What is the nature of Morality (started from a youtube vid)

Is morality objective, subjective (relative), or non-existent? And what is the consequence of your position?

Here is the beginning of the conversation.

Kanthandleit

If Morality is universal, then you would expect everyone to have the same morality as you. yes? that everyone in the world would have the same core moral values? So why did the entire society of Germany in the holocaust think that killing jews was ok, and even moral? It just seems that your argument there was weak.


ThePsychoticnut

If something is true does that mean that everyone believes it? Of course not! It's the same with morality. Just because you don't believe something you are doing is immoral doesn't mean it's not immoral. one more thing I can't give you exact facts but I don't believe "the entire society of Germany in the holocaust" thought killing jews was ok. I believe most people throughout that society just didn't want to get involved since it would have meant persecution for themselves.


billburns2

This is a good point. Morality is not universal. What is acceptable in one society is abhorrent in another. The Libertarian ethos stumbles when you have a person or group of people who exercise their freedom to be "immoral" (according to others). Even if you boil all morality down to the two Libertarian mantras of "don't take another's property" or "don't initiate force", they would still end up enforcing those mantras by having MEN WITH GUNS


ThePsychoticnut

That's true. In our present condition we will need a protection force to maintain any society for long. Hopefully some day we might evolve past that but such is not the case at the present. The difference in the Libertarian society though is that those "MEN WITH GUNS" would be part of an industry of defense providers rather than thugs that rob and enslave you in order to provide this service regardless of what you think of them. Also most people would likely carry guns themselves for protection.

I wouldn't necessarily say that morality isn't universal either. Just because a complete set of moral guidelines aren't universally accepted doesn't mean that a universally applicable moral guideline can't be reasoned to through logic and a knowledge of the nature of man and how they relate with each other.


billburns2

You're missing the point. Doesn't matter if the men with guns are from the state or a private company, they will still be used to force you to do something that will be against your will.

as for morals, the examples are endless. 300 years ago it was moral to physically mutilate criminals
100 years ago it was moral to send 8 year olds up chimneys
Today it's immoral to drink in a moslem country

Time and society changes moral outlook.


ThePsychoticnut

You're right. I must be missing the point cuz I don't understand your hang up. If I attempt to violate someone else's rights I should be forced to desist.

As for the other subject: 300 years ago sickness was caused by an imbalance of humors. 100 years ago space travel was impossible. My point is just because it's commonly believed doesn't make it so.

Also just because something's legal doesn't make it moral. More precisely just because it's forbidden by a dictator doesn't make it immoral.

I don't think moral relativism is any more valid than logical relativism. Truth and reality are what they are. As our understanding of the world expand so will our understanding of science, human nature, morality, reason, etc. Just as those who deny evolution because "the science isn't in" are incorrect so are those who say that morality doesn't exist or is relative because a full understanding of the subject is not yet attainable.


billburns2

"just because it's commonly believed doesn't make it so"

I absolutely agree. The problem is when you claim to be able to use logic to get to the bottom of everything. Logic is based on things that you believe to be true.
Not so long ago it was entirely logical to assume that time was a constant. We now know better.
Believing something to be true doesn't make it so.

I don't really get where you're going with this...


ThePsychoticnut (My response not posted in the youtube comments)

I'm glad that we have come to an understanding concerning the existence of objective reality. I don't know why you can't figure out where I'm going with my comments though. I have said several times that I believe that morals can be objectively reached through logic.

Minor issues of etiquette such as whether I blow on hot soup or slurp it can change from culture to culture but murder, theft, slavery? All of these things are known the world over as being immoral because they can be reasoned to objectively. Sure there are instances where people will commit these acts not thinking they are being immoral. This is not, I believe, because they don't think those actions are evil however. It is because they have falsely reasoned that the actions they are taking are either justified or not actually fitting in the definition of those heinous acts.

Take taxes for instance. Taxes are theft. Yet they permeate every culture on the globe. why? Because people have been convinced not that theft is moral, or even that it is moral in this case, but rather that they are not theft. Had a culture not considered theft immoral that would still not invalidate my argument since, for one, the culture wouldn't last long; and two, that wouldn't change the fact that it is immoral as evidenced by the fact that those looking in would still see the theft committed as wrong.

Yes false conclusions can be reached through logic with false premises. And ultimately everything breaks down to belief. However unless we can trust our senses to provide us with accurate information, then literally nothing could be known.

Therefore we must then assume our senses are providing us with accurate information and that our brains are functioning properly to use logic. This can all be evidenced through the free exchange of ideas. Thus ideas reasoned though logic which, if collaborated by others, can be said to be truth are objective then morality can be said to be objective, atleast the broadest portions of it, since most if not all persons, I believe, who have reasoned it though will include the same actions in their list of morals with only slight variation. Any major variation such as those that allowed for the holocost are usually an error in premises such as, "Jews aren't human".

If more information comes to light that would change our perception of the nature of morality then our current understanding may be amended. New information never invalidates the process or the objectivity of the endeavor though, unless that information brings into question your method. Just as with other scientific endeavors, however, just because you have reasoned and followed the scientific method to arrive at a conclusion that doesn't mean that there wont be those who disagree with your conclusion as we have seen from the global warming debate.

Are feelings & faith the same in all humans; correct it is!. but we may use it differently , according to our culture, religion, & mind. The human mind is, a receiver and converter, with no feelings, but has two open frequencies, good and bad. Now, all humans are created or evolved equally, we love and hate equally. And why, we are the only creatures that have to be, taught to walk, speak & understand.. why & what, etc?, because we are human!. The universal law, makes each of us different: feel, act, think and recognize, what`s good from evil, wrong from right. Morality come with us, we do not obtain morals with years, but being taught. J/C