Is morality objective or subjective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8219
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: RC

Post by henry quirk »

"hate crimes,"

thought crimes


doesn't one have to be a mind-reader to tell the difference?

not really

jan aborts cuz she doesn't want the baby (she murders)

betty aborts cuz she'll die if she doesn't (she kills)


For the record, a human being, like all other organisms, begins when its life is independent of any other organism, biologically. Everything before that is preparatory.

by that logic: if I'm ill (with a nasty flu), bedridden, reliant on loved ones or paid help just to eat a bowl of soup, my life is over

no, independence alone isn't the foundation of personhood
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8219
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

pete

Post by henry quirk »

with all the activity in-thread, it's hard to keep track of every post

bein' a good egg, I've replicated my post from upthread cuz I know you'll wanna respond

-----

But that doesn't answer my question: is the distinction between justified and unjustified killing a matter of fact or a matter of opinion?

It does: a fact leads to a moral fact that in turns leads to practical applications.


If you think it's a matter of fact, because a man belongs to himself, how does self-ownership apply to a zygote?
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:23 pmAs a deist (whacky, irrational, morally realistic, ought to be locked away): I believe personhood is when spirit is irrevocably coupled to substance (crazy, yeah?). This composite of spirit and substance (soul and flesh, information and matter) is a person.

Goin' only by science: a person arises from a particular and peculiar kind of biological complexity most clearly evidenced by human beings from the end of the first trimester on.
I believe the first, but -- understanding that's a religious viewpoint -- I grudgingly accept the second.

And, if that's not clear enough: every fertilized ovum is a potential person (it won't turn into an apple; it can only become a human being [or, a person] or fail (and die). You ought to leave it be (or, mebbe, help it). But, since you won't, you ought to at least recognize the science showing the 12 week old baby, while under-developed, possesses all the biological systems of any human.

Solely from a morally non-realistic position: if consensus over the long-haul (your morality) tells us we ought not kill a man simply cuz he inconveniences us, then we ought not kill a child simply cuz he inconveniences the woman whose actions put him in her womb.
Belinda
Posts: 3780
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:03 pm
Belinda wrote:
Peter Holmes wrote:
moral fact is an oxymoron
What do you call a fact ?

By morality are you talking about particular moral codes - the function of morality in society - morality as
part of mans past - the moral component in religious behaviour and belief or morality as a biological trait ?
A fact is a truth statement that can be demonstrated with logic or evidence

Morality as in the morality of that particular society at that particular time
So majority consensus based upon the values of a particular belief system if society is religious or secular values if society is non religious
But not morality as a function of society because that is sociology or mans past [ history ] or as biological trait [ evolutionary psychology ]
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. But the moral values of a particular society are mostly the same as the moral values of that society's past plus biological traits of all men. I'm not about to start arguing for nature or nurture, however moral values are determined by one or the other nature or nurture.

I said "mostly the same" as of course there are a very few men who are especially influential and who influence cultural beliefs far more than their contemporaries.

When regarding the influence of nurture on morals, when I say "nurture " I refer to climate, geography, terrain, weather, other species, and so forth the total ecology including means of subsistence.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2044
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: RC

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:19 pm jan aborts cuz she doesn't want the baby (she murders)

betty aborts cuz she'll die if she doesn't (she kills)
But no one else can know which, "cuz," motivated an individual's choice.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:19 pm For the record, a human being, like all other organisms, begins when its life is independent of any other organism, biologically. Everything before that is preparatory.

by that logic: if I'm ill (with a nasty flu), bedridden, reliant on loved ones or paid help just to eat a bowl of soup, my life is over ...
Please read more carefully. The statement says, "human life begins when its life is independent of any other organism. It does not say life, "continues," when independent of any other organism. Since your life began some time ago, that is a totally different issue. It also says, "independent of any other organism, biologically," which you are, no matter how much you are tended to by others in your ill health. You do not require a placenta to live, anything that requires a placenta to live is not yet a human being.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:19 pm no, independence alone isn't the foundation of personhood
Whatever, "personhood," is supposed to mean? The issue is when a organism's life begins.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8219
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: RC

Post by henry quirk »

But no one else can know which

unless she's doin' the abortion herself: yeah, the doc will know


anything that requires a placenta to live is not yet a human being.

iron lung, placenta: potato, potato


Whatever, "personhood," is supposed to mean? The issue is when a organism's life begins.

I've been talkin' about when a person begins: mebbe you should read more carefully
surreptitious57
Posts: 4212
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Belinda wrote:
But the moral values of a particular society are mostly the same as the moral values of that societys past plus biological traits of all men
This is absolutely and demonstrably false

The moral values of contemporary society are like nothing compared to those of the past and less so the further back in time one goes
The liberal values you take for granted today in the West are incredibly recent because for most of history they never actually existed
Human rights as a concept did not exist until the last century and so was not recognised in international law until very recently indeed

Can you think of a single period in the past where all other things being equal you would willingly swap with your life today
Even just a hundred years ago the quality of your life from all aspects - not just moral - would have been very compromised
Society does not just advance technologically but morally too and those changes are just as profound if not actually moreso
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2044
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: RC

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:06 pm anything that requires a placenta to live is not yet a human being.
iron lung, placenta: potato, potato
Since when does a life begin in an iron lung.

An iron lung helps someone already alive to stay alive. It's only purpose is for those already alive.

A placenta prepares a potential human to begin life. When life begins the placenta is no longer needed, and would actually kill him if not removed. Its only purpose is before one becomes alive as a human being.

Apples and oranges.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8219
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: RC

Post by henry quirk »

an iron ling keeps joe alive

without it: joe croaks

a placenta keeps lil fetus person alive

without it: lil fetus person croaks

cheese & fromage
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2044
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: RC

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:09 pm an iron lung keeps joe alive

without it: joe croaks

a placenta keeps lil fetus person alive

without it: lil fetus person croaks
or a human being has been born. As long as it is a, "fetus person," it is not a human being. When it becomes a human being it no longer requires a placenta to keep it alive.

eggs and chickens
[/quote]
Don't complain when the pound of chicken you bought turns out to be fertilized eggs.

You can call it what you like, but I don't count chickens until they're hatched and I don't count people until they are born. You can't murder what does not yet exist.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8219
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: RC

Post by henry quirk »

I don't count people until they are born

and I say a person is a person by week 12 of the pregnancy (and probably a lot earlier than that)
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2044
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: RC

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:35 pm I don't count people until they are born

and I say a person is a person by week 12 of the pregnancy (and probably a lot earlier than that)
Good. No argument is possible here. We just have a different view of what a human being (me) or person (you) is. I have no interest in changing your mind, we just don't agree. It's actually a bit academic, anyway, since neither of us is actually going to have to face the question.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1288
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: pete

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:23 pm with all the activity in-thread, it's hard to keep track of every post

bein' a good egg, I've replicated my post from upthread cuz I know you'll wanna respond

-----

But that doesn't answer my question: is the distinction between justified and unjustified killing a matter of fact or a matter of opinion?

It does: a fact leads to a moral fact that in turns leads to practical applications.


If you think it's a matter of fact, because a man belongs to himself, how does self-ownership apply to a zygote?
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:23 pmAs a deist (whacky, irrational, morally realistic, ought to be locked away): I believe personhood is when spirit is irrevocably coupled to substance (crazy, yeah?). This composite of spirit and substance (soul and flesh, information and matter) is a person.

Goin' only by science: a person arises from a particular and peculiar kind of biological complexity most clearly evidenced by human beings from the end of the first trimester on.
I believe the first, but -- understanding that's a religious viewpoint -- I grudgingly accept the second.

And, if that's not clear enough: every fertilized ovum is a potential person (it won't turn into an apple; it can only become a human being [or, a person] or fail (and die). You ought to leave it be (or, mebbe, help it). But, since you won't, you ought to at least recognize the science showing the 12 week old baby, while under-developed, possesses all the biological systems of any human.

Solely from a morally non-realistic position: if consensus over the long-haul (your morality) tells us we ought not kill a man simply cuz he inconveniences us, then we ought not kill a child simply cuz he inconveniences the woman whose actions put him in her womb.
Sorry, Henry. You're right - there's stuff here I want to respond to - and I will when I next get a moment.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8219
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

RC

Post by henry quirk »

It's actually a bit academic

quite the opposite, really
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2044
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: RC

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:51 pm It's actually a bit academic

quite the opposite, really
Oh!? When I asked you about a non-academic practical application of your view, namely, what should be done about a women who has an abortion, you gave me some demure song and dance about what happens in American jurisprudence.

When I asked you again, "what you think ought to be done," you blew the question off with some fancy speech about a man having an, "inviolate right to his life, liberty, and property. His life, liberty, or property is only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of his life, liberty, or property," which means you believe in that obscenity called, "retributive justice." If that's what you truly believe, since you believe abortion is murder, it would mean the woman should be executed. No wonder you evaded a direct answer. Perhaps we should bring back stoning. You aren't a Muslim, are you?

If I've misinterpreted what you've said, it's unintended, but I don't see how it can mean anything else.
Gary Childress
Posts: 1917
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: RC

Post by Gary Childress »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:19 pm jan aborts cuz she doesn't want the baby (she murders)

betty aborts cuz she'll die if she doesn't (she kills)
It seems difficult to argue against that. Although, I would think it should depend upon the stage of development the fetus is in. I mean if it's just a glob of cells that hasn't formed anything like a brain yet, I wouldn't think it should count as murder.
Post Reply