Universal v Objective Morality Flaw

[Drakim]

I just realized something so incredible simple that I hate myself for nothing seeing it before.

In the whole universal vs objective morality debate, does nobody take into account that everybody has their own opinion on what the universal morality code is, thus making it just as objective as the objective morality viewpoint?

An example, just as that other thread "Question for Atheists", some theist seems to think that atheism means that you can do whatever you want because there is no eternal afterlife punishment.

But the thing is, holy scripture has been used to justify an vast array of things, like slavery, suppression of women, beating children, executing, equal rights among races, equal rights among sexes, against homosexuality, for homosexuality, being nice to children, etc.

Thus, the universal morality is just as much "pick and choose whatever you feel like" as the objective morality gets accused of.

In fact, isn't it so as long as you have any influence in what this universal morality is (such as picking a religion), then you defeat the very purpose of an universal morality in the first place?

[SadisticMonkey]

Like I pointed out in said thread, the OP claims that Humans are fallible and as such human law is pointless, yet I'm willing to bet he follows less than half of the laws set out in the bible, which would suggest that god himself is fallible, and/or that his law is pointless.
As you said, there is no universal morality, but rather a universal morality catalogue.

[SmilezRoyale]

It's a pointless argument in the fact that Both those who go by Objective morality, and those who follow god's universal morality are equally as susceptible to falling towards evolutionary urges of greed, vanity, gluttony, sodomy [In the contemporary sense, as to not offend the gay rights activists on this server] Etc. etc. etc.

Doesn't matter if it's god saying to do things that are right, or an atheist saying to do things that are right, just 'because they are right' The instant someone choses to take the road of 'evolution' or 'satan' [The two are highly synonymous as far as I am concerned] order is broken in a post agricultural society, and someone can he hurt, one person could die... or... millions could die :D depending on the situation.

[Sajberhippien]

At 3/8/08 08:57 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: It's a pointless argument in the fact that Both those who go by Objective morality, and those who follow god's universal morality are equally as susceptible to falling towards evolutionary urges of greed, vanity, gluttony, sodomy [In the contemporary sense, as to not offend the gay rights activists on this server] Etc. etc. etc.

I think that is his point. All morales are subjective (by the way, why is it called objective morality? isn't universal morality more objective than subjective morality is?).

[FUNKbrs]

Wow, I was really digging this before people started being fags.

I mean, I think you guys are ignoring guys like the british Utilitarians, who basically said:" What good is a morality if it doesn't produce quantifiable good?"

They started with a list of "goods": things which are morally valuable over other things. Then a moral code becomes a tool of attaining those "goods". An example of a moral good would be a friendship, or the welfare of children, or social equality. Basically, a moral code is a justifiable moral code if when put into action it generates these predetermined moral goods, regardless of who made it or why.

Now, there are still people who use the "duty" system of good, like Immanuel Kant, who basically said you owed society certain obligations called duties, such as obeying the law, respecting women, obeying your parents, being polite, etc. However, a duty system is sometimes the best way of producing these moral goods talked about by the Utilitarians.

So then, morality is not judged by whether you use an archaic duty based system of universal morality or a subjective situation based morality, but by the RESULT of said morality.

If worshippers of the Malaysian Monkey God of Gay Prostitution and Drug Use had a fairly equitable society where people weren't mistreated and had ample opportunity to better themselves without fear to raise thier children in peace, I wouldn't give a shit HOW silly their religion sounded.

However, I've MET atheists who were also amoral and just bad people who mistreated their children and everyone else around them. I've also MET christians WHO DO THE SAME FUCKING THING.

Therefore, I agree somewhat with the Utiliarians that morality is results based, not law or code based. Do whatever will generate more happiness than sorrow, more justice than inequity, and more prospering than decaying, and justify it with whatever creed strikes your fancy.

Anyone who disagrees with that is just being vain and pretentious.

[Drakim]

At 3/11/08 02:10 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Anyone who disagrees with that is just being vain and pretentious.

lol. Way to go to be open minded!

Tell me, is killing animals for food moral? Not every single situation in this world goes "should I beat my children or not?". There are a lot of moral dilemmas in which people won't agree.

What you describe would require people to agree what "good" is, which has never been the case since the dawn of mankind.

[FUNKbrs]

At 3/11/08 04:50 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 3/11/08 02:10 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Anyone who disagrees with that is just being vain and pretentious.

lol. Way to go to be open minded!

Or to cut off any pointless attempts to counter my tenet which I've already thought out a defence to. No, seriously, vain and pretentious. A morality without results has no substance to it; it's all hollywood and fake. Just because I act all funky with it doesn't mean I'm just clamming up and putting my head in the sand. Pointless repetitive argument is pointless and repetitive.

Tell me, is killing animals for food moral?

Ask Steve Irwin, who used to feed chickens and rats to crocodiles. People need to realize that
A: they have canine teeth, and
B: those canine teeth aren't very large

Therefore:

C: eating meat is part of being human, but not necessarily a very large part. Vegetarianism is a valid dietary choice, but it has nothing to do with morality. If my dog eats meat, but I eat tofu, I'm still killing animals for food. Everyone kills animals, just to survive, whether they intend to or not, like roadkill or water pollution. It's a part of the transient nature of this whole "being alive" thing we're all wrapped up in these days.

Eating meat is de facto moral. It may not seem right on the surface compared to other moral laws, but it was grandfathered in.

Not every single situation in this world goes "should I beat my children or not?". There are a lot of moral dilemmas in which people won't agree.

True. This is why the world is a big place. Or at least, it used to be. People who are of like minds should live together, and not force people with different values to live in their society. Sadly, competition for resources means there has to be a certain level of globality in infrastucture, so people with different values are forced to work together, which is unnatural for simple, common, earthy people.

What you describe would require people to agree what "good" is, which has never been the case since the dawn of mankind.

Oh, but I imagine there are plenty of basics that are universal. Like not getting raped in the ass when you're a little girl just because you're too small to stop it from happening and someone bigger than you wants to, ending up pregnant, and having to raise that bastards child. There has to be a certain political willingness to compromise, and I think you'll agree that human beings are very social and political creatures. For example, should such a thing happen, that compromise would be that although he couldn't be stopped from committing the act, he COULD be hunted down and imprisoned indefinitely so that he NEVER has the opportunity to do such a thing again, and furthermore be civilly sued for every scrap of clothing on his back like an indentured servant.

[Sajberhippien]

At 3/12/08 04:24 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Therefore:

C: eating meat is part of being human, but not necessarily a very large part.

Does that mean it's morally right? 'cause that's what we're talking about, not if it's natural, right?

Does eating meat lead to a "better" world, by your standards? Does it make people happy? I can get why people do it in Nigeria, but here, where we can just skip it?

According to Melanie Joy, proffessor of psychology, it isn't really a choice that leads to more happiness:
http://www.vegfamily.com/articles/carnis m.htm

What you describe would require people to agree what "good" is, which has never been the case since the dawn of mankind.

Like not getting raped in the ass when you're a little girl just because you're too small to stop it from happening and someone bigger than you wants to, ending up pregnant, and having to raise that bastards child.

Pregnant in the ass?

[Ravariel]

At 3/12/08 04:24 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Eating meat is de facto moral. It may not seem right on the surface compared to other moral laws, but it was grandfathered in.

Then I guess the question is this: Can an action be both moral and immoral at the same time?

[MidnightEscapeArtist]

At 3/11/08 02:10 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Wow, I was really digging this before people started being fags.

Haha, I think I know what you mean. After reading the original post I was all hot and bothered to reply, but doing my duty and reading what'd been said had me reaching for the back button.

I mean, I think you guys are ignoring guys like the british Utilitarians, who basically said:" What good is a morality if it doesn't produce quantifiable good?"

They started with a list of "goods": things which are morally valuable over other things. Then a moral code becomes a tool of attaining those "goods". An example of a moral good would be a friendship, or the welfare of children, or social equality. Basically, a moral code is a justifiable moral code if when put into action it generates these predetermined moral goods, regardless of who made it or why.

Now, there are still people who use the "duty" system of good, like Immanuel Kant, who basically said you owed society certain obligations called duties, such as obeying the law, respecting women, obeying your parents, being polite, etc. However, a duty system is sometimes the best way of producing these moral goods talked about by the Utilitarians.

Thank you for outlying the basics, that was a huge fucking relief.

So then, morality is not judged by whether you use an archaic duty based system of universal morality or a subjective situation based morality, but by the RESULT of said morality.

This is exactly what my problem was with philosophy. It seems as though both sides to the argument were arguing the same thing, in different words.

Consider this though: I came to the conclusion that the way Utilitarians define morality was flawed, because of the distance between one's actions and the result of one's actions within time.

I truly don't believe any moral worth lies in limbo until the unravelling of time proves an action to be 'good' or 'bad'.

Like going back in time and going on a shooting spree in Germany, before world war two. Whaddaya know, Hitler took one in the dome. You did a good thing.

That's ridiculous, morality is not a roll of the dice. It isn't gambling and coming out lucky.

So that's more or less what I concluded - Dutyism (that's just what we called it in class for simplification) is Utilitarianism without the element of human error inherent in thinking we can accurately assess outcomes.

And so, just as you said, Dutyism, without that flaw, becomes even the Utilitarian philosophy.

A lot of it depends on when you start measuring. If you measure the 'good' of an action in the short term, there are too many outcomes.

Truly, you cannot measure it accurately, as chance muddies all waters - creating the debate I guess.

Why is it people always believe ONE answer is correct? That's the disease in this world...