The debate on the reality of objective morality aside, most seem to agree that whether or not the belief in objective morality is correct or good for them personally, it is good for society. An over simplification of this argument is that if most people didn’t believe in objective morality then they would do whatever they wanted to. I agree there would be instances of that, but I question whether society as a whole would suffer.
It seems to be that most, despite their belief in objective morality, still do whatever they think is best for themselves, and when morality even becomes an issue, they just pick and choose the so-called objective justification needed from all the ones already written or being spoken of. So if morality is objective it in no way guarantees that most, if anyone, are going to follow it or even know what the objectively right decisions are.
I would suggest that the belief that morality can only be subjective doesn’t necessarily, nor likely, diminish a moral sense. When one only believes in subjective morality then they can only use themselves to justify their beliefs.
I think that given certain goals, certain ways of doing things work better than other ways. And it’s quite possible that we all have the same (generically the same, at least – possibly at most) goal in the end. Buddhists such as myself express this generic quality as “all sentient beings want to be happy”. It’s kind of definitional, almost. If you are sentient, you are defined as a being whose actions always relate to the search for satisfaction. So if the goal of all sentient beings is satisfaction, there are surely ways of doing things that help to achieve satisfaction, ways of doing things that hinder the ability to achieve satisfaction, ways of doing things that are inconsequential to the pursuit, etc. In other words, we can look at satisfaction itself, rather than secondary goals such as a good meal, a happy marriage, good job, etc. A good meal, for instance, only leads to (short term) satisfaction if many other factors are all aligned. On the other hand, some people seem to be more or less satisfied no matter which kinds of situation they find themselves in. I think it is helpful to society to learn such skills, which can be based on an understanding of the objective factors which lead to fulfillment. Personally, I don’t think such an approach should be confused with whatever is meant by “objective morality”.
I wonder if, instead of having a ‘justice’ system based on morality – which tends to produce ideas like ‘people should be punished for their crimes’ which is pretty much ‘revenge’ – we had a ‘justice’ system that didn’t actually concern itself with achieving justice for victims, or ‘morality’ as such, but just MAKING THE WORLD BETTER.
I mean, seriously, the current so-called ‘justice’ system takes a criminal, incubates him for a few years, and spits him out a more angry, more violent, more motivated criminal than he was when he went in. People are significantly more likely to commit crimes after they’ve been in prison than before, and their crimes often get worse. What the hell is this? This isn’t the product of a system trying to make the world better, this is the product of a system that’s blind to concepts of improvement, because all it concerns itself with is ‘justice’ and ‘morality’ and garbage like that that often has nothing to do with making the world better.
So, I wonder if a rejection of objective morality system-wide (not a feasible thing to happen, just speaking hypothetically here) could produce a system that’s responsive to science, responsive to studies, responsive to “Hey, this is what you’re doing, these are the results it’s producing and they SUCK, so let’s try something different.” The current system isn’t responsive to that. You show any politician or judge a study showing the effects of prison on a so-called criminal, show them any statistics that demonstrate that they’re doing something wrong, and they don’t care, because it’s not about that, it’s not about doing things right, it’s not about improving the world, it’s about justice. Fuck justice.
Anon, I don’t entirely know what people mean when they use the term objective morality either; I used to believe in it when I believed in God, that is a God who is a conscious being. Looking back I now realize that even with the belief in God morality could only be subjective. Assuming happiness could simply be the common denominator, I don’t think the right actions to achieve this goal could ever be found, not even close.
Being that you aren’t going to just assume you know what objective morality means, as I did above for the sake of simplicity, I’ll adjust the question. If your philosophy, as stated above, was well known and accepted, would it be helpful to society as a whole?
Personally I don’t think it would. Even if one’s morality is based on the belief in the practicality of the goal for an objective form of happiness for everyone, rather than on the “objective” moral guidelines made by others, I still think that things aren’t as likely, on average, to go as well as if people simply cast aside such thoughts and just went with whatever decision they honestly thought was best at any given moment. But, I’m not certain that I’m correct on this new form of my question.
FJ, I realize that you may agree with anon’s idea of morality rather than mine, with my use of the term “subjective”, but I think that I agree somewhat. I believe the idea of subjective morality would also be more helpful than that of objective morality in terms of legislation. Legislation is about what the voters want; not what is right by anyone else’s standards.
Perhaps you missed it – I did say that I think it would be helpful to society as a whole. But you have to understand – you talk about people casting aside such thoughts and just going with whatever decision they honestly thought was the best at any given moment, and you and I might end up making exactly the same decisions. But my caveat to this is that some kind of knowledge is required. There’s no reason to assume that people are best left to their own devices. Look at alcoholism, for instance. Let’s start by ridding the issue of any moral “objectivity”. In other words, it’s not right or wrong to drink, it’s not right or wrong to get drunk, and it’s not right or wrong to become dependent on alcohol. But addiction always or at least generally causes (is) suffering, for oneself and for others. I don’t think very many people would argue that the alcoholic’s securing of his next drink is the best step he could take in securing some kind of happiness for himself. Another example: if I want to be happy, and the views of others cause me to be unhappy, does it make sense to try to change everyone’s views to match mine? Or does it make more sense to adjust my own requirements? This way of thinking may come naturally to many people, but not to everyone. And it can be taught. Also, these are just a couple very easy to understand examples, but the kind of recommendations that will really work for people can be more explicit and more difficult to understand.
I think that thinking of one set of moral rules as “subjective” and others as “objective” is just the whole wrong way to look at morality.
The fact that both view have their respective rules because rules are an integral part of a moral system, means that there is objectivity in both sides.
The fact that either side could come to the same end result by interpreting their rules according to their own beliefs and experiences means that there is subjectivity on both sides.
I see a lot of talk about “objective” morals as if they are in some way on a higher plane than “subjective” ones. But I don’t see a whole lot of explanation for this…and I think it’s because the whole concept is based on a flawed understanding of what morality is and how it works.
Yup. And that’s how it is anyway, even with the so-called “objective” standard.
“Objective” is just a flashy word for consensus agreement; “objectively,” it means almost nothing, since the idea of “consensus agreement” is itself rather vague and impossible, and ultimately subject to one’s subjective awareness and assessment anyway.
Anon, I’ll admit that I’m having some trouble understanding your arguments, but that’s probably my fault being it’s a problem I often have in discussions on similar topics. I believe in your first post you were saying that skills that people should learn is that they should look at the big picture and how to do so effectively, and I realize that’s an oversimplification. I agree that people should learn to do that. What I disagree with is that people should take those ideas too seriously. But, I prefer them by far to simply following “objective truths”.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in your second post you seem to be saying that their are some guidelines that can be set for people to follow to help insure the welfare of themselves and others. I certainly believe there should be laws, but as for guidelines, I believe in theory they would be great I just think they are so far from practical to be nearly useless to even consider.
An alcoholic probably knows that quitting would lead to greater happiness, but assuming they don’t it seems very subjective, after all things considered, whether one should tell them that or not. Many may not know that it’s best to change their mind rather than try to change others. On a personal level I would tell anyone that they’d be better of going with the common perceptions, but I wouldn’t tell them that with the idea that it would necessarily make anyone happier in the long run. The reason I’d give that advice is that I have a disposition that comes from thinking differently than people around me and suffering because of it and because I wouldn’t want to give any friend advice that is likely to hurt them in the short term leading me to have to hear about it.
I’m not one to use Wiki that often, but I just typed in “objective morality” there, they have no listing for it, but can you look at the suggestions they gave without laughing? Please explain objective morality to me, I was hoping von Rivers would, I read his 5 page essay on it, but it went way over my head.
When you say “quitting would lead to greater happiness”, you agree with me. When you talk about people “casting aside such thoughts and just going with whatever decision they honestly thought was the best at any given moment”, you are saying that that there are better and worse ways of approaching certain kinds of problems. But you seem to imply, I think, that these problems can only be approached by individuals, privately, as if they exist in completely closed worlds. I wasn’t really getting into whether you should tell an alcoholic that he should quit drinking or not. There’s a lot of skill and judgment involved in relating to others. And it’s not 100% clear that he really should quit drinking.
Well it’s not just one thing. There are different theories of objective morality, like anything else. If you specifically want Rivers’ take, I’d think it best if he did the explaining. The common theme seems to be the belief that we make moral decisions based on objective criteria. They tend to differ when it comes to explaining where that criteria comes from.
If that were true, then von Rivers would agree with what I’ve said here in this thread. Personally, I can’t understand a word von Rivers says, so I’m not so sure his own explanation would provide any insight.
I think the best way to approach this problem in understanding would be to ask…
How do subjectivity and objectivity come into play in the moral sphere?
Then we get like 1000 answers and narrow them down to the 3 possible things that can be said, then pick the best articulation of it and we’re done. No more subjective morality/objective morality nonsense.
I mean I’ve recently made it a point to start actually reading some of the stuff here guys…and I gotta tell ya…I think I’m better off just talking about smoking weed and shit…
Twilight…honestly…seriously…don’t fuck with me…are you trolling us?