|
I assert that objective morality does not exist. Here is proof that my assertion is correct: morality = a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct right = most favorable, desirable, or convenient wrong = unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention objective = uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices morality = a system of ideas about desirable and undesirable things objective = uninfluenced by desires objective + morality = not influenced by desires + based upon desires = oxymoron x = based upon desires -x + x = 0 Morality is a subjective view of what is good(ie desired) and bad/evil(ie desired to not be). Morality is not a law, nor is it a system of societal rules that are enforced by one person on another. Morality is an internal subjective guideline which a person uses to guide their own behavior. Morality exists because subjective beings place value on things, usually things which benefit themselves. The act of placing value(emotional importance) on a thing or action is due to the emotional nature of the act is by necessity and definition a subjective act. It can not be an objective act, because being objective would prevent the emotional act of placing value(emotional importance). Objectivity is by definition the state of being uninfluenced by emotions or prejudice. Thus morality has to be and must necessarially be subjective, or it can not exist. Because most people have certain basic and fundamental desires shared between them, moral guidelines are often applied as a set of rules to the group. Such desires include, life, liberty, health, love, security of their person and possessions, and the pursuit of happiness. Morality, even that described by the bible, is ultimately based on what someone wants. Morality cannot be objective, and here is why. Morality is based on values. Without values morality is nothing. Values are are principles, standards, or qualities, that are considered worth while or desirable. Values are things of emotional importance to someone. Objectivity is not being influenced by emotion or prejudice. If someone is being objective, then they can't hold values. Holding values causes emotional influence, thus rendering objectivity impossible. Value negates objectivity, and Morality requires values, thus Morality negates objectivity. You may disagree with my premises(the definitions of terms), but the logic is sound. If you don't disagree with the premises, then you must accept the conclusion, or be irrational. By the measure of what i have learned in my life of what is good and bad. By my own personal view. How do you measure distance? If you are like me, then you estimate it based on the size of your body, compared with what size your body is in a certain measuring system. Someone, somewhere, sometime, decided that a certain straight stick of some length was a foot, or a yard, or a meter. Now modern scientists may have redefined the length of a meter in terms of how far light travels in a fraction of a second, measuring a second based on the number of rotations of an atom of element x at temperature y, but the length that is a meter is still completely arbitrary. In order for me to understand what a meter is, i have to see an object that is x meters long, and i subconciously compare the size of any object with the size of my body, my height, or the length of my arms or legs, the width of my thumb. When i want to understand morality, i may use an arbitrary group of rules or guidelines. But i first had to learn and compare those rules and guidelines against my knowledge, perceptions, and feelings. People are taught that the word good applies to certain kinds of things, and generally what best describes what fits into that category is what people want, when they understand what is going on and how things work. If you want to redefine the word good, then in order to be honest, you have to not make an appeal to the emotional connotations which apply to the other definition of good. So define morality, good, right, wrong, and evil however you want, but if the definitions you use don't make what a person has learned those words to mean, then you will have to explain the difference in definitions and avoid appealing to implications and connotations of the other definition, or be guilty of equivocation. Truth isn't relative, but morality is. Morality is a system of value statements. What i value may not be the same as what you value. It is true that i value what i value, and that you value what you value, but a statement of what i value isn't an objective statement of truth. I hate peanuts. The flavor of them is terrible to me, so i would say that peanuts are bad. Some people may be allergic to peanuts and are physically harmed by consuming them, while other people may enjoy peanuts. So whether peanuts are good or not is relative to the individual. The same is true of murder, assault, theft, and deceit, except that there is much more agreement on those issues than there is on peanuts. > Further, if each > individual cultures's mores are right, then there is no way to > adjudicate conflicts between different cultures. This idea of moral values being right or wrong is something that doesn't exist in subjective morality. It is something that only exists if there is objective morality, which by definition is an oxymoron. If a particular culture values X,then it is correct to say that the culture values X, but the valuing of X is neither right nor wrong. There are ways to negotiate conflicts between cultures, but there is no 'correct' answer to cross cultural conflicts. There is no moral authority to mediate between them, they have to work it out together, whether peacefully or with violence. |