What should Morals and Ethics be?

Belz... said:
There's an objective morality but some people may hold another? How does that work? How do you determine what's good or bad, exactly?
Click to expand...

I think the idea is that there is an objective morality but any individual may be wrong about what it is. He's confident that an answer exists but not that he has found the right answer.

That's how I read it anyway.
 
Roboramma said:
I think the idea is that there is an objective morality but any individual may be wrong about what it is. He's confident that an answer exists but not that he has found the right answer.

That's how I read it anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't know how that would even work. If there's an objective morality, but it makes zero difference to how the world works, then for all practical purposes there actually isn't an objective morality.
 
Belz... said:
I don't know how that would even work. If there's an objective morality, but it makes zero difference to how the world works, then for all practical purposes there actually isn't an objective morality.
Click to expand...


Gee, how many times do I have to say this?
What if the objective morality is the way the world works.
 
Belz... said:
I don't know how that would even work. If there's an objective morality, but it makes zero difference to how the world works, then for all practical purposes there actually isn't an objective morality.
Click to expand...

Where did "it makes zero difference to how the world works" come from?
 
The longer we talk about this the less clear I am on what the bloody hell "Objective/Subjective" is even supposed to mean in this context.
 
Why do we build bridges?

Because enough people want to get to the other side.

It's simple.
 
Roboramma said:
"Why shouldn't I steal from a stranger if I know I'll get away with it?"...

I'm not seeing an analogous answer.
Click to expand...
Of course there is an analogous answer.

You should steal from the stranger if you want to.

You should not steal from the stranger if you don't want to.

I can't see how there is anything more to it than that.

What other kind of answer could there be?
 
Robin said:
Of course there is an analogous answer.

You should steal from the stranger if you want to.

You should not steal from the stranger if you don't want to.

I can't see how there is anything more to it than that.

What other kind of answer could there be?
Click to expand...

I think that's an entirely consistent viewpoint.
 
Cheetah said:
Gee, how many times do I have to say this?
What if the objective morality is the way the world works.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what that would mean.

Where did "it makes zero difference to how the world works" come from?
Click to expand...

Well if no one needs to follow it and there are no consequences, what's the difference between it existing and not existing?
 
Belz... said:
Well if no one needs to follow it and there are no consequences, what's the difference between it existing and not existing?
Click to expand...

It may be that it's me who misunderstood the other poster. But I don't see anywhere where he suggested that there are no consequences or that no one needs to follow it.

Rather he just seems to be admitting that he doesn't actually know with confidence what the correct moral system is. He's admitting his ignorance while still believing that the things exists.

To go back to analogies of bridges, it's as though someone said he doesn't know the best way to build a bridge and so doesn't judge other people's bridge building techniques, but does think that some techniques are in fact better than others even if he's not completely confident about which ones.
To complete the analogy imagine people building bridges in a different country, and while they are using different techniques and by some measures their bridges seem to be worse (perhaps they require more repair work), we're also not sure about all the local conditions that might mean those techniques are actually more well suited than the ones we are familiar with, but on the other hand they may not be.

Sometimes there is a correct answer but you don't know what it is. That doesn't mean it's unknowable, though it may be.
 
theprestige said:
I don't know what that means. The words are scrutable, but whatever talismanic import they have for you is lost on me.
Click to expand...

Talismanic import? Strikes, and other forms of direct action, are unprofitable for the bourgeoisie. And nothing more unprofitable than being expropriated.

theprestige said:
You want me not to kill millions of people, fine. But you want me to refrain, without you having to come over here and physically prevent me. You want me to refrain, without you having to figure out some way to make it unprofitable for me. You want some rational argument, that will convince me to refrain without coercion, and to my own detriment. But you have no such argument. All you have, in the end, is a weak-ass attempt to shame me with your expressions of frustration.

But I am a moral superman. I am not concerned with your "shame". Your frustration is your problem, not mine. If you have no rational argument, then you have no standing. If you cannot at least appeal to practicality and profitability, then you aren't even trying.
Click to expand...
 
Roboramma said:
It may be that it's me who misunderstood the other poster. But I don't see anywhere where he suggested that there are no consequences or that no one needs to follow it.

Rather he just seems to be admitting that he doesn't actually know with confidence what the correct moral system is.
Click to expand...

But how would we know, even in principle? That's my point. If there's no way to know, and if whether the hypothesis is true or not makes no difference, then it can be discared as superfluous.
 
Belz... said:
But how would we know, even in principle? That's my point. If there's no way to know, and if whether the hypothesis is true or not makes no difference, then it can be discared as superfluous.
Click to expand...

Cheetah claims to be able to know by reasoned argument. I personally have a similar viewpoint, though I think the subject is complicated and there are some issues I don't think I have answers for yet.

But even if it turned out that we couldn't know the answer, there are plenty of questions which have definite answers but whose answers we will never know. That doesn't mean that those answers don't exist.
 
caveman1917 said:
Talismanic import? Strikes, and other forms of direct action, are unprofitable for the bourgeoisie. And nothing more unprofitable than being expropriated.
Click to expand...

Ah, no. You've missed the point. The idea is not that I should refrain from doing stuff when I'm threatened with some material loss. The idea is that I should refrain without having to be threatened. Because of morals.
 
That is the thing. If there was an objective morality and I knew what that objective morality was then I could make reasoned arguments to show what is right and not right.

If others knew what the objective morality was then they would be able to set out those arguments.

But as I don't know any such arguments and have never heard any then, even if there was an objective morality then I don't know what it is and apparently neither does anyone else, so the only motivation for my actions is still that which I want.

And also, no-one has given me any reason to think that there should be any such thing as an objective morality, or what sort of thing it should be.
 
theprestige said:
Ah, no. You've missed the point. The idea is not that I should refrain from doing stuff when I'm threatened with some material loss. The idea is that I should refrain without having to be threatened. Because of morals.
Click to expand...

Well I think that's a stupid idea that doesn't work anyway, even assuming people could agree on what those morals would be. Your post referred to the Holocaust, but morals aren't what stopped it, what stopped it was the Red Army. Similar observations can be made about strikes/insurrections in relation to social welfare programs under capitalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom