On amorality, relativism, nihilism, realism and determinism

[youkneeburst]

everything happens for a reason and that reason is physics, everything is pointless and we will die soon and if not good luck, and morality depends on shaky/subjectively justified standards. yes they come in groups, welcome.

 

[J-man]

But you care. That's the basis for morality. You can map it out just like you map out the physical universe.

I think of morality as training wheels to learn to trust your own judgement. There's no need to label things good and bad. There's no need to tell people what's right and wrong. They already know.

 

[Rook]

I would say physics is not the reason, physics is the mechanism.
Stating physics is the reason for everything is attaching subjective properties to it.
Remember, everything in our universe is physics(or rather physics as we comprehend it atm), so if something happens, physics is not the reason it happens, it is simply physics continuing to happen.

Subjectivity and morals are thus not incorrect, nor correct, they are merely an expression of physics.

Regarding the reason for physics to exist in the first place, if there is such a reason, it will be either impossible or very difficult for humanity to find/comprehend it.

Now for the semantics...

 

[Yellow]

everything happens for a reason and that reason is physics, everything is pointless and we will die soon and if not good luck, and morality depends on shaky/subjectively justified standards. yes they come in groups, welcome.

Assuming all of those hasty statements are the result of hours of thoughtful contemplation, and assuming they are all correct conclusions, it is still no cause for alarm, dismay, or pessimism.

There is enough chaos in the universe for life to still appear to be what you make it. There are enough seemingly noble moral codes for you choose among like food at a buffet. And if you find meaning from it all, then it isn't pointless to you.

*Yellow has stepped onto the soapbox*

Why do some people feel the need to "find" some universal, objective morality? That's the kind of black-and-white thinking that leads straight down the road to religion, and no one wants that. Why can't morality be subjective? I mean why is that such a dissatisfying thought? Does right and wrong really need to be set in stone? Why can't we just enjoy the ride and rather seek to better understand morality in all of it's subjective glory?

Morality, by its very nature, must and should be subjective. If it was not adaptive, what would be the point of it? Morals are principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior; they are a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society; and they usually define the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

Right? That’s how morality is defined. It’s the surface. So let’s go deeper…
Why does morality exist? What’s the point? Or more to the point, why does morality persist across all human cultures? It doesn’t stop there, either. Systems of morality have been documented across a number of species. I would venture to propose that any organism with the capacity for decision-making (beyond the most primitive of instincts) displays at least some kind of moral sense. So, again, why?

It becomes obvious when we look at our bestial brethren: Survival. This isn’t merely individual survival, but more, the survival of your genes and those shared among your population.

I can’t go around murdering everyone I meet. I’d never mate. If I did somehow mate, I’d have no offspring. Even if I made an exception for my next-of-kin, other people wouldn’t want to hang out with me. I’d have a lesser chance of surviving a winter storm or a famine without social help. Also, they may get upset about all the murders and eventually, I’d be done-in myself.

Now, if I helped kill the enemies of my home population, that’s okay. They’d like that. I’d get some support. My family would be cared for once I was gone. My enemies might think I’m a monster, but they just don’t understand.

Similarly, if we couldn’t handle any population growth, and I started finding reasons to kill and/or limit the sexual activity of fertile women, that might be okay also. We’d not be over-taxed with children, and we’d remain stable. People would learn to adopt a new morality. Then, once we had enough food, we’d have to work harder to justify our oppressive ways. People wouldn’t see the point anymore, and start to question our morality.

If, heaven forbid, I moved to a population that had plenty of food, and had had this food surplus for a long time, they’d shun my readiness to kill young women. I’d be an outright abomination.

Our current society views it as immoral when a woman has more babies than she can provide for alone. But, since we can feasibly absorb them into the fold, it would be even more immoral to do anything to force her to stop popping them out. Alternatively, if our population was dangerously low, and I had 15 babies in 13 years with 6 baby-daddies, I’d be a big damn hero.

So I suppose, if you want a universal moral code, it’s, “do whatever is best for your current population at the moment, unless what seems best for your population is not what you think is best for the continuation of your genes in particular." (that second part is another whole topic, but I couldn't leave it out and retain accuracy)

*Yellow has stepped off of the soapbox*

Thank you for your time.

 

[Cherry Cola]

such your average first teenage existential crisis

 

[doncarlzone]

Morality, by its very nature, must and should be subjective

Yep. And good post btw!

everything happens for a reason and that reason is physics, everything is pointless and we will die soon

It's actually difficult to figure out exactly what you are trying to convey, so I will have to guess a bit, please correct me if necessary.

So, as humans, we are a part of physics and its determinism (I'm aware of quantum probability, just include that) and because of that, and that we die soon, you conclude that life is pointless.

First I should say that I understand this line of thought, however, I do think it's based on a confusing and contradictory intuition. Let me first go through a few implicit premises:

a)
There is no God, the universe doesn't care about us, and so thus there is no intrinsic value to human lives.

For some reason, it just feels right to say that life is pointless because the universe doesn't care about us. But try to imagine a universe that cared about you? Would that give your life meaning? What is it exactly that you want from the universe? Tell you to find a girlfriend? Approve of you? A universe that knows everything about you, even your most inner secrets?

When you think about it, a universe that cares about you is actually a bit of a creepy thought to engage in. Would it add meaning? Of course not, you would naturally wonder why it cares? Imagine if we found out that more intelligent beings started the universe and the subsequent evolution as a science experiment, and they then told us that the purpose of our lives were to reproduce as much as possible - would you then suddenly have a good reason to become a sperm donor?

The fact that the universe doesn't care, is perfect for us, because it allows us to justify how we live our lives with reason, just as we want it. We don't want to have one intrinsic meaning which cannot be questioned because what would be the point of that?

You also mentioned, as a further reason to life's pointlessness, that we die soon. Again, think about it, would it really give your life more meaning if you didn't die soon? Do you want to be immortal? Would immortality not seem a tiny bit more pointless after 2,000 years you think? It doesn't really make a lot of sense to say that life is pointless because we die soon. On the contrary, it can give life meaning as we have an end.


b)
Determinism implicates that everything has a cause which has another cause, which leaves no room for human freedom/morality and thus life's already determined and pointless.

This whole discussion reminds me of a Wittgenstein anecdote: [Wittgenstein] once greeted me with the question: "Why do people say that it was natural to think that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth turned on its axis?" I replied: "I suppose, because it looked as if the sun went round the earth." "Well," he asked, "what would it have looked like if it had looked as if the earth turned on its axis?"

I think it's the same fundamental confusing that is the "cause" of the determinism/freedom confusion.

Now of course, it's easy to consider what implications an indeterministic universe would have for our freedom and meaning, it would naturally be impossible to even consider meaning and freedom in such a universe.

Instead of saying why you don't have what you want. Think about what you want. Let's say you are given a free soul, a soul which is isolated from our universe's causality. Now what would you want to do with that soul? Whatever you, freely, want of course. Imagine you make a decision as a free soul, what would you want to base that decision on? Randomness doesn't sound very free. So naturally you would want to base the decision on a reason that is isolated from our universe's causality.

However, by making a decision based on a reason, which intuitively is the most fundamental reason to base a decision on, you are just asking for determinism. Everything we intuively would consider as free require some form of determinism and causality, otherwise there would be nothing to base the decision on, and thus completely random and indeterministic. We want to have reasons but at the same time, reasons can make us paradoxically think that we do not want to have reasons.

If you do not want to have reasons for your actions, then propose what else you want to base your free decisions on and you are bound to end in an absurd argument. Now the real interesting question is of course, what sort of reasons we want have?

morality depends on shaky/subjectively justified standards. yes they come in groups, welcome.

Again, as in the Wittgenstein quote, you will benefit from turning your thinking around.

So what you are saying is that we do not have Moral Realism:
...the meta-ethical view that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them.

To anyone who is familiar with this position, disregard McDowell and Railton for this discussion.

Now, as with the universe caring, consider that you get what you want: Intrinsic and ultimate moral values. By saying this, I presume that you do not want to have hypothetical normative values such as: "If you want to live, you ought to breathe", because what if you don't want to live right? There is no intrinsic, and ultimate reason as to why you should live.

What would those intrinsic, human independent, values be like? Let's say the universe, that cares about us, conveys the message that "Torturing babies is immoral". Most of us probably find that a good intrinsic value. Now consider that the universe conveys the following value: "Men ought to rape women as much as possible"

Now most of us would ask, universe, but why? But the universe cannot respond because we have gotten exactly what we wanted, an intrinsic ultimate value which cannot be questioned or disagreed with. That's what an intrinsic ultimate value is, it's a value which cannot be questioned, because as soon as a reason is given for it, the value becomes hypothetical.

The point is of course that we want to justify and give reasons for our moral values. Torturing babies is not wrong because it's wrong, it's wrong because of the cruel things it entails. This should sound familiar by now. We want to give reasons for our moral values but at the same time, reasons can make us paradoxically think that we do not want to have reasons.


There are countless of examples of this sort of confusion. Take the following example:
"The size of the universe makes my life feel insignificant and pointless" By now, I should need not to suggest that a universe which is small in comparison to us wouldn't give our lives anymore meaning.

And now I wrote a wall, oh well, I'll post it.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Subjective morality may sound readily reasonable in this day in age where the comforts of the 21st century allows for such a train of thought, but it still doesn't hold up against arguments from analytic philosophy. It's still weak when placed in the light of philosophical argument. The origin and purpose of morality is often debated and argued for.

Also, it was by a mode of thinking that objective morality exists that allowed history to unfold as it did to our current age. Without it it probably would have been hard for the civilizations in the past to hold together their kingdoms and empires. Although manifestations of morality differ on the fringe issues of society, there seems to be a universal concession on some of the more basic ones. We value life, property, and general wellbeing. Fringe issues and their morality concerning it probably would adjust into more default outlinings of morality (aka, objective morals) once their consequences are more readily seen; 'their' as in subjective morals (concerning whatever the fringe issues).

I also have a funny feeling that while there may be 'subjective morality' existing today there's still an underlying principle which guides morality that seemingly stems from subjectivity itself. There's a meta-underpinning within subjective morality. So in a sense, morality in this subjective 'system', if you will, may actually not be subjective at all. However, I don't think it's because it's some evolutionary utilitarianism; that our actions should be based on for a need for the propelling and survival of the human race or whatever. One obvious example of this would be the value we placed on freedom of speech and information (well at least in the western world). If we were to follow up on some type of utilitarianism, truth may be distorted and then forgotten for the sake of society and its progress and sustainment. If it isn't distorted, then it's more often the case that half truths are presented in order to mislead.

If so, then it would seem that one places value on survival, or life, more than they place value on truth. I think ideally, we should find life in the mists of truth, whatever that maybe.

 

[J-man]

If you think the universe doesn't care about you, you don't understand yourself deeply enough. If you stopped denying your human needs, you would no longer feel that way. Are you not the universe? You don't care for yourself and you don't truly let others care for you.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Why do some people feel the need to "find" some universal, objective morality? That's the kind of black-and-white thinking that leads straight down the road to religion, and no one wants that. Why can't morality be subjective?

Because there is nothing subjective about the existence of suffering and no human who is incapable of understanding why suffering tends to be considered bad and there is thus a pretty solid basis for morality? Because society functions under laws which are the same for all people and laws are based upon morality? All other things ignored, purely subjective morality is of little consequence.

Morality can still be adapative, in fact it must adapt as we understand more and more of how the world works static morality would become unfit to fulfill its purpose.

 

[Yellow]

Because there is nothing subjective about the existence of suffering and no human who is incapable of understanding why suffering tends to be considered bad and there is thus a pretty solid basis for morality?

I want to agree because that is the morality of my society. My values tell me that all people should be treated well, that no person should be subject to suffering. I agree that this is a pretty solid basis for my own values.

I also know that this is not the accepted morality of all people nowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Rakhine_State_riots, and it is not the morality of all times in recent history. I would say that my example involving the femicidal tendencies of some cultures remains a reasonable example. Granted, a couple other cultures solved the same problem with a combination of polyandry and selling excess girls, but I'd say suffering in that circumstance is no less.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Of course it isn't the accepted morality of all people, some people are wrong.
The issue is not arriving at an objective morality in an abstract sense, that is not so hard -just don't fucking count subjective ideals such as virtue, justice, and focus on the prevention of actively caused suffering (something we all have in common and know by experience to be intrinsically bad in itself, ergo a common objective basis for morality) since that is something graspable and something which can actually be strived for in practice- the difficulty lies in identifying how reality works in order that said morality may actually be applied correctly, shit can backfire and all that.

Not saying that is all there is to morality is prevention of suffering, there is certainly more to take into consideration, what I propose is heuristic in nature, but it is quite solid nonetheless, people do know what is right and what is wrong. All it takes to do that is to experience and know that since everyone else is more or less structurally identical to you they also experience.

When people say morality is all subjective I think they are sidestepping the issue in order to build ivory towers of intellectual vanity rather than say what needs to be said. I'm aware that this is an opinion quite typical of an extroverted judger :P

 

[doncarlzone]

Subjective morality may sound readily reasonable in this day in age where the comforts of the 21st century allows for such a train of thought, but it still doesn't hold up against arguments from analytic philosophy. It's still weak when placed in the light of philosophical argument.

It really depends on what you mean by subjective morality. I do believe that some form of objective morality is compatible with anti-realism. But I think morality is subjective in the sense that the values are human dependent. Even John McDowell, who is a realist, argues how color, phenomenologically, is objective though it's partially subjective, and so uses that as an analogy for values and morality. Even if I'm not entirely convinced by the analogy, I think the idea that morality can be objective while partially subjective is spot on.

 

[doncarlzone]

When people say morality is all subjective I think they are sidestepping the issue in order to build ivory towers of intellectual vanity rather than say what needs to be said. I'm aware that this is an opinion quite typical of an extroverted judger :P

I think it's no more difficult to argue for objective morality than it is for subjectivism. Subjectivism or relativism is definitely not a safe zone intellectually

 

[onesteptwostep]

It really depends on what you mean by subjective morality. I do believe that some form of objective morality is compatible with anti-realism. But I think morality is subjective in the sense that the values are human dependent. Even John McDowell, who is a realist, argues how color, phenomenologically, is objective though it's partially subjective, and so uses that as an analogy for values and morality. Even if I'm not entirely convinced by the analogy, I think the idea that morality can be objective while partially subjective is spot on.

Yeah, to a degree I also do think it depends on what people mean by subjective morality.

I personally think the 'objective morals' some people espouse today are actually the result of the triumph of a certain subjective morality in the past. So basically it is a form of societal construct, but something that's been observed and reasoned for ages; ages as in like hundreds of years, literally. Or it could just simply be revelation and not a construct.

 

[Seteleechete]

Societal morals or commonly accepted morals is what I'll call it since I go by the line that they are both subjective and largely accepted as a universal standard.

 

[youkneeburst]

yes. and the subjective nature of morality is what makes me amoral, that is, i don't really acknowledge any held moral standards because what is it but not mine right? unless our moral ideals coincide. but in the first place, i don't hold any firm moral standards myself, which makes me ideally amoral.

 

[youkneeburst]

and btw guys the additional info i put was just a lazy lay-man definition of the particular sect of philosophy i stated (amorality, relativism, nihilism, realism and determinism) and i never intend for you to quote it and reply to it seriously though of course its not necessarily forbidden. what im just trying to get is to see who here in this forum have one, a couple, or better if all of the stated sects of philosophy that you believe in. and yeah share your thoughts, whether affirmation or negation of these beliefs which is what you did, so yeah, right. geez im rather not so eloquent for an intp.

 

[Vion]

such your average first teenage existential crisis

Yes it is time he spawned up stream to his roots in most luddite fashion. Soon he will be heckling the females like a typical beta male.

Do you feel the same urge to punch him in the nuts? Perhaps it is a primitive virility ritual. I hear with some species the female actually breaks the testicles in mating.

Perhaps this explains more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Steinach