Where do you get your morals and ethics?

[Marcus]

...What has the most robust explanatory power for universal morality? God....

"robust explanatory power" has a fairly specific meaning in discussions such as this. I disagree that invoking your belief in your version of the supernatural constitutes 'robustness.'

[Res Ipsa]

Hi Ceebs,

Hey RI!

Interesting stuff. I don't believe in fairies.

I don't believe in fairies either.

If someone told me that I actually believed in fairies, I'd simply reject their statement out of hand because what I believe is subjective to me.

Fair.

So you are equating fairies with my suggestions about objective morality? Or am I missing your point?

Not equating, but analogizing. Both statements make claims about my subjective state of mind that directly contradict my subjective state of mind.

I don't believe in objective morality.

I'm not challenging you and I am not debating you - I am seeking clarity on your position here - that's all. So, you don't believe that we all share a common understanding/knowledge about right and wrong? Or am I missing your point again?

Fair enough. I'm happy to try and explain my point of view and leave it at that. In my opinion, any belief that comes from a person is subjective, regardless of how many people have the same subjective belief. If a belief comes from human minds, it is subjective. From my point of view, morality" is a concept created by human brains. The distinction between "moral" and "immoral" is a shared agreement among people based on their own subjective views. Even if there were universal agreement on how the distinction applies to a specific act, it's still just a aggregation of subjective beliefs. The same with "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "bad."

So, my friend, that leaves me in an odd position. I doubt that you are peeking into my brain and purporting to know my subjective beliefs better than I know them myself. Or I can guess that you and I don't mean the same thing when we use the label "objective morality." So, I should probably ask you to define "objective morality."

I would define objective morality (basically) as a thing that is true that is outside of ourselves - not fluid, rather it's fixed. For example, if we were to ask 100 random people at a gas station in Nebraska the following: Is it morally wrong to take a steel bar and physically break the jaw of a four-year-old child? I would submit that 100 out of 100 would say that it is morally wrong to do so.

So, if 100 out of 100 would say it's wrong, I would submit that this is objective morality at work.

"a thing that is true outside ourselves" is close to how I would define objective truth. From my point of view, an objective moral rule would have to originate from something other than the human mind. If we agree on a set of moral rules that originate in a human mind, it's still subjective.

It's certainly easy to create extreme examples that would be likely to result in high levels of agreement: especially if you're only polling 100 Nebraskans at a gas station. But phrase your question another way: are there absolutely no circumstances under which striking a four-year old in the head with a steel bar would be a moral thing to do? I think you'd find much less agreement.

[ceeboo]

I'm happy to try and explain my point of view and leave it at that.

I appreciate your good faith attempt to explain your position.

I couldn't reasonably ask for more than that - so thanks RI.

[Res Ipsa]

I'm happy to try and explain my point of view and leave it at that.

I appreciate your good faith attempt to explain your position.

I couldn't reasonably ask for more than that - so thanks RI.

Any time, Ceebs. Thanks for the opportunity.

[huckelberry]

Oh daughter of Babylon you devastator.Happy shall he be who rquites you with what you have done to us. Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock.

Well just because this is a very real expression of grief over the pain in defeat in war and how some people were brutalized it may not be a clear statement of morality. But if one is looking for Bible rules there are situations where killing of children was commanded. War complicates the rules.

Rules have their use but morality would be better based upon an understanding of love.

[huckelberry]

Fair enough. I'm happy to try and explain my point of view and leave it at that. In my opinion, any belief that comes from a person is subjective, regardless of how many people have the same subjective belief. If a belief comes from human minds, it is subjective. From my point of view, morality" is a concept created by human brains. The distinction between "moral" and "immoral" is a shared agreement among people based on their own subjective views. Even if there were universal agreement on how the distinction applies to a specific act, it's still just a aggregation of subjective beliefs. The same with "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "bad."

Res Ipsa, there is clear sense in what you are saying. It comes to the forefront thinking of rules for morality, People construct them. Still there is another side to the matter. I find myself considering that what is in my mind is not some self contained process, completely subjective. A human mind is an organic thing functioning in relation to the world it is living with, body, partners and world about.Success or failure in this functioning is not entirely a subjective thing, a clear relationship between mind and the rest of reality is important . A fellow may treat his spouse poorly and a friend points it out. You are messing up your marriage. This is not subjective, how well the fellow reacts to the moral advice is not subjective, if his marriage survives is not subjective.

[Res Ipsa]

Fair enough. I'm happy to try and explain my point of view and leave it at that. In my opinion, any belief that comes from a person is subjective, regardless of how many people have the same subjective belief. If a belief comes from human minds, it is subjective. From my point of view, morality" is a concept created by human brains. The distinction between "moral" and "immoral" is a shared agreement among people based on their own subjective views. Even if there were universal agreement on how the distinction applies to a specific act, it's still just a aggregation of subjective beliefs. The same with "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "bad."

Res Ipsa, there is clear sense in what you are saying. It comes to the forefront thinking of rules for morality, People construct them. Still there is another side to the matter. I find myself considering that what is in my mind is not some self contained process, completely subjective. A human mind is an organic thing functioning in relation to the world it is living with, body, partners and world about.Success or failure in this functioning is not entirely a subjective thing, a clear relationship between mind and the rest of reality is important . A fellow may treat his spouse poorly and a friend points it out. You are messing up your marriage. This is not subjective, how well the fellow reacts to the moral advice is not subjective, if his marriage survives is not subjective.

Thanks, Huck. It gets tricky. I do believe in the existence of an objective reality, although my perception and understanding of it are subjective. I wouldn't think of some of the things you list as being objective. If by "the marriage doesn't survive," you mean divorce, then we would find objective evidence of that in a court file. But if I say that a friend of mine is treating his wife poorly, I would consider the "poorly" part a subjective judgment. I would also consider "you are messing up your marriage" to be a subjective statement. The same with whether my friend reacts "well" to my advice.

A purely descriptive statement of my friend's behavior both before and after the advice could be close enough to objective reality to treat it as objective. But I think there is even subjectivity in deciding which parts of behavior toward his wife are relevant -- which behavior should I consider in reaching my conclusion that my friend is acting poorly towards his wife.

That's how I think about it, anyway.

[Doctor Steuss]

Where do you get your morals and ethics?

Particularly the grounding, down at the very bottom.

My parents.

There are some ethics which have evolved, with society and personal growth. In most cases (at least that I can think of), my parents' ethics have often evolved as well. Some things, such as honesty, kindness, thinking of the greater good over self, etc. are just core aspects of who they are, and who they have tried to inspire their children to be. My grandparents had similar foundational characters.

[huckelberry]

Res Ipsa, there is clear sense in what you are saying. It comes to the forefront thinking of rules for morality, People construct them. Still there is another side to the matter. I find myself considering that what is in my mind is not some self contained process, completely subjective. A human mind is an organic thing functioning in relation to the world it is living with, body, partners and world about.Success or failure in this functioning is not entirely a subjective thing, a clear relationship between mind and the rest of reality is important . A fellow may treat his spouse poorly and a friend points it out. You are messing up your marriage. This is not subjective, how well the fellow reacts to the moral advice is not subjective, if his marriage survives is not subjective.

Thanks, Huck. It gets tricky. I do believe in the existence of an objective reality, although my perception and understanding of it are subjective. I wouldn't think of some of the things you list as being objective. If by "the marriage doesn't survive," you mean divorce, then we would find objective evidence of that in a court file. But if I say that a friend of mine is treating his wife poorly, I would consider the "poorly" part a subjective judgment. I would also consider "you are messing up your marriage" to be a subjective statement. The same with whether my friend reacts "well" to my advice.

A purely descriptive statement of my friend's behavior both before and after the advice could be close enough to objective reality to treat it as objective. But I think there is even subjectivity in deciding which parts of behavior toward his wife are relevant -- which behavior should I consider in reaching my conclusion that my friend is acting poorly towards his wife.

That's how I think about it, anyway.

Res Ipsa, I can see tricky for sure. I can see a subjective dimension to the judgements. They could be in error. Perhaps small errors of overreaction or perhaps total errors of judgement. Perhaps my picture was a friend thought his friend was having an affair and confronted his friend but was in fact wrong.

The idea of objective morality often sounds like expecting or not expecting a clear set of rules that we have in our possession. I think objective morality is something we are reaching for and is not in our actual grasp. What are the human actions which tend to or are required for optimal human life. We are interdependent creatures and failure to take that seriously has objective negative effects.

/////
later adding, I may be fishing for discussion but there may not be much substantial disagreement here.

[Gadianton]

For example, if we were to ask 100 random people at a gas station in Nebraska the following: Is it morally wrong to take a steel bar and physically break the jaw of a four-year-old child? I would submit that 100 out of 100 would say that it is morally wrong to do so.

not an adequate sample. suppose we were to ask an Israelite back in the day:

Now go, attack the Amalekites. Destroy everything that belongs to them as an offering to the Lord. Don’t let anything live. Put to death men and women, children and small babies. Kill the cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’

If all that were available were a steel bar, then I'm sure it was okay to do just that, so long as the job were finished.