I’ve got a question:
Suppose moral value is held in what has meaning to the individual. Would values then be subjective or objective?
They could be subjective, because then different things would have different views of being “right” or “wrong” to different people.
However, they could also be objective, because then you could treat a person “absolutely good” or “absolutely bad” based on what they value.
I’d love to get responses.
all attraction is baced on ideology therfore is baced on untangable beliefs.
A 9 year old bride is unthinkable for a professor of philosophy in London. For a Saudi royal prince it may simply be the law of the land. This concept is what impenitent argued against me on ‘tolerance’.
But then came the(or a better) arbitrator…
The law of the land is baced on the prioreties of the man who created the law. It needs to be respected as nothing more then the desires of the man who created a law.
What the law means is up to you. Tolerance of ignorance isn’t tolerance, but enabling.
What means means is up to me. That won’t change the impact of jagged rocks at the end of the abyss waiting to impale those who fall in too deep.
It is in part because of ignorance one needs tolerance.
yet people use tolerance to say we cannot question what people choose.
I like your thinking here because I’ve thought about subjectivity/objectivity and what it might mean.
I think we have a subjective objectivity about us and a objective subjectivity.
What is objective really?
I think objectivity is used by subjective people for their own gain or someone’s gain. There really isn’t anything that is objective entirely. We are, by our very nature at present, a subjective species. One who thinks for himself, eats for himself, excretes for himself, etc. One objective way of acting does not exist at the present.
Are there moral objective ideas and values?
WE have yet to universalize any objective values which is due to our diversity, culture, beliefs etc. Some may believe their beliefs are objective but this is utterly false.
The only sense of objectivity I know within my subjective realm is that we have no objectivity.
The question I ask is what good could come out of knowing objectivity?
Can we all really know and believe in objectivity? (WE seem to be of the ’ believing type at this stage)
There will come a time when we do know objectivity and then universals truths will follow.
You can absolutely question a choice and be tolerant!
People (on all sides) generally believe there is a correct and incorrect choice to make in a given subjective individual situation. The extent of certainty about that choice being incorrect is related to tolerance.
Then comes an arbitrator- time. 
I think I’m gonna have to agree as far as objective subjectivity/subjective objectivity goes.
See, here’s my dilemma:
If values are objective, then there is an absolute “right and wrong”: it doesn’t matter if something is or isn’t practical, pleasurable, beneficial, etc. its either right or its wrong.
But then if values are subjective, then there is no right or wrong at all, only what people think. A bit dangerous, considering someone could think ‘rape/murder/dishonesty/etc. is OK.’
I think a combination of objective and subjective thinking is important, and I think the best way to approach that is to respect everyones ideals so long as those respect others.
If History is any indicator, Religion will still be with us for awhile and hence those subjective “values” will accompany humans. If one is not religious some sort of “right” and “wrong” will be learned beginning in childhood that provides a sort of right/wrong value system. Once questioned, however through examination in adulthood or earlier, this foundation is shaken and replaced by a more idealistic state of living that is unique to each individual.
The process of questioning handed down beliefs and then research of religion/beliefs/values as well as deep contemplation, and finally coming to a mix of what one did believe as the one true faith or set of values and their newfound discoveries, all should occur within a lifetime or ideally before one makes any moral choices that alter ones life dramatically. A complete refutation of one’s said beliefs can also be achieved for the betterment of the individual if one truly understands the leap one made from their childhood beliefs to their current beliefs. Our future selves will resemble our former selves for quite awhile.
Unfortunately however, this process, as I’ve experienced it, comes to a state of uncertainty as to how to compile these “moral values” appropriately and act in accordance to them. I suppose they can all be written down, but this would take immense time and much research that an entire lifetime would require. Fortunately for us, there have been great minds and I say “great” subjectively, like Emerson, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Einstein, and the like who have spent their lives trying to know “truth” so that we at the present can come to a better understanding as to what was valued then, what is valued now, and what will be valued in the future.
So what is the best way to instill values universally? As of now we have religion that operates quite well as it strikes fear in those disobedient of those teachings. Anything else? Normally no. So how can we transition from God fearing (Primitive puritan phase or PPP) to ( Universal Ethics based on reason, examination, contemplation.) Perhaps a touch of secular humanism is the next step. We’re still in the same phase as you know, of “burn in hell if you don’t believe” mentality. This is stupidity at it’s finest.
But until it can be replaced secular humanism is just a nice way of saying “good person” without god. This isn’t good enough. Or is it?
Education will solve or at least attempt to solve this way of thinking primitively. Instead a new spirituality might be born. One that isn’t filled with one myth. One God. And one book. It will be filled with the world’s wisdom and it will be subject to change as we grow.
We’re also conformist creatures (for the most part) and so this makes inclines us to believe what others seem to believe is “right” and “wrong.”
The grip of those claimed to be religious still are remnants of thousands of years of irrationality. However this irrationality is replaced by good feelings! Feelings of security, comfort, belongingness, family, and the largest one: A life after this one that is beyond “good.” This “religion” is designed and has evolved much like Dennet has stated, like that of beings that have too evolved.
Tell me what would you want: Rational thoughts or Dionysian Feelings?!
Humans are built to “feel” and to “think” but what happens when these two clash? It is the biological impulse(s) that take over “ourselves” For example driving when tired. The body shuts down automatically regardless if you will yourself to stay awake. No matter how hard one tries it will still “know” better than I know that it needs to “shut down” all thoughts and willpower.
In a way ethics, values, universal objectives are idealistic forms of ourselves. The manifestation of what is good to everyone wants to be objective, but our “feelings” and “impulses” stand in our way of being cold calculated rational thinkers all the time.
There are many problems with religious absolutes, but one of the ones that stands out is that it appeals too much to emotion and faith and not enough to rationale. There is an imbalance of the two.
Those atheists who preach against theism and God are going about it the wrong way! Dawkins, Hitchens, et all are all trying to appeal to peoples reason which has in fact built up immunity to these “infidels.” Atheists need to be less cold and calculated and firm about their “beliefs”, and realize that those they’re trying to convert intoxicated individuals. At once they need to be detoxed of their previous belief(s). An open mind is vital to bringing about change. Without one and with religion there will be little hope in agreeing upon what is valued universally.
Mental Edge:
If we declare ‘value’ to be something which individuals ‘hold,’ then it’s not subjective. As you’re implying, they become objective by virtue of the metaphor: a value as relating to anything indicating that value is held to be by some subject.
But do individuals even have real opinions of this kind – that is, the cosmic metaphysical, or categorical moral kind? Today, after all, there’s a tremendous loosening of moral certainties, of faith in tradition and convention. Many more people are starting to say: “We can create our own values.”
God is dead, and with him, the ruling class; and with that, the family. Without a consistent family structure, without the rigid government of families by strong male figures, society begins to degenerate. We no longer know how to venerate ideals, or suppose a standard outside of us has value or merit. In short, we’ve quit listening to authority. We laugh contemptuously when someone attempts to claim something objectively, implying their knowledge is based on truth; everyone knows truth is subjective!
Most of our students come into the institution completely aware they’re ‘decentered’ subjects. This stuff is all over the place: you can see it in Lyotard, Guattari, Sartre, Badiou, Derrida, Baudrillard, Deleuze… the list is as long as you like. All very smart people who more or less are telling us that the future is ours to make, with our own ideas, our own hands. What philosophy provides is a universal conception of value, one which is disinterested in the revolutionary sense of being an impersonal ethical motivation: for the betterment of the future. And the task of philosophy is a vital conceptual one: distinguishing good ideas from bad ones.
joekoba:
It’d be difficult to do justice to your entire statement. Let me say I definitely agree in spirit with your comment about ‘zealous’ athetists. But I would just like to ask why you’re distinguishing so rigidly between rational ideas or concepts, and liberated desires or feelings. What if they evolve out of one another, or require one another to reproduce…?
I mean, what if a good idea is really just a sort of chemical balance of various affections (sensual, aesthetic, political, sexual, etc.) – and we ‘believe’ whatever ‘smells good’ to us? This would account for the most common subjective error, wherein we tend only to question a thinker’s position when it’s unpleasant to us, and not – as would be more reasonable – to question it precisely when it does seem pleasant to us.
I think there are too many laws that get too detailed that they are silly. Like a ban on people who wear baggy pants for instance (not from my imagination btw).
There should really be only one general law that follows something like this-
‘Anything that harms another person or a persons’ property is illegal.’
Of course this is very generalized, but it should be the base of all laws. It’s very objective, whereas a subjective law would be like the one I mentioned above.
[b]Let me be clear these feelings can definitely result in the production of 'good ideas," and rational thought and vice versa eventually.
The distinction between the two that should be made is that when one uses emotion such as sadness, for example, to “believe” that if they pray for a loved one who has passed, they expect that there is an imaginary figure who is listening to them without evidence for such a being. There is no examination of these beliefs, but to to human emotion (sadness) they’d like to be comforted and consoled by the fact that indeed there is someone listening.
The issue here is that emotion can blind and bias rational thought in the process of finding reasonable truths. Another example (hatred) if girlfriend cheats on me, i will be angry and I would feel this emotion and want to act on it by 1. murder 2. Break up. 3. try to mend things despite this fact. 4 Cheat on her to make me feel better.
There are reasonable and unreasonable actions here. And then there are moral actions that my reasonableness would influence as which are appropriate in the given situation as well as practical, emotional, financial ones etc (short term long term effects). I might feel like murdering her, but the negatives would outweigh the positives and my emotion would have to be unleashed in another way (boxing exercise or other)[/b]
I mean, what if a good idea is really just a sort of chemical balance of various affections (sensual, aesthetic, political, sexual, etc.) – and we ‘believe’ whatever ‘smells good’ to us? This would account for the most common subjective error, wherein we tend only to question a thinker’s position when it’s unpleasant to us, and not – as would be more reasonable – to question it precisely when it does seem pleasant to us.
[/b] I would hope individuals question most of all their own beliefs instead of only those beliefs that are newfound upon discovery. I believe Nietzsche stated something to this effect that teachers should encourage this challenge of questioning the most common accepted teachings instead of just challenging those who did not believe in the most popular school of thought.
I’m not quite sure about a chemical balance that influences my way of thinking and beliefs. I’m uncertain if this would be a significant part of how one reasons and ‘believes.’
Rigorous examination and re-examination as well as contemplation of one’s own beliefs, reasoning and emotions is necessary for growth. I see emotions as a hindrance to rational thought, and rational thought a hindrance to emotion because of their inherent natures. When I’m angry I do not think rationally, when I’m in thought, sometimes emotion does seep in and can shed light upon this concept or idea. However it does not advance the idea, but does bring it to life.
When I ‘feel’ the need to believe in something higher than myself (God) I go over in my head the irrationality of such a thing existing and proceed in reading philosophy or something else that fulfills this ‘need’ or ‘feeling.’
Hope this makes sense. (feeling a bit hot and tired)
So your saying it’s impossiable to feel the peace of God. Then there is the joy of God. Then there is the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Then there is the love of God you feel from worship. All can be more intence then anything you might imagine.
Your right here. Logic leads emotion. It’s all a matter of perception. Yet your perception is closed off to a line of logic that feels comfortable to you.
Learning to understand yourself.
Aspects of self
All you are is what you do in life.
___Spiritual, physical appreciation, hobbies and interests.
Spirituality in Love. This has a hierarchy of needs,… including being in God will and love. Then personal love. Then things you love to do.
___Physical appreciation. Like the fact that you have to work out for a couple of months until you learn to appreciate the side effects of the workout routine.
___Hobbies and interests. Finding things you love to do, witch motivates you to become self taught in order to succeed at goals. Technique is 98%of life.
Examples of extreme self’s (cycle of disaster)
___Why do people turn to violence during relationship problems? The answer is in the reward. The reward is a release of adrenaline and therefore endorphins. The reward can be a quieted, submissive partner.
___The problem is that it doesn’t solve the problem. The frustration that results in anger is from an underlining problem that festers. They cannot find a healthy solution to the problem. So when the problem rises, and they don’t want to deal with it, they lash out to a temporary solution that subdues the side effects. Thus the underlining frustration is aloud to build, and the victimizer hits the same brick wall harder and harder.
___The bully has certain self-esteem issues. Usually, they want to be something they are not. So they generate an array of people, and pick on people on the lower side of the array. In this they hope to tear down people with the same level of confidence (self esteem) so they can feel bigger comparatively. They are trying to establish dominance on the level of emotional reward. This is a huge sign of insecurity. Violent bullies are probably used to being beat themselves.
___This is a cycle because it doesn’t solve the problem, thus the underlining problem builds,… in that the frustration of going no where builds, or the euphoric recall of the twisted joy of hurting other makes them try harder and harder to get the same level of joy.
___Anorexics want the reward of fitting in. Yet this reward need is in everyone who values looks over personality. It is prominent in people who get their main source of joy in socializing. Basically, anorexics train themselves to ignore the pain of hunger. This is rewarded by getting closer to a social standard of beauty. So to eat is to cancel out this reward. Yet, since it doesn’t actually make life better, they don’t know when to stop???
___The very need to fit in will drive people to never feel beautiful enough no matter how many steps they take to change their physical appearance. They lack a level of self-confidence that can only come from being loved for who you are. But I want to establish who you are, is what you do in life. This is where real self confidence comes from,… succeeding at something you like. The problem is when you have irrational goals. Or irrational means to obtain your goals. You can never succeed and therefore will be hopeless, in many ways.
Moral value is having correct priorities, like in the spiritual hierarchy.
You can tell a man’s heart by the things he’s attracted to. And you can tell a man’s heart by what they will do in hard times.
I can perceive that God exists certainly, but this does not make my God true and yours untrue, although we’d have a commonality. Reasoning past the necessity for God is a journey only you can take.
right/wrong in terms of morality are entirely subjective…i.e. relative to the individual. I’ve never seen a reasoned argument that supports otherwise, anyone can feel free to try. By definition, it’s relative.
What confuses people is that humans tend to want the same things as a species, so it appears that these wants/desires are universal. They aren’t.
-Mach
The anointing of the Holy Spirit is more emence then any mortal feeling. It comes from within like a mortal feeling. But is supernatural in nature.
You, I can say, were never close enough to God to feel the utmost of a relationship with God.
Take into consideration that praying for your enemies to die,… every day for a month,… will slowly evolve your prayers into blessing your enimies. This is the effect of the presence of God.
When you are in the presence of God, and you leave with the good feeling. This residual effect will disapear when you feel things (traveling down old thought patterens) that are contradictory to God. This shows it is not up to the perception of the user. But these feelings are actual spiritual opposites that contradict each other.
The whole truth of God, is that God has a purpose and mothodology that isn’t up to human perception. In fact human definition tends to limit the reality of God. So your perception of God could be further off from the truth then mine.
First off humans have desires to be then biochemical robots. Animals are naturally content with their surroundings, as long as their biochemical needs are met.
The human soul is an energy independent of matter. Thus it merely charges parts of the brain to react to spiritual feelings physically. Thus science takes the side effects of the soul and says they are the cause. Does an animal show love,… or just mere appreciation. I’ve seen animals paint. What part of the brain causes us abstract interpetation of reality? They don’t. They are one with nature because they are nature. We are unnatural and have to learn the flow of nature in order to work with it.
We are born with love. We just become caloused to love in order to protect ourselves. Evil is calousness.
I like what you’re saying, man, but I’m still unclear. You’re saying we want to be robots…? Or that we are robots, since we’re responding to constructed, cultivated desires produced within us (the desire to be safe, to be loved, to be redeemed)? Or even that when we become callous, we become jealous machines – because there’s no love in our souls, only guilt and envy: we’re zombie-like fiends seeking only to capture and conquer?
If we’re born with the capacity to love, we’re born with the capacity to hate. They’d mean nothing without each other. True love is fragile, strange and sublime: it is not human nature to aspire towards either hate or love – it’s always both; they’re born together. Love/hate is not a dualism like brain/soul, unless you’re just saying you hate your body and you love your soul. Which I think would be ignoring the more profound meaning of the soul: which is that part of us in us more than us, that part which responds to a calling. We become responsible through the call of the other; we cannot evade this, it demands us at our best, but it is not a choice. We are free not to believe in God. But we are not free to murder the other – this is still an ethical impossibilty…