Moral Subjectivism - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Yakk · 10-03-2005, 01:24 PM

What if you examine the question functionally.

Why do you care if objective morals exist or not?

Is there a way to determine if a moral is objective or subjective?

Is there any feature that an objective moral has that a subjective moral cannot have?

Then again, there is the world of game theory. While game theory is not 'morality', it contains an examination in the realm of pure logic that would naively be classified as moral questions.

If one can examine "moral questions" without resorting to pre-existing "moral rules" or axioms, then this implies it might be possible to derive "moral rules" or axioms objectively.

Thirdly, there are rules like "drive on the right side of the road." It could be possible that, given knowledge of this rule, driving on the left side of the road was objectively morally wrong, but the side of the roat that is wrong to drive on was subjectively decided by the culture.

In which case, the question "is driving on the right side of the road an objective or subjective moral question?" might not be a true/false question. It could be possible that this kind of convolution of subjective and objective morality may be the rule, not the exception.

Halx, can you describe what you consider the difference between morals and ethics, formally? Is this division more than just a personal convention?

Next, there is the interaction of 'accepted morals' and 'effective society'. Given a set of physical laws and initial conditions, the set of likely 'effective societies' may be constrained, and the interaction of 'accepted morals' of the likely 'effective societies' may be large enough to emulate an 'objective morality'.

Francisco · 10-03-2005, 02:33 PM

"Next, there is the interaction of 'accepted morals' and 'effective society'. Given a set of physical laws and initial conditions, the set of likely 'effective societies' may be constrained, and the interaction of 'accepted morals' of the likely 'effective societies' may be large enough to emulate an 'objective morality'."

Well put, although until existing cultures become less diverse, the problem of how to
come up with a viable set of values in any particular society at present, without relying on someone discovering a universally applicable or acceptable set of such values. will require another means of solution.

Secular humanists, for example, have tried to come up with such a solution as a replacement for religion-based tenets (or perhaps I should have said religious doctrine), but so far such attempts seem to me to have come up short, with results based on hope more than on anything that could be called science.

10-03-2005, 01:24 PM	#41 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	What if you examine the question functionally. Why do you care if objective morals exist or not? Is there a way to determine if a moral is objective or subjective? Is there any feature that an objective moral has that a subjective moral cannot have? Then again, there is the world of game theory. While game theory is not 'morality', it contains an examination in the realm of pure logic that would naively be classified as moral questions. If one can examine "moral questions" without resorting to pre-existing "moral rules" or axioms, then this implies it might be possible to derive "moral rules" or axioms objectively. Thirdly, there are rules like "drive on the right side of the road." It could be possible that, given knowledge of this rule, driving on the left side of the road was objectively morally wrong, but the side of the roat that is wrong to drive on was subjectively decided by the culture. In which case, the question "is driving on the right side of the road an objective or subjective moral question?" might not be a true/false question. It could be possible that this kind of convolution of subjective and objective morality may be the rule, not the exception. Halx, can you describe what you consider the difference between morals and ethics, formally? Is this division more than just a personal convention? Next, there is the interaction of 'accepted morals' and 'effective society'. Given a set of physical laws and initial conditions, the set of likely 'effective societies' may be constrained, and the interaction of 'accepted morals' of the likely 'effective societies' may be large enough to emulate an 'objective morality'. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

10-03-2005, 02:33 PM	#42 (permalink)
Francisco Banned	"Next, there is the interaction of 'accepted morals' and 'effective society'. Given a set of physical laws and initial conditions, the set of likely 'effective societies' may be constrained, and the interaction of 'accepted morals' of the likely 'effective societies' may be large enough to emulate an 'objective morality'." Well put, although until existing cultures become less diverse, the problem of how to come up with a viable set of values in any particular society at present, without relying on someone discovering a universally applicable or acceptable set of such values. will require another means of solution. Secular humanists, for example, have tried to come up with such a solution as a replacement for religion-based tenets (or perhaps I should have said religious doctrine), but so far such attempts seem to me to have come up short, with results based on hope more than on anything that could be called science.