/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9780049]

Hey, /sci/, is morality objective or relative?

[Anonymous No.9780057]

relative

[Anonymous No.9780063]

>>9780057
Why?

[Anonymous No.9780067]

>>9780049
Objective

[Anonymous No.9780068]

most morals can be objectified based on fairness and the presence of pain

[Anonymous No.9780070]

>>9780068
Okay, but why is it that morality must be set to that standard? Does that apply to only humans? Why or why not? What judges what is fair?

[Anonymous No.9780092]

>>9780070
well morality is all about what is right and wrong, or even more simply: good and bad. what ought to be and what ought not to be

yes it applies to animals also, but I suppose there's a debate over the topic of whether crimes to animals are equal to crimes to people. most people don't consider animal life to be as precious as that of humans since they're not sentient, or at least much less so

judgment of fairness can become complex and convoluted, but at a simple level you can apply it easily, for example theft is bad although it may not directly cause pain because someone caused someone else to lose something they owned without justification
likewise murder is unjust even if painless, because someone loses the remainder of their life against their will

[Anonymous No.9780108]

>>9780049
Morality is a virtual tool. It is part of linguistics and can only be transmitted and recieved by individuals to restrict chaotic / unpredictable behaviour(s).

[Anonymous No.9780263]

>>9780049
Relative.

>http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_neolithic.htm

The problem is that societies don't agree on "what's right".
Take >>9780092's example.
"murder is unjust because someone loses the remainder of their life"
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
Someone who has "brought dishonor upon the family" deserves to die. Everyone is grateful to the person who actually wields the murder-weapon.

This is crazy by the standards of most Western countries and courts in the "civilized" areas of India, Pakastan, etc. frown on the practice.
I am NOT arguing "cultural relativism". Some practices are sick and twisted and ought to be wiped out. Quite a number of things which were considered "proper" in Victorian England. Female genital mutilation today.

I just wish to point out that there are no God-given "absolute" standards of Morality. If we ever meet intelligent aliens we should be cautious before attempting to impose "our" standards even if we find them appalling.
For example, there are two main reproductive strategies. Produce many offspring and don't worry if most die. Or, produce few offspring, but put effort into protecting and raising them. For a race which "bred like rabbits" and would consume all food if everyone lived, eating your own children might be "right" and sensible,.

[Anonymous No.9780389]

>>9780263
your argument for the honor killing is that the victim's family is all in agreement and are the majority, but I'd contend that majority rule is unrelated to morality
if you're going to say that it is, then I would ask how far it could go, for example what if a country decided by majority vote that rape is okay

>some practices are sick and twisted and ought to be wiped out
says who? if morals are relative then who decides?

[Anonymous No.9780598]

>>9780389
There are countries where "machismo" makes rape acceptable. Valid defense in court.

>some practices are sick and twisted and ought to be wiped out
Pardon. I should have said "I think they ought to be wiped out."

Who decides any such questions? We have governments -- which ultimately enforce the rules through violence (or the threat thereof) however much we like to downplay that fact. There's no "perfect" means of picking leaders. See Arrow's Theorem.
>http://tech.mit.edu/V123/N8/8voting.8n.html
Majority Rule isn't always "fair" (imagine a democratic world government with proportional representation that decided to criminalize eating beef.) but Minority rule (by heredity or by money) doesn't have a great record either.
>https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/267224-democracy-is-the-worst-form-of-government-except-for-all

Churches also used to enforce morality through force. Ask Bruno or Galileo. That's declined in the West and their direst threats are now talk of hellfire. Or excommunication or shunning, but no longer torture. I think that's a good thing. Ireland just showed this. American politicians who call themselves "conservative" are running against the trend; they and their constituents may delay things but, like the "Drys" in the 20s, they'll ultimately lose.

There was a chap here on /sci/ just a few days ago, seeking information. He explained he lived in a Muslim country, wasn't a Believer, but knew better than to ask questions openly. I hope he used some sort of IP anonymizer so his identity couldn't be traced.

[Anonymous No.9780636]

>>9780598
modern democracy isnt based around majority rule, its based on rights and constitutions.

[Anonymous No.9780782]

>>9780636
Which can be changed by majorities -- or supermajorities. Constitutions (I am thinking of the US in particular) are deliberately hard to change. This prevents rash actions. Every amendment past the first 10 has been ratified by a supermajority of the states. Another Constitutional Convention is also allowed -- but everyone is scared to death of that. Even if it was ostensibly convened to deal with particular issue X, there are no limits. It could do ANYTHING. Repeal free speech, search and seizure, bearing arms.

You are correct. Rights and Constitutions are designed to prevent the majority by abusing the minority. Left-handers are protected against being enslaved. Barons from seizure of their lands by the King.

But, as I said before, governments ultimate rely upon force. Governments in many parts of the world (South America, the Middle East, China) have routinely "revised" their Constitutions by majority rule -- a matter of counting bullets, if not always heads.
Anyone who believes the Rule of Law will always be respected by all parties is living in a fantasy land.
Some systems try to compromise; people are less likely to overthrow society if they have a stake in the system. Doesn't always work when dealing with fanatics unwilling to compromise. See US history Apr 12, 1861 – May 13, 1865.
To tie this is with the thread's theme of "morality" recall that one side apparently genuinely believed they were doing God's will by enslaving an inferior race and the arrangement benefitted both races. Sermons told them that every Sunday. Powerful argument even to those too impoverished to own slaves of their own. Just a week or two ago, some asshole was still trying to characterize slavery as akin to being an Uber driver; voluntary contract, freely entered into.

[Anonymous No.9780923]

>>9780049
Moral is relative
Ethic is objective
As far as I'm concerned, that's kind of a rule