Sub-Objective Morality
Sub-objective morality
Side Score: 1
|
 |
No objective morality at all
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
There are certainly norms and morals that would be more conducive to the proliferation of a species or the prosperity of an individual. The morals for individual prosperity are likely very much at odds with those for collective prosperity. We have no guarantee that either set of morals will be practiced at any point in time. I guess my argument is that given some objective, individual prosperity, proliferation of the species, or what have you, there exists some optimal set of morals conducive to that end. However, there are no objectives that are universal through time. Individualism is not constant. Collectivism is not constant. Morality is ultimately subjective. It has no basis in objective reality. Side: Sub-objective morality
Why should individual prosperity and collective prosperity be "likely very much at odds" with one another? It seems to me that if the collective interest were at such odds with the individual interest it would not have survived the natural selection process. I think it would be more accurate to say that the individual and collective interest/prosperity are generally more mutualistic than at odds, but with uncommon exceptions among individuals who are mostly at odds with the collective. Side: No objective morality at all
1
point
True, collectives were created to benifit all the individuals who participated. However, there are many, many, many examples of individual interest getting in the way of collective good. It seem to be a fundamental flaw in our current system. We get stuck in local optimums. For example, every economist knows that for poor African countries to have widespread dependable access to electricity, they must privatize the power companies and allow competition. African leaders are not dumb, they know this. They also know that if they try to make this change, the people who are currently benefitting from subsidized electricity will come out with pitch forks and torches to chase him or out of office. This they are stuck with awful power services. Another example is tariffs and export subsidies. We would all be better off, with a few strategic exceptions, without tariffs and export subsidies. However, domestic businesses don't like competition so they will lobby against the removal of tariffs. The consumer, who stands to benifit, is unlikely to fight as hard as the businesses. Again the suboptimal solution prevails. Individualism conquers collectivism. This is common. Side: Sub-objective morality
|
If I understand OP correctly, the proposition is that since there seem to be general universals such as the Golden Rule we might conclude that there are certain objective morals ("sub-objective morals") even though their specific conception over time and across cultures varies. I am skeptical that such general morals exist to begin with, and even if they did that would not make them objective since they are still dependent upon human conception. Side: No objective morality at all
1
point
In all my research, the closest thing I have ever seen to a universal universal moral maxim is that the morality of a decision or action should not depend on the person deciding if acting. That is, equality before moral law. If it is wrong for me to lie in this situation, it is wrong for you, for Obama, for everybody. Of course, when there were kings, this maxim was not accepted. Even today, with the difference in treatment of between whites and blacks, rich and poor, powerful and weak, this maxim is routinely violated. Many religions also teach that if you are a follower your actions will be judged less harshly than unbelievers. But still, it is the closest thing I have found to be unobjectionable moral maxim. Side: No objective morality at all
Which is all to say, effectively, that there is no universal moral maxim at all. In addition to your own historical observations, there is a rather substantive body of psychological research which suggests that we selectively apply our morals to favor ourselves and those we associate ourselves with. Side: Sub-objective morality
I think I forgot what morality actually is for a second. Morality is a perception, a view that one has of what is right and wrong. I was taking a social Darwinism approach at determining whether there could be a kind of objective morality because that is, after all, how we've come about our own subjective moralities in the first place. If you've accepted that morality came through social Darwinist means, it's a bit difficult to grasp that morality is completely independent of the prolongation of a species and is only dependent on the mind of that which is assessing. Nevertheless, thanks for the insight guys. Side: No objective morality at all
|
