral virtue. The fact that different people have different *specific* values is beside the point, unless you're talking about drastic differences such as valuing murder or theft, etc...

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
As a Christian, the source of that completness is God, and He is constant. Just something to think about...



[/ QUOTE ]

Your fairy tales really add nothing to the conversation at all. Dress up "happiness" however you want, but it doesn't add anything meaningful. Just something to think about.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
We've already established that we are speaking of "true happiness" and not "bliss" or "pleasure". That being said, another word for this "true happiness" is "joy" or "fulfillment". As a Christian, the source of that completness is God, and He is constant. Just something to think about...

[/ QUOTE ]

As a non-Christian, the source of true happiness is my internal state of mind -- which is, of course, affected by numerous things including my relationship with others and various other things. This is true for you, too... but for you, your belief in God is very high on your list of things that makes you happy.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
When we talk about morality being subjective or objective, we're asking the question, "Can opposite actions in identical circumstances be morally equal?". If the answer is yes, then one action could be right for one person but wrong for the other in *identical* circumstances (that point is important).

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless by "*identical* circumstances", you mean the person(s) also have to be identical, then I disagree with you. And, if you DO mean the persons(s) involved have to be identical, then the word "subjective" is meaningless in this context.

Albert comes across a man that was thrown from a car during a crash. Albert doesn't know about neck injuries, and that you shouldn't move someone, else you risk paralyzing them. I submit it would therefore not be immoral for Albert to pick up the man and drive him the the hospital.

Bob sees the same man. Bob, though, knows that moving someone with a neck injury can cause paralysis. It would be wrong, then, for Bob to pick up the man and drive him to the hospital.

The point is: RIGHT and WRONG, from my perspective, are heavily dependent upon the motives and intentions of the person involved. Motives and intentions are dependent upon the person involved -- their background, mental state, emotions, knowledge, and beliefs.

So, I'll ask direct questions:

1) When you say "*identical* circumstances", do you mean the people involved must be identical?

2) If so, why? And, don't you think the word "subjective" then becomes meaningless in that case?

3) Do you think a person's background, mental state, emotions, knowledge, and beliefs affects their motives and intentions for a certain action? If not, why not?

4) Do you think someone's motives and intentions is a factor in whether something is "moral" or "immoral"? If not, why not?

NOTE: I am NOT saying morality is purely subjective. One of the factors in my moral code that I'm still "fuzzy" on, is to what extent we expect someone to know what is "good" and what is "bad"? How learned/educated (on moral/ethical issues, and other areas that may play a factor into moral decisions) do we expect people to be? And is it immoral if they aren't? Anyway... I digress.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) When you say "*identical* circumstances", do you mean the people involved must be identical?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. As you said, that'd be meaningless.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Do you think a person's background, mental state, emotions, knowledge, and beliefs affects their motives and intentions for a certain action? If not, why not?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Do you think someone's motives and intentions is a factor in whether something is "moral" or "immoral"? If not, why not?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course.

In the example you gave, I wouldn't consider the circumstances to be identical since the two people have different amounts of medical knowledge. In order to make a case for subjective morality, you would have to create a situation in which both men DO have the same amount of medical knowledge, but one acts while the other does not because of a difference in *values*. Both men in your example are clearly acting to help the victim as much as they can. They're both trying to achieve the same goal and thus have the same moral value. A better example would be one of the men *not* doing what he thought would help because the victim was black/gay/Muslim, etc... (pick anything). If you said that not helping was okay since he personally didn't like black/gay/Muslim people, then you'd be saying morality was subjective.

Re: Absolute Morals and evolution
 

OK. Let me try to summarize your answers:

Someone's motives & intentions is a factor in determining whether an action is moral or immoral. Their motives are affected by their background, mental state, emotions, knowledge, and beliefs. "Identical circumstances" need not have identical people.

I guess instead of "identical people", I should have asked do the people involved need to have the same background, mental state, emotions, knowledge, and beliefs?

Because, you then say:

[ QUOTE ]
In the example you gave, I wouldn't consider the circumstances to be identical since the two people have different amounts of medical knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, at least in the case of "knowledge", you are saying that makes the situation different. So, then, would the people involved need to have the same background, mental state, emotions, and beliefs (in addition to the same knowledge)? If so, then isn't this pretty much the same person, then? If not, which of those things must the people have in common to make the situation identical?

[ QUOTE ]
In order to make a case for subjective morality, you would have to create a situation in which both men DO have the same amount of medical knowledge, but one acts while the other does not because of a difference in *values*.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why "subjective" means only a difference in *values*. Even then, values are at least partially resultant from a person's knowledge, background, and beliefs, aren't they? So, difference in knowledge will sometimes mean a difference in values.

But, OK... if I must... here goes:

Albert lives next door to a woman. He has seen this woman bring in a variety of men, and has heard lots of noises during what he supposes are sexual encounters. Moans, screams, "gitty-up cowboy", etc. On one occassion, he sees a man enter her house, and a bit later hears moans and screams. He puts on his headphones as usual, since he values privacy, and doesn't want to eavesdrop during his neighbor's sexual acts. The next day, he finds out the woman had been murdered, and that her screams were for help.

Bob lives next to the same woman. He hears the same things, but he doesn't really value privacy. He's into voyerism, and so he listens and sometimes even peeks into the windows. This night, he hears the screams, so he goes to check it out. He sees a man with a knife tieing her up and slapping her around. He calls the police, and saves the woman's life.

Did Albert act morally? Did Bob? Why or why not?