What we've got here is, failure to communicate.Kenny wrote:Perhaps morality hasn't changed, but what people see as moral/immoral has.Kurieuo wrote:Hi Ken,
Yes, it seems evident to me that different information can lead to different moral actions (or “calculations” if you will). This doesn’t necessarily mean “morality” has changed.
I agree!Kurieuo wrote:In the examples previously provided (volcano sacrifice, racism) there was only different information. The moral values being used to calculate particular actions were much the same, only working with different information.
For example, self-sacrifice is a good quality. It is seen as good and virtuous, even if it logically seems quite stupid to give up our lives since they're the only ones we'll presumably ever have.
I agree and I think you are making a case for subjective morality. On a previous thread we were discussing (at least I believe it was you; if not my apologizes in advance) I made the point that if morality were objective and lying is wrong, and it were the year 1938 and you lived in Germany, and the SS came knocking at your door asking if you had any Jews in the house and you knew you had a Jewish family hiding in your attic, if you believed morality were objective you would have to either refuse to answer them (which would prompt them to search the house) or tell the SS where this family were hiding so they can be taken to the death camps; because under objective morality; lying is immoral no matter the circumstance, personal opinions, assumptions, or beliefs.Kurieuo wrote:In addition to information, there are also differences in circumstance that can change a moral calculation. For example, I think we both would agree that it is wrong for someone to steal for no reason. Yet, I think we would both agree stealing food to survive, while not ideal, is justified.
This does not mean we believe stealing is now good – stealing is still absolutely wrong – but we’re faced with a moral dilemma. That is, there is no good outcome either way. If we value someone’s life more, than stealing is an acceptable course of action. If we value honesty more than life, then not stealing even unto death will be seen as the better thing.
Under Subjective morality, you have the option of taking extenuating circumstances into consideration and determine that lying to be the moral thing to do in this particular situation.
Using your example of stealing, perhaps it is moral to steal to feed a starving child rather than allow him to starve to death. Objective morality would require you allow him to starve (assuming there is no other option)
I've seen it said, as you say -- that this steal example evidences subjective morality.
Even the Nazi example of lying used. Maybe even some teachers use such as an example in favour of subjective morality.
Let me say clearly, they're wrong. It's not an example in favour of subjective morality.
If you've ever heard the line, "that might be right for you, but it's not right for me."
That is the heart of subjective morality.
The most the above can lean towards is a morality relative to a situation -- situational ethics.
Contrasted against moral absolutism, for example, where someone who absolutely believes in non-violence would even die for such.
OR, if someone believes that it is absolutely honourable to die for others, then they may even seek out such death in strange ways.
BUT, how terms are applied are rarely nice and neat.
For example, I can believe it is absolutely wrong to steal. The fact that one is starving doesn't undercut this.
But then, I absolutely believe that a person has a right to life. Their life takes precedence, and therefore while stealing is still wrong, I'd tolerate such! (ahh, the true meaning of "tolerance" -- don't often get to use it correctly today).
That said, I think the confusion comes in because of a behaviorist mindset that our society/ies have been philosophically saturated in. Behaviorism looks at the actions of the person and what is observed rather than how they feel or what is within. Such is based upon a scientific physicalist philosophy, however I don't wish to distract from a discussion on morality -- you can investigate this further if unsure about it.
Anyway, as I was saying, the confusion I think happens because "moral actions" (which is an outcome of our applying morality) is often reduced to just represent "morality". On the other hand, "moral knowledge" (the actual moral values, virtues and the like that we foundationally believe in) can result in different actions when applied under different situations or circumstances.
What I, and probably every Christian here you've had a discussion with on objective morality is advocating, is that "morality" is objective so far as our basic knowledge of good and bad is concerned. We all appear to share common set of values and virtues. This lends credence to an invisible universal standard of some sort.
On the other hand, how we apply such might differ from one situation to the next, or might be dependent upon certain circumstances, or change according to our information -- but this doesn't change the fact we still strongly feel and believe that it is wrong to take something that doesn't belong to them. We will tolerate and make allowances in certain situtations, but that doesn't change the fact the stealing is wrong.
So what about subjectivity, which is often setup in opposition to objectivity? Well, subjectivity is more about what I say goes.
So If I steal from someone, let's just forget that it's stealing. I'm entitled to take what I want. The world is a cruel place, get over it. Don't like it, tough. Go cry to Mommy. If someone thinks my taking someone else's possessions is wrong, and I think it right, then we're both right. Morality is merely a matter of personal taste and preference. Without an external standard there is nothing to really say my stealing is wrong.
So society sets in place a legal system with judges and what not.
If both parties subscribe to such (and in our societies we kind of have no choice), then the judge becomes the objective standard of two parties who are is disagreement. What the judge decides goes.
BUT, is it just the judges opinion? It'd be odd if a judge ruled, "Well actually, Kurieuo is entitled to take what he pleased. You may not like that Ken but go cry to Mommy."
In our societies, judges are often making decisions based it upon some standard. Often this is in the form of legislation which places boundaries upon what can or cannot be ruled. But, even legislation is built upon something more objective to itself.
And so we keep going back until we come face-to-face with some invisible form of values and virtues that we all just seem to acknowledge intuitively. Thus, is what we Christians often mean by objective morality.
I'll leave you to work out what you believe.
Understandably it isn't always clear. As for the terms used in this discussion, your last post just shows how it is so important to first understand what people mean by this or that term. People often intend all different things when they use this or that term.
And further, I don't expect you to just accept what I tell you, but hopefully what I wrote does make some sense.