Are judgements of any act entirely subjective?

[Neuro]

As a forum dedicated to science Hypography generally attracts a community of people more prone to be atheist. Along with being atheists, this community generally has an attitude more inclined to study science, as science is the very basis of this forum. It is with this in mind that I submit a theory to you for your speculation, opinion, thoughts on the matter, and discussion to be posted.

 

The theory, I believe, is very simple. It is a theory that one with my particular psyche is inclined to see as self evident from birth, however, I do not rely on such phrases to support my perceptions of reality. I can support this theory in many ways and would like to hear your ideas.

 

Theory: Right, wrong, morality, and ethical standards -- All false concepts that are entirely subjective.

 

When putting this theory into practice it is important not to instantly bring any specific moral to mind with a will to swear that this moral is universal and thus never subjective. For example, morals that we as beings of the 21st century may understand to be universal were typically not always the case, thus pointing to their subjectivity.

 

The list of subjective right and wrongs throughout history includes but is not limited to the following:

Slavery (existed throughout the modern world up until 1812)

Racism (existed throughout the modern world up until 1960)

Genocide (existed throughout the modern world up until present day)

Rape (at times has been sponsored and justified throughout history)

Murder (any war is arguably the orchestrated effort of mass murder on a national scale)

Thievery (Sparta is perhaps the scenario that comes to mind)

Incest (thought of as natural at one time and also depicted as the way that the descendants of Adam and Eve repopulated the earth)

Infanticide (practiced throughout the world at various points during history)

Discrimination (still supported by Christian morality throughout the west in regard to sexual orientation)

 

With this in mind, is it at all possible to argue that any morals are not subjective? Why or why not?

 

I would argue that all morals are subjective at all times. Along with this stance, I would go on to say that the current state of moral and ethical evolution has both 'similarities with' and 'individuality from' moralities of the past and potential moralities of the future.

[pgrmdave]

I do take issue with some of your times - slavery, racism, genocide, and infanticide are still widespread problems. However, I do agree that morality is subjective. It depends on what you define as 'good'. That doesn't diminish the value of morality - it doesn't mean that morality is unneeded. I would even argue that there are ways that you can judge a morality and find its value relative to certain factors. It means that morality is a personal thing, and not necessarily to be forced upon others.

 

That being said, I do think that there are certain values which need to be enforced in order for any society to function. People's property needs to be respected. Mutual respect for private individuals needs to be required. Without these things, any society would not be able to survive.

[Neuro]

It depends on what you define as 'good'. That doesn't diminish the value of morality - it doesn't mean that morality is unneeded. I would even argue that there are ways that you can judge a morality and find its value relative to certain factors.

My interpretation of it usually requires that, in order to define good and bad, one must create an arbitrary definition of perfect which is always subjective to personal opinion. Thus, if perfect is a unified master race ruling the world, then slaves, genocide, and world war happen to be your administration's cup of tea. The problem is, perfect is always subjective, thus, good and bad are too.

 

In the universe, there is nothing innately good or bad. If you eliminate humanity from the equation, will the moon shed a tear?

 

That being said, I do think that there are certain values which need to be enforced in order for any society to function. People's property needs to be respected. Mutual respect for private individuals needs to be required. Without these things, any society would not be able to survive.

Again, entirely subjective because off of the top of my head I can already reference a handful of anarchists who could be quoted as saying, "Property is theft."

[pgrmdave]

Anarchy has never existed (with the exception of brief periods after major disasters), and societies which don't respect property and individuals has never lasted long. And yes, good is subjective, but that doesn't mean that I would say that all definitions of good are equal.

[Neuro]

Anarchy has never existed (with the exception of brief periods after major disasters), and societies which don't respect property and individuals has never lasted long. And yes, good is subjective, but that doesn't mean that I would say that all definitions of good are equal.

 

Equal? or equally preferable to you specifically?

[pgrmdave]

Saying that all definitions of 'good' are equal is to be illogical. If I define good in an illogical way, I think that it is a poorer definition than a definition that is more logical. That doesn't mean that I think that a logical definition of 'good' is more good than an illogical one, merely that it is better. (note the difference between the word "good" used to denote morality and the word "good" used as a comparison).

[Neuro]

Saying that all definitions of 'good' are equal is to be illogical. If I define good in an illogical way, I think that it is a poorer definition than a definition that is more logical. That doesn't mean that I think that a logical definition of 'good' is more good than an illogical one, merely that it is better.

All definitions of good are inherently equal because all definitions of good are equally subjective and not of any innate quality that can be empirically recognized.

[pgrmdave]

All definitions of good are inherently equal because all definitions of good are equally subjective and not of any innate quality that can be empirically recognized.

Is that your subjective opinion?

[Neuro]

Is that your subjective opinion?

 

Everything is, I suppose. But, that was actually an honest conclusion.

[pgrmdave]

If all things are subjective, and all subjective things are equal, and I disagree, is my statement "Subjective opinions are not all equal" to be given equal weight to your statement "Subjective opinions are all equal"? If it is all subjective, then what makes you think so?

[Neuro]

If all things are subjective, and all subjective things are equal, and I disagree, is my statement "Subjective opinions are not all equal" to be given equal weight to your statement "Subjective opinions are all equal"? If it is all subjective, then what makes you think so?

Honestly, you are diving a bit too far into the semantics game.

 

My theory is that, all definitions of 'good' are equal becuase they are all equally subjective. That means, to me, only the above. It does not claim all things to be subjective to interpretation but rather it subjects all _morals_ to be subjective.

 

The conclusion is that, the morality of Satan is equal to the morality of the Christian god if both moral systems are equally subjective -- which all moral systems inherently are.

 

Good and evil, for example, are false concepts that are 100% subjective. Thus, any definition of either is equal to any other definition of either, and neither is more right or more wrong, thus, rendering morallity and any form of ethical judgement to be virtually baseless on some level.

 

Saying the number one is subjective is not what I am getting at.

[pgrmdave]

That's why I used the word opinion - I know you're smart, you clearly know the difference between fact and subjective opinion. However, I don't think you've made a case that subjective means equal. Yes, they are subjective, but what makes that make all things that are subjective equal? Why are all definitions of good equal due to their subjectivity?

[Neuro]

Yes, they are subjective, but what makes that make all things that are subjective equal? Why are all definitions of good equal due to their subjectivity?

There is no empirical method of differentiating them.

 

Example: It is like trying to say that choices of favourite colours are not equal, and some choices of favourite colours are in fact better than others.

 

If a favourite colour is entirely opinionated, science, and humanity for that matter, cannot reasonably conclude that one is inactuality better than the other. Something entirely subjective is entirely equal for all intents and purposes.

[HydrogenBond]

One old time biblical criterion was do onto others as you would want them to do unto you. If you think stealing is good then it should also be OK for others to steal from you. If you think drinking a beer is good, you should have no problem if others drink a beer. If you think slavery is good you should have no problem being someone's else slave, etc.. What you will find is most people will think along the same lines.

 

Some of morality sort of twisted this backwards to indulge the subjectivity of those with power; allow others to do only what you do. If I hate cigarettes, then nobody gets to smoke them. If I hate apples, they must be banned for all. I like to sit and read and hate sports, so only reading is allowed, no sweating please.

 

Others twisted the saying sideways; do onto others before they do onto you.

[pgrmdave]

There is no empirical method of differentiating them.

 

But I did differentiate - I claimed that better definitions are more logical (I should specify internally logical as well). Logic is not subjective, and thus you can compare definitions. If I define goodness as "Anything with a computer" it is as illogical as having my favorite color be "curtain".

[Neuro]

But I did differentiate - I claimed that better definitions are more logical (I should specify internally logical as well). Logic is not subjective, and thus you can compare definitions. If I define goodness as "Anything with a computer" it is as illogical as having my favorite color be "curtain".

Actually, that is not so true, and not so purely built on logic. You aren’t factoring in that your idea of better is entirely subjective, thus, entirely just your idea and in no way universal, no way more logical, and no way any innately better in theory than any other way. Thus, your subjective opinion of what a truly better “definition of good is” is equal to any other definition of good.

 

I claimed that better definitions are more

Define better?

Logic is not subjective, and thus you can compare definitions.

On what basis can you compare the definitions of Good used by various societies?

 

Morality is entirely subjective. You cannot claim and defend any statement that one moral definition of good is any better or worse than any other. They are all equally subjective. Do unto others' is meaningless and in no way better than a moral system that dictate you ravish and murder all that you can. The point being: All morality is subjective and scientifically it does not matter if humanity is wiped off of the earth or spread throughout the galaxy.

If I define goodness as "Anything with a computer" it is as illogical as having my favorite color be "curtain"

What is this supposed to say?

 

You've created two nonsense statements and declared them illogical, that is great and I agree with you that they are illogical but I fear you've missed the point. The point is not to make nonsensical definitions and declare that they are meaningless, the point is to either refute or agree with the claim that any definition of good, as it relates to a moral system, is equal.

[Boerseun]

I have to agree with Neuro that morals of any kind are subjective and differs from society to society. In my personal opinion, 'morals', or what we understand under the concept, is an ages-old thing that helps to ensure the survival of the species. For instance, in the Abrahamic tradition, the 10 Commandments are said to be the foundation of morals. Humans are social animals. All the 10 Commandments does is to formulate and ensure the smooth cooperation between humans in a social environment. And back in the day when the 10 Commandments were taken much more literally than today, anyone not following them won't last long.

 

Shag your neighbour's wife, and he'll likely club you to death. It has nothing to do with religion, the religious decree against hanky-panky with the neighbour's wife is simply the formalising of common sense in a social setup. It has everything to do with survival. But this will depend on the physical circumstances, so that non-Abrahamic traditions have completely different sets of morals.

 

As a hypothetical example, let's say in some imaginary environment where some sort of berry grows that renders men either infertile or with very low sperm counts. They might end up with some sort of 'Commandment' from their specific deity that specifically orders them to let your wife shag around as much as possible. If only for the odd chance that she might be impregnated by one of the few males that can still do it. It won't say that specifically, but that'll be the end effect. And they will have absolutely no idea why the colonising Europeans tell them to stop this debauchery. What the Europeans are telling them is wrong, and against their shagadelic religion.

 

Yeah - morals are completely subjective, and simply the formalising of social rules and regulations - which differes from society to society in any case.