Is anyone fit to decide right from wrong?

Every being knows right from wrong for themselves. No being knows right from wrong on the behalf on anyone else. That's my opinion anyway.

Subjective does not mean relative.

Thus, in my opinion your poll is missing a catgegory.

Here is the difference.

In my read, subjective entails an objective reality.

The buddhist tale of five monks and the elephant discusses subjectivity and it's difference between relativity.

Here it is in synopsis. There is 5 blind monks who all have a hold of a part of an elephant and they have been asked what they are holding. The one holding the trunk think he has a a large snake in his hand. The one holding the ear think he has a large peice of parchment in his hand and so on.

They are all not correct (totally) but are defining reality subjectively. Based on thier take - there is something out there they are trying to explain, they have a portion of reality, and based on that portion they are making claims.

Now then, the relative position is that there is no elephant out there really, and whatever the monks come up with is as good as any other position. In short, relativity means that 'the man is the measure of all things'.

So, objectivity is naming the elephant. Subjectivity is attempting to define the real reality but knowing that the person can only use his limited experience as his data set. This is where research, scientific method, careful measuring, and other things can make a man more objective, but there is always a subjective bias.

So, I think that Ethical truths are subjective, but under careful examination can be more objective if the examiner is careful.

TTF

thethinkfactory

I think exactly the opposite.
I see moral in a relative perspective, according to conditions of time and space.
In most societies in History we see dominant moral systems, that, with time, became almost consensual.

A relative moral has to do with the conditions of a given historical and social situation. A subjective moral has to do with individual moral options.
We can say that is western countries the moral idea that men and women must have the same social and individual dignity, is a moral rule relative to our historical period. Such rule would be absurd in Ancient Greece and, even today, is not accepted in muslim countries like Saudi Arabia.

A subjective moral - if there is one - has to do with individual choices. You can hate women, wish to see them degraded, and sustain they are inferior to men and should be treated as some sort of infra-human beings.

Since I don't believe in absolute moral, I think every period and society have moral patterns, in adequacy to dominant cultural and economical structures. When those structures start to change, moral will change sooner or later.

Only in periods of radical changes, when all the social, economical and cultural dominant structures of a society start to fall, subjective moral perspectives become relevant. See the cases of Epicurus with the revolution caused by Alexander the Great, de Sade with the French Revolution, Nietzsche and later Marcuse , with the triumph of the scientific and technological civilization.

Val:

So, ultimately, you think that there is no right and wrong answer to the facts of whether women should be considered equal?

TTF

Taliesin, yes, there are some objective morals, but most of what we consider to be morals are cultural and subjective.

Objective morals are based on:

1. Empathy, whereby we recognize that causing unnecessary pain to other beings is wrong

2. Conflict resolution, whereby we recognize that what is good for one may be bad for another

3. Hierarchy of concern, whereby the responsibility we have to care for other beings is based on their importance to us: self, family, social group, culture, species, planet

4. Dependence of children, whereby we recognize that children must be nurtured, educated and protected from physical, mental, and emotional harm until they are able to take care of themselves

Subjective morals are things such as what body parts must be covered, what activities may be done in public or in private, etiquette, and so on.

Some morals are both subjective and objective, such as with whom you may have sex. Virtually all us of agree that incest and sex with children are immoral, but which relationships are considered incestuous vary with culture as does the age at which marriage is legal. Some US states prohibit marriage between first cousins, others don't. Some cultures allow young girls to be married against their will.

The fact that a culture accepts a practice such as slavery or oppression of women does not make it moral.

Val, I think that there are some objective morals, and the right of every human being to live to their maximum potential is one of them.

Suppose that there were a culture in which all women were pampered, cosseted and treated like queen bees with no responsibilities other than childbearing. Denial of the ability to use our minds, control our bodies, and follow our dreams is as immoral as physical abuse.

Let me state Terry that I am not sure Val thinks this. I put those words in his mouth and seek to be fair.

TTF

Terry: Nice post. I think you covered all the bases. Question, though: Do you think that, if you thought through everything enough, you could make those subjective morals objective? In other words, could you back up the subjective morals with so much information that it would be objective? or would it just be accepted as objective? Thanks.

yes i am

Steve: "[You are]" what? Explain, please.

thethinkfactory



I choose an example of a value in wich I deeply believe. I live in a society where that value is expressed in Constitution and civil laws. I can say it is a value of my society in this historical period: Portugal since 1974. It is also a value in Germany, Sweden, Norway, Netherland and, perhaps with little restrictions in Italy, Spain, and with more restrictions in Ireland.
But we can say that it is a dominant value in our western societies. Not only expressed juridically, but consensual.
It is not a subjective value but it is still relative. 100 years ago the dominant values about women where different, but so where society in it's cultural, economical structures.

What I mean is that I cannot find a criteria that allows me to say: the societies in the past that didn't recognize the value that is dominant now, about the dignity of the woman, were wrong.

About subjective morals: I gave the example of the misogynist that hates women, as someone that here and now is morally wrong, because he stands against the dominant and consensual moral values of our western societies. 200 years ago, he would perhaps belong to the dominant and consensual moral. But he lives here and today: so he is wrong.

"Steve: "[You are]" what? Explain, please."

I just think I am as fit or unfit as anyone else to decide right from wrong. I have my senses my conscience my intelligence and a coda of law and lawyers if necessary.

I know this is in philosophy and debate, but these sort of trite little questions annoy me.

How many angels can stand on a pin head?

No. We can only decide good and bad for ourselves, wich should be enough if everyone could stick to it instead of putting their noses where they don't belong.

Cyracuz

So not man - but the collection of men are the measure or all things - as restricted to thier spacio-temporal relationship?

You cannot look at a universal such as Kant's that people, no matter time nor place, should not be treated as means - they can only be treated as ends withing themselves?

TTF

I think that it is impossible to judge other cultures and eras without the monkey of bias on our backs.

Just as an example, if 'all people should be treated as ends' is universal, couldn't the definition of 'people' have changed?

Maybe those who refused to give women their rights did not accept women as 'people'. I am not saying it was right, but it goes a long way in explaining how they could be so wrong. Just like we could be considered immoral in the future for killing so many mosquitoes. After all, they have a right to bite us. It doesn't make sense now, but it could seem very obvious in the future.

I think that in practice, morals will always be subjective. We cannot isolate ourselves from the multitude of variables that contribute to determine our opinion. The ancient Greeks could not imagine that women could deserve basic rights, just like we cannot now imagine that they could not. We cannot judge our culture from on high.

TTF



I believe in it, because it is part of my moral values, and the values of the civilization in wich I live (and that was, in part, created by men like Kant).
But I can not say that Ancient Greeks -who would reject immediately that idea - were wrong.

If I accept that a present moral value, like the one you mentioned, is valid, no matter when and where, I should accept that moral values are not created by men within specific social conditions, and I should have to accept the existence of an external source that assures eternal validity to the moral rule. God, for example.
And I cannot accept that external source.