Is morality subjective?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think there is a lot of confusion in this thread about what we actually mean by bsic rule of morality'morality' and the different aspects of it.
Here is my understanding of it:
The basic rule of morality is: do not cause unnecessary harm to other entities that can experience suffering either through direct action or neglect.
Anything not covered by t ...[text shortened]... ight to do something that is morally wrong. I think some posters are confusing the two issues.

It sounds like you are proposing a principle or rule that is (or should be) the guiding rule for moral decisions. You refer to it as the basic rule of morality. It is not clear (to me) how you want the word "morality" to be thought of here. Could it not simply be called the basic rule of how to live? Would that avoid the issue that is confusing some posters?

I have read some writing on the questions "Is good good?" and "Why is good good?" I think turning to the rule you propose, the question I have is: Is adherence to this rule good? Why is adherence to this rule good? The most obvious attempt at an answer is "because not suffering is good." If suffering is the archetypical evil, this takes me back to Aristotle's treatment of happiness as the archetypical good. It is absolute in that it is sought for its own sake and not in order to attain something else, and good because it is "an activity of the soul in accord with virtue." Virtue? This could become a child's unending "why" quest so I will stop here.

http://askaphilosopher.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/aristotle-on-why-the-highest-good-is-happiness/

Originally posted by JS357
It sounds like you are proposing a principle or rule that is (or should be) the guiding rule for moral decisions.

Not quite. I am saying that the rule I gave is the guiding rule of morality by definition. ie if you make a moral decision, you must use that rule to evaluate it, or it is not a moral decision.

It is not clear (to me) how you want the word "morality" to be thought of here. Could it not simply be called the basic rule of how to live?
No. How you live, or should live, is quite a different matter altogether. Specifically anything that affects self, is not a moral decision at all, but may still be considered 'right' or 'wrong'. Of course many issues may be a mixture.

Is adherence to this rule good? Why is adherence to this rule good?
This is the key to what I am getting at. The are in fact times when we may recognize that adherence to the rule is not good, or at least not adhering to it is acceptable. For example, a person may do something for love which is not moral. His/her motivation is not a moral motivation. Yet we often recognize peoples right to have this as a motivation and even for it to to some extent exceed moral considerations.

Why is adherence to this rule good? The most obvious attempt at an answer is "because not suffering is good."
I think there are two sides to it.
1. Why do we follow the rule? Because we have empathy. Why do we have empathy? It evolved in us to enable us to live in communities.
2. Why do we try to encourage others to follow this rule (to the extent of enforcing it in law to some degree)? To allow us to live in communities.

Originally posted by black beetle
Not only morality is both relative and subjective, but methinks it is purely a product of the human mind and, as such, it qualifies solely as subjectively true. To state that “The cat is black" is true if in fact the cat is black to us, but anyway “The cat is black” solely due to the fact that our cognizant apparatus decodes the photons we receive from ...[text shortened]... ple that created them. And I cannot see the slightest trace of “objectivity” in none of them😵T

To state that the cat is black acknowledges we know about color, confusion on
what we call each shade of color doesn't avoid that we know about it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
To state that the cat is black acknowledges we know about color, confusion on
what we call each shade of color doesn't avoid that we know about it.
Kelly

Methinks whatever we "know" is made up by us according to our cognizance alone, subjectively that is, and not because "it exists objectively out there" the way "objectivity" implies😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Methinks whatever we "know" is made up by us according to our cognizance alone, subjectively that is, and not because "it exists objectively out there" the way "objectivity" implies😵

You know this how, because you see color everwhere?
Kelly

Originally posted by whodey
Would you want someone to divorce you?

Jesus still made a provision for it.

As for beating slaves, I don't condone that like I don't condone divorce, but then, how else will you make a slave do their work? Time outs?

Well, so much for trying to get you to shine the light of truth on the God of the OT. Why is it that so many Christians are afraid to take their faith out of the darkness?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not quite. I am saying that the rule I gave is the guiding rule of morality [b]by definition. ie if you make a moral decision, you must use that rule to evaluate it, or it is not a moral decision.

It is not clear (to me) how you want the word "morality" to be thought of here. Could it not simply be called the basic rule of how to live?
No. ...[text shortened]... o the extent of enforcing it in law to some degree)? To allow us to live in communities.[/b]

1. Why do we follow the rule? Because we have empathy. Why do we have empathy? It evolved in us to enable us to live in communities.
2. Why do we try to encourage others to follow this rule (to the extent of enforcing it in law to some degree)? To allow us to live in communities.

That is the sum total of it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You know this how, because you see color everwhere?
Kelly

I know this, for I see colour not because the colours are inherently existent but because they are a product of my mind😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I know this, for I see colour not because the colours are inherently existent but because they are a product of my mind😵

Ah so if you are not here neither are the colors *in your opinion*, I guess for
you there is no sound if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Ah so if you are not here neither are the colors *in your opinion*, I guess for
you there is no sound if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it.
Kelly

The colours I see are a product of a specific, decoded from my cognitive apparatus, bit of information, and they do not exist our there on their own in separation from my mind (and from our collective subjectivity) that decodes the mentioned bit of information. The colours have no inherent existence. This does not mean that the colours are non-existent;

The sound of the tree, and every other observer, must be observed in order to be defined, otherwise we have no way to know that it occured at a specific spacetime😵

Originally posted by KellyJay
Ah so if you are not here neither are the colors *in your opinion*, I guess for
you there is no sound if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it.
Kelly

SIMPLE.

Pick one:

Sound; ''a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing." (wikipedia; sound)

Sound: "the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sound)

In the first above case, with or without the organs being within earshot, the tree makes a sound. In the second above case, without the organs being within earshot, it doesn't.

Originally posted by JS357
SIMPLE.

Pick one:

Sound; ''a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing." (wikipedia; sound)

Sound: "the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium." (http://dictionary.refer ...[text shortened]... es a sound. In the second above case, without the organs being within earshot, it doesn't.

The second definition is unsound.

Sound is recordable; it does not require "organs" to be stimulated.

Originally posted by black beetle
The sound of the tree, and every other observer, must be observed in order to be defined, otherwise we have no way to know that it occured at a specific spacetime😵

With the clear understanding that 'observe' does not imply knowingly recognize, but rather 'be affected in some way'. So, for example if the sound in the forest causes a landslide which subsequently causes it to rain on the other side of the world and the observer experiences the rain, then the 'sound' has been 'observed'.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Sound is recordable; it does not require "organs" to be stimulated.

That depends on the definition in use. Sounds under definition 2 are not recordable.

Originally posted by black beetle
The sound of the tree, and every other observer, must be observed in order to be defined, otherwise we have no way to know that it occured at a specific spacetime😵

The interesting question is whether one can 'observe' a tree falling in a forest without 'observing' the sound. ie can the sound disappear into quantum uncertainty despite us knowing that the tree fell.