impersonal ethics/morality?

[Athena]

The reason the subject of ethics leads towards talking about money is because money is an objective reality.

If we show a painting to a hundred people, we will be given subjectives response to the value of that painting,

If we show a dollar bill to a hundred people, the hundred people will tell us the value of that bill is one dollar.

ethics tries to find ground to an objective reality and money is the only objective reality.

Perhaps the difference between ethics and morality is objective verses subjective? I don't know. I never though of breaking things in this way. But if something is only objective, and personal, it isn't going to come back and bite you, and perhaps this leads to immorality? Is this the stem of today's moral dilemma? Are we doing things with only a goal in mind and belief they will not come back to bite us? Bush and Cheney- do they ride so high above the rest of us, they feel untouched by what happens beneath them?

[Keith Hamburger]

Perhaps the difference between ethics and morality is objective verses subjective? I don't know. I never though of breaking things in this way. But if something is only objective, and personal, it isn't going to come back and bite you, and perhaps this leads to immorality? Is this the stem of today's moral dilemma? Are we doing things with only a goal in mind and belief they will not come back to bite us? Bush and Cheney- do they ride so high above the rest of us, they feel untouched by what happens beneath them?

While I disagree with Boetie's assessment of differences between art and money, I also disagree with your assessment of morality and ethics. First off, ethics is the application of morality in specific situations. The difference between ethics and morality is that of the difference between applied technology and science.

I keep trying to work with people in these forums to show that morality can be objective and not subjective. And that a subjective morality can only degrade into chaos and immorality. If morality is left up to each and every one of us to determine and our morality is to be situational, there really is no such thing as morality, simply whims.

Every time I try to discuss the real philosophy of objective morality someone will jump on an example and run off into tangents that really have nothing to do with the topic. Things like when a specific example of Celtic societal organization help to show that some concept is not completely untenable go off into discussions of how children raised in that society sometimes were mistreated. One simple example of how other societies can teach us something leads off into a discussion of the bad things of that society, as if I had ever stated that we should model our entire lives around that society in its entirety. It has really nothing to do with the example or the topic but that's where things go and there can be no resolution from there whether an objective or subjective morality is better.

And, after that the real subject never gets addressed. Perhaps I should put in bold the concepts that I think should be discussed and the rest is simply discussion of those concepts and examples. Hey. I think I'll edit this post to try that.

Keith

[Jack]

morality can be objective and not subjective

And who's objective standards do you suggest become the basis of morality?

[Keith Hamburger]

And who's objective standards do you suggest become the basis of morality?

There have been three or four threads started on this topic. Many of them have been derailed by extraneous discussions, such as I discussed in the previous post, but perhaps you could find some of those and bring them back on track.

Keith

[tman_ndsu08]

]I keep trying to work with people in these forums to show that morality can be objective and not subjective. And that a subjective morality can only degrade into chaos and immorality.

Morality is subjective by definition.

There is no such thing as a moral that is universal.

[Athena]

I keep trying to work with people in these forums to show that morality can be objective and not subjective. And that a subjective morality can only degrade into chaos and immorality. If morality is left up to each and every one of us to determine and our morality is to be situational, there really is no such thing as morality, simply whims.

I disagree. The choldrens stories "Little Red Hen", "The fox and The Grapes" and "The Little Engine that Could", are all moral stories. We would read them to children and ask, "what is the moral of that story". The desired response would be a statement of cause and effect. The moral is, this caused that.

The word "moral" began as a Greek word meaning "to know good manners and the law".
To know the law, is to know cause and effect. Therefore, besides moral being snynomous with good manners it is also knowledge of cause and effect. Far from subject morality causing choas, it causes the highest level morality, because the law of cause of effect is exacting, and even if you are as cute as Bush, if you do wrong the result will be bad, or if you do the result will be good. That is the moral.

Furthermore, if when we add an "e" to "moral" we get "morale" that high spirited feeling that comes from doing the right thing. What I am saying here is essential to an understanding of democracy, so I hope eventually others share this understanding.

[Keith Hamburger]

The word "moral" began as a Greek word meaning "to know good manners and the law". To know the law, is to know cause and effect. Therefore, besides moral being snynomous with good manners it is also knowledge of cause and effect. Far from subject morality causing choas, it causes the highest level morality, because the law of cause of effect is exacting, and even if you are as cute as Bush, if you do wrong the result will be bad, or if you do the result will be good. That is the moral.

I didn't say "subject" I said "subjective". Subjective morality means that everyone determines what is right and wrong based on their own subjective experience. Cause and effect IS NOT subjective. Cause and effect is highly objective.

Subjective morality can change from one person to another and from one situation to another. If we had no objective morality at one time it would be wrong to kill someone who had not threatened nor harmed you but at another time it might be ok.

You seem to be arguing that morality exists. I have no problem with that, I insist that morality exists. And I agree that one method of teaching children of morality is through "morality tales". But those morality tales are intended to teach a specific and objective moral. The moral taught by these tales are clear and objective, they don't vary by time or place or person.

That is what is meant by objective morality, that it is universal.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Morality is subjective by definition.

There is no such thing as a moral that is universal.

I have been involved in at least four or five threads on this subject. I have often heard such asinine, blanket statements with no real argument or support or, apparently, any real thought given to them.

I realize that this sort of thing is what is taught in government schools which exactly makes the point. Thinking IS NOT taught in government schools and a statement such as you made requires no thought. It also allows our government leaders to define the actions of Saddam Hussein to be immoral but, when they do the exact same thing, of course their actions are moral. That is exactly what subjective morality means and I absolutely reject that.

Either contribute to the discussion, or go away.

Keith

[Athena]

Every time I try to discuss the real philosophy of objective morality someone will jump on an example and run off into tangents that really have nothing to do with the topic. Things like when a specific example of Celtic societal organization help to show that some concept is not completely untenable go off into discussions of how children raised in that society sometimes were mistreated. One simple example of how other societies can teach us something leads off into a discussion of the bad things of that society, as if I had ever stated that we should model our entire lives around that society in its entirety. It has really nothing to do with the example or the topic but that's where things go and there can be no resolution from there whether an objective or subjective morality is better.

Keith

Child rearing practices and how people behave is an interesting subject and I guess is related to morals and ethics. If a child is treated harshly, the child will treat others harshly and this is desired in some cultures, especially warrior cultures. Children reared with gentleness and taught to be gentle, will assume this is the way humans should be, and this works well for large civilizations, espcially when they rely on military technology for winning wars rather than warriors reared from infancy to disregard fear and show bravery on matter what. Here, what is moral depends on what society wants.

[Athena]

Morality is subjective by definition.

There is no such thing as a moral that is universal.

What definition of morality are you using?

I did want to stress the importance of being subject to morality. For example, we are suppose to value consense in making laws, and the laws to applying everyone equally.
How many people would make a law that an authority figure inspect their homes yearly and give out eviction notices if a person fails the inspection? I don't think anyone would choose to live under such authority if given the choice. Yet in the US property laws are stronger than human rights, and the owners are free to set whatever policy they want. The policy set for employees and renters is not the policy established for owners. Increasingly we living under authority and do not have a say in the policy that rules our lives. The result is demoralization, conflict and increasing immorality.

I am saying, when people are not subject to the morality they impose on others, they become immoral. That is why it was said, slavery makes people immoral. The master were subject to want they imposed on others and the result was very bad. Increasing we all are as slaves living under the rules set by others, without any say about these rules.

[dalin]

Morality as a set of social norms is negotiated. It changes with the push and pull of the society's members, i.e it's not exactly the same to everyone. It's certainly not permanent or objective, but there tends to be a stable middle ground. That's what makes a society in the first place; a sort of (often tacit) agreement on conduct. I think the larger the society, the more vague the morality (or maybe it starts to splinter into "sub-societies"?). I don't understand how someone can say morality is objective and universal, considering all the moral issues that divide society (abortion, cloning, etc etc too many of them). Or even the drastically different ideas of morality that separate areas of the world have (e.g. "honor killing").

As for a strictly personal morality...It's difficult to talk about morality/ethics without talking about society, which leads me to think it's not an entirely personal thing either. A "personal morality" needs the context of society for definition.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Morality is subjective by definition.

There is no such thing as a moral that is universal.

Yes, there is. It's called Objectivism.