/lit/ - Literature

>>3849733
>I am a philosophy pleb. So imagine my consternation when I hear about objective morality
>I just can't wrap my head around it.
Most people can't wrap their heads around it. Most people are not utterly batshit insane.

there isn't, no

>>3849740
>speaks authoritatively about philosophy
>obviously can't into philosophy in the first place

Wow

>>3849740
are you actually a philosophy major?

is moral relativism the status quo in serious philosophical circles?

>>3849750
>>obviously can't into philosophy in the first place
where did you even get this from
>>3849749
>is moral relativism the status quo in serious philosophical circles?
yes

>>3849749
You don't need to be a 'philosophy major' to know the answer to that one.

>>3849750
I suppose you've got some hidden completely logical argument for objective morality then? Jeez whoops guess I just missed it all these years. Mind posting it here?

>>3849733
>is my boss's favorite ice cream objectively better than mine because he's more powerful than me?

This depends Anon. Did your boss will into being the existence of ice-cream, and all of it's varying flavours and combinations of such?

>>3849749
In europe moral relativism is the standard, in the us moral realism is the standard.
I think moral realism is bunk.

They believe in it for two reasons:
1) They believe that their moral intuition are true and that are based on biology (thus common to everyone).
2) They see society as basically organic and not divided. That is that an arrangement is possible where everyone wins.

>>3849775
let's say I write two songs. I willed those songs into being. I sing them. I personally like the first song, but my audience likes the second song better.

is the first song objectively better just because I created it and I like it better?

>>3849755
>>3849756

I don't know why you imply moral relativism is the norm.
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=All+respondents&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=coarse

>>3849794
Because that's based on analytic philosophers. In Europe the situation is very different.

>>3849789

>>3849789
even if the same morality is common in every human, how is that not subjective? it is subjective to humans. no one besides humans holds this morality to be "right", therefore it is subjective. animals don't give a shit, rocks don't give a shit, intelligent outer space aliens may or may not give a shit

I guess my uneducated point for now is that if something only exists within a subjective system (like an intelligent's organism's mind) then it cannot be objective. only things that continue to be true in outside of a subjective system (like arithmetic) can be objective

>>3849794
>Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?
>Accept or lean toward: contextualism 1366 / 3226 (42.3%)

>Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?
>Accept or lean toward: moral realism 1694 / 3226 (52.5%)

What the fuck am I even reading

>>3849793
You willed nothing Anon. You are the instrument through which the Lord our God wrote and conveyed both songs, for the enjoyment of your earthly audience.

>>3849799
THEIR answer would be that just because it relates to human reality it does not mean that is objective. Animals don't recognize bank accounts but they behave like objects.
Animals don't recognize "enlightenment" but the existence of the enlightenment is objective.

A better answer would be to deny that there is such thing as a common morality for every human or ethics would be descriptive (this is how we behave) and not prescriptive (this how we should behave).

and once ethics tries to be prescriptive you should ask "why should I behave like that?" or "Says who?

>>3849794
>Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don't switch?

>Accept or lean toward: switch 2016 / 3226 (62.5%)
>Other 923 / 3226 (28.6%)
>Accept or lean toward: don't switch 287 / 3226 (8.9%)
UH OH

>>3849818
That shows how retarded they are.

>>3849799
But what does it all mean Basil!?!

>>3849818
>trolley problem

I don't get how this is some kind of complex moral dilemma.

One supposedly deep quandary I heard was some guy was in a philosophy class, and on the first day the professor posed the question, "if you are a vegetarian and you are faced with: eat a chicken sandwhich, or five chickens are brutally slaughtered, which do you choose?"

obviously you would eat the sandwhich. the sandwhich itself is not inherently evil, it's the act that made the chicken sandwhich. the whole point would be to avoid further acts that create chicken sandwhiches

>>3849832
>obviously you would eat the sandwhich

What if you're a vegetarian for health reasons and don't give a shit about animals being killed?

>>3849832
>obviously you would eat the sandwhich.
It depends on why you're a vegetarian in the first place. These problems are all about looking at extremes of a concept, because sometimes that can show you things like its limitations, strengths or idiosyncrasies. Blame guys like Locke for it.

>>3849833
then you kill the chickens because you don't give a shit, obviously. my point is that it's not some kind of complex puzzle

>>3849794
>Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?
>objective 1122 / 3226 (34.8%)
what the fuck

>>3849823
Elaborate on this.

>>3849844
1/3 of people make objectively shit value judgements.

>>3849818
>Other
how is that an option

>>3849852
I assume it's multitrackdrifting.jpg

>>3849849
You don't touch the switch because then you are going to get arrested for killing that guy.

It's not up to you to decided who lives or dies no matter how accurate you think are your utilitarian calculations,

>>3849879
isnt not pulling the lever a decision as well
given the option of pulling the lever or not pulling the lever is not the same as not being given the option

>>3849879
first part is completely beside the point of the question and not pulling the switch is just as much of a decision as pulling it, youre still deciding who lives and who dies if you make a conscious choice not to pull it. and in that situation it is in fact up to you who lives and who dies because youre the one who decides to pull it or not, so...

OP, I think I know what you mean by "objective" (though elaborate if you want), but what do you mean by "moral"?

As in, right or just? If so, I'd consider reading Aristotle in order to get a glimpse at the kinds of arguments used to support the ideas you're talking about. You may still end up rejecting the whole thing, but his Four Causes can be very tempting when you first start thinking about them.

I'm a proponent of Nietzche's theory that morals are a human construct, and that that doesn't make them any less real.

>>3849898
But one was a direct result of your actions while the other was a result of inaction. You must take full responsibility for the first, but the second you could reason away from guilt.

>>3849879
As if you'd get fucking prosecuted.
But in even thinking that way, you've made the assumption that someone ought to act in such a way as to avoid prison, which is not a value-free assumption (what I'm assuming you're getting at).
There's no general prescription for what to do.
But I assume most people would pull the level. I fucking hope so. Avoiding guilt and punishment and compromising out of fear is pathetic (my subjective evaluation).

>>3849912
>You must take full responsibility for the first, but the second you could reason away from guilt.
Maybe if you're a naughty child.

The only objective morality is my morality, every other morality is alien to me, a product of the Other.

>>3849893
Legally it is not.
If you pull the lever you get tried for murder, if you do not nothing happens to you.

The reasoning is that if you don't pull the lever the responsible for the pain is who set up the situation (by tying the people on the rail) or no one (in case of an accident).

But in the moment you pull the lever your action is directly responsible for that person's death. Only by not acting you can keep you conscience clean.

The original trolley problem was in fact an argument against utilitarianism. The reasoning behind it was too show two things:
1) Calculations of utility are not the basis of our moral judgment since we feel discomfort in acting purely on that.
2) You cannot calculate between lives. Five things of infinite value are equal in value to one thing of infinite value.

>>3849915
>legally
also
>manslaughter

>>3849775

Since humans are fallible their understanding of right/wrong can be fallible.

It is possible that Rape, Incest, Genocide and Eating Shit are not only morally good, but moral duties, as they accord with God's true nature/commands.

If this were the case, so what? No one would care. Objective morality, i.e a morality that doesn't conform to a human culture's demands and identity is irrelevant.

>>3849914
I'm just saying it would ease your conscience to reason that
1. You weren't directly involved with anyone's death.
2. You were not the cause of anyone's death. (Whoever tied them to the track was)
3. If you were not there the same outcome would've happened.

>>3849921
Yeah in my country we don't have the distinction between voluntary and involuntary murder. We have voluntary and involuntary murder.

>>3849733
That horrible feeling that even if we all died at once the universe would still be the same without us.

We need to universe in order to exist, not the other way around.

>>3849793


It would be better to put this argument in terms of tangible objects.

A farm that produced twice as much produce in the same amount of space is an objectively (the objective of producing food) better farm.

Music has no objective but enjoyment, so if you enjoy it more then it's an objectively good song. Since music is itself is subjective, the only way to measure the "objective success" of a song would be in sales figures, or in the NUMBER of people enjoying a song.

Footnote: music can have more meaning than pure enjoyment (eg propaganda, education), but music is generally enjoyed in leisure

>>3849832
>avoid further acts that create chicken sandwhiches

Why would you do such a terrible thing

>>3849855

morality is a human construct but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist for human beings, which is the only really relevant way it could exist anyway

morality is difficult to know but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is unknowable

i would argue that a good way to start thinking about an 'objective' human moral code is with things that we know are common to all humans by the fact of their being human, IE all human beings live, all human beings live with other human beings, and all human beings die. and how those things should affect our attitude towards our existence and our actions.

>>3850136
The problem is that you don't always recognize or want to recognize all human beings as human beings of equal value.
You have to assume a human position (i.e. that your community is humanity at large) but that position is not necessary at all.

I don't see how from that way of reasoning you manage to get a morality without slipping in a lot of assumptions that are unwarranted.

>>3850530
*humanist position