Absolute Morals and evolution

[jthegreat]

[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Because if people act based on the same values, then they are acting on the same moral standards and you don't have an argument for subjective morality at all. That's the whole point. If you're going to argue that no one person's morality is better than anyone else's, you'll have to concede that there are situations in which they act different based on *different* values and each result is morally equivalent.

[ QUOTE ]
Did Albert act morally? Did Bob? Why or why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Albert did. Bob did not. Bob got lucky and poor Albert's probably going to feel guilty. Unless you're willing to argue that Bob acted morally by peeping in on his neighbor's sexual activities (regardless of the fact that in this one specific case, she was in danger), you still don't have an argument for subjective morality.

[ QUOTE ]
Because if people act based on the same values, then they are acting on the same moral standards and you don't have an argument for subjective morality at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said "ONLY values". To me, morality being *subjective* doesn't JUST mean it's based on different values. It means something may be right for one person, and wrong for someone else, because of the a lot of factors (that I've listed).


[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to argue that no one person's morality is better than anyone else's,

[/ QUOTE ]

Not arguing that.

[ QUOTE ]
...you'll have to concede that there are situations in which they act different based on *different* values and each result is morally equivalent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do think that sometimes that is true.

My analogy was flawed, I realized, because the two people took different actions based on different values. Ugh. I need the same action (to make the situation identical), based on different values. I'll use Sklansky's analogy:

* Albert believes taking your shoes off in someone's house is very distasteful, and hates it when people do that to him.
* Bob believes taking your shoes off in someone's house is polite, and pefers it when people do that in his house.
* Albert goes to Fred's house, and takes off his shoes.
* Bob goes to Fred's house, and takes off his shoes.
* Fred doesn't care either way, as long as people are trying to be respectful.

So, the same action, from two people who have different values. Did they both do the right thing? Why or why not?

(I could say that Albert leaves his shoes on, and would then argue that these two different actions are morally equivalent, because their values are different.)

NOTE: I'm not, and have never, stated that morality is ONLY subjective. But, it is certainly influenced by subjective criteria, which I've listed. Personal beliefs being a huge factor, since that will weigh heavily in someone's motives and intentions.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll use Sklansky's analogy:

* Albert believes taking your shoes off in someone's house is very distasteful, and hates it when people do that to him.
* Bob believes taking your shoes off in someone's house is polite, and pefers it when people do that in his house.
* Albert goes to Fred's house, and takes off his shoes.
* Bob goes to Fred's house, and takes off his shoes.
* Fred doesn't care either way, as long as people are trying to be respectful.

So, the same action, from two people who have different values. Did they both do the right thing? Why or why not?


[/ QUOTE ]
Let's apply this example to your definition of "right"? "Right" is defined by "good" and "good" defined by "true happiness". Whether or not somebody takes off their shoes before entering his house does not affect the "true happiness" of anyone except an emotional, fickle person. It sounds as if you are defining "good" by that which causes "bliss" to me.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
It means something may be right for one person, and wrong for someone else, because of the a lot of factors (that I've listed).


[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that, but the problem is that you're looking at specific actions instead of general principles. See your first example of the car accident victim. You attempted to show that they acted differently, making morality subjective, when it's clear that they both acted on the same principle.

[ QUOTE ]
Not arguing that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then what in the world do you mean by "subjective" morality? To what standard would they be compared?

[ QUOTE ]
(I could say that Albert leaves his shoes on, and would then argue that these two different actions are morally equivalent, because their values are different.)

[/ QUOTE ]

They're morally equivalent because Fred doesn't care. It's his house.

Once again, I understand how you're looking at this, but as I said earlier, you're neglecting to look at the fundamental principles involved.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not somebody takes off their shoes before entering his house does not affect the "true happiness" of anyone except an emotional, fickle person. It sounds as if you are defining "good" by that which causes "bliss" to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fred didn't really care about the shoes... but to purposefully disrespect someone... most people care about that, don't they? To treat someone as inferior... most people wouldn't appreciate it, and it would decrease their happiness, and probably hurt any sort of friendship that they had, right?

So, point is... Albert's values made something wrong for him to do, although it was right for Bob to do it. Different cultures have ways of interacting with each other due to a difference in values. This aspect plays a part in morality, I think.

[ QUOTE ]
Then what in the world do you mean by "subjective" morality? To what standard would they be compared?

[/ QUOTE ]

By "subjective morality", I mean that whether an action is right or wrong, depends, in part, on the people involved: their motives & intentions -- which is based, in part, on their background, mental state, emotions, knowledge, and beliefs. And, I think values are, in part, based on those things.

Can you define what you mean by "subjective morality" and please explain thoroughly what you mean by "values".

[ QUOTE ]
They're morally equivalent because Fred doesn't care. It's his house.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're being inconsistent. Are the ends/results what justify an action as being moral or immoral (in this case, Fred doesn't care about the shoes, thus the ends are the same; but in the moving the neck-injured person, the ends are very different, but you said the "principle" was the same). So, which is it? The ends, or the principle (motives/intentions)?

In Fred's case, the principles were different: one person meant to respect Fred, one meant to disrespect Fred.

I say the ends/results is what determines "good" and "bad", but the principles/intentions/motives is what determines "right" and "wrong" (perhpaps not exclusively, as I've briefly mentioned before).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It means something may be right for one person, and wrong for someone else, because of the a lot of factors (that I've listed).


[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that, but the problem is that you're looking at specific actions instead of general principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the difference of opinion, right here, I think. To me, there is only one moral principle: "act with the intent to do good". So, when I say morality is subjective, I mean those intentions to do good, are based, in part, on various subjective factors. I would say that "good" is far more objective than "right". If we could measure happiness, "good" would just be a matter of taking a reading on the "happiness meter". But, to determine if an action was "right", we must get into the psyche of the person doing the action. To me, that's much more subjective, then.

[ QUOTE ]
subjective
adj

1: taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment" (ant: objective)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
objective
adj

1: undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence" (ant: subjective)

[/ QUOTE ]

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you define what you mean by "subjective morality" and please explain thoroughly what you mean by "values".


[/ QUOTE ]

Subjective morality, in its traditional philosophical sense, is the idea that there are no objective standards by which to judge individuals' moral codes. This means that any one person's morals are just as good as any other person's. There's no way to say one is better than the other. "Right" is determined for each individual person by themselves and there is no outside standard.

Values are what we act to achieve or maintain.

[ QUOTE ]
Are the ends/results what justify an action as being moral or immoral (in this case, Fred doesn't care about the shoes, thus the ends are the same; but in the moving the neck-injured person, the ends are very different, but you said the "principle" was the same). So, which is it? The ends, or the principle (motives/intentions)?


[/ QUOTE ]

The motives/intentions are what's important. Neither men acted immorally in taking off their shoes because Fred didn't care.

[ QUOTE ]
I say the ends/results is what determines "good" and "bad", but the principles/intentions/motives is what determines "right" and "wrong" (perhpaps not exclusively, as I've briefly mentioned before).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how in the world you can differentiate between the two. Sure, actions with good intentions sometimes lead to undesirable results, but that's totally beside the point. Morality is about judging decisions, not results.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the difference of opinion, right here, I think. To me, there is only one moral principle: "act with the intent to do good". So, when I say morality is subjective, I mean those intentions to do good, are based, in part, on various subjective factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I've said numerous time, you're just ignoring general principles.
Here's more evidence:

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that "good" is far more objective than "right".

[/ QUOTE ]

You're saying this because you vaguely recognize that there *are* general principles involved here, despite the fact that acting on those principles results in different actions at times.

[NotReady]

Morality according to the high priest of evolution, Richard Dawkins :


[ QUOTE ]

I can show that from a Darwinian point of view there is more Darwinian advantage to a male in being promiscuous and a female being faithful, without saying that I therefore think human males are justified in being promiscuous and cheating on their wives. There is no logical connection between what is and what ought . .


If somebody used my views to justify a completely self-centred lifestyle, which involved trampling all over other people in any way they chose . . . I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds. . . I couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, "Well, in this society you can't get away with it" and call the police.19

As the agnostic philosopher Anthony O'Hear says of Dawkins, 'this particular Darwinian is quite unable to explain why we have an obligation to act against our 'selfish' genes.'20


[/ QUOTE ]

Here