The reason I am putting this in General Philosophy, and not the Morality sub-forum, is because I think it has more to do with the concept of morality, as a whole, a way of living and thought, and therefore a philosophy.


This is not to discuss any specific issue, but rather morality as a whole.


Let me begin. Firstly, what is morality?
This would depend on the individual.


Now, to elaborate, morality is subjective; however, can morality be subjective and still retain a working society? I think the answer is no.

In truth, many will tell you, if you were to say something is immoral, that it is only immoral to you; and that's true. However, by making such a statement, they confirm that morality is subjective.

What's the problem with this? As a point, I will bring liberalism into the discussion. Many liberals say morality is subjective, but then they say "there's nothing wrong with it if it ain't harming anybody"

Realize the flaw? Of course, that can be an understandable concept, but to say such a thing means that you do hold a standard of morality, even if a loose one.

Morality is entirely subjective, and therefore it is subject to each individual; as a society, however, there must be established moral standards, otherwise, a scenario in which I will describe further on can occur.

Now, the hypocrasy is quite apparent within liberalism; that to believe that morality is subjective (and therefore that which is immoral is only so to you/a person), and then to say that "if it doesn't harm anyone", is to become a hypocrite.

For instance, if morality is subjective, what is to stop people from committing horrendous acts?

Here is a scenario: there is a very sick (according to my standards) man who enjoy the torture of other people and animals; he enjoys killing and butchering them, and generally harming them; this man, however, believes that he is doing the right thing, and that he is righteous, and those who oppose him are evil and sick

Can one who says "morality is subjective", and that "there is nothing wrong", object? And if he does, does that not make him a hypocrite?

This is one flaw in liberal thinking.


Now, I know someone will say "well, yea, but so long as they don't harm anyone", so before you do, let me counter this: what does this prove? That morality CAN NOT be subjective within a society, at least not on the personal level. That, there must be established standards of morality and tradition; that to allow those to do as they please, is to lead to the disentegration (sorry for my spelling) of society.

Furthermore, for liberals who may agree that, within a society, there must be established morality, and believe that this morality is the "there's nothing wrong with it so long as it doesn't harm anyone" concept, such morality can work; however, it would be harmful to all sense of culture and tradition.

It would allow for, to a common sense person, acts that are generally disgusting or even horrendous; acts which are irritating or annoying; acts which, by simple concept, would deter one from living within a society.

To allow all to do as they please, so long as it does not come at the cost of another's life or well-being, is still to allow such acts; and while, within smaller communities or non-societies(1), such may be acceptable, within any true nation and society, there MUST be established respect, tradition, and morality.

To allow all those to do as they please, you destroy the very basis of culture and tradition, as people no longer have much in common (if anything), as well as, that people no longer have loyalty towards each other; effectively, you create no more a society than a simple group of people in one area (which is not a society, by the way)

By establishing common culture, standards of morality and respect, and tradition, you create an identity which those of a society can be loyal to, and therefore create a feeling of brotherhood and faith (not faith as in religion). People feel more united, in my opinion, if there is an established culture, an established tradition, morality, etc, and it draws people together in the practice of such a thing.

By destroying these things, you create no feeling of brothership, no feeling of unity, but rather a feeling of "they are just there".

And of course, all of these things (decency, morality, respect, tradition, culture) are entirely subjective to an individual, but they cannot be to a working society; hell, what's to stop people from having their own business standards, their own currencies, their own policies?!!!


Secondly, there is a difference between personal liberty, and entire pure personal-interest and selfishness. If I may, I would like to use a quote from a book I am currently reading:

"There are two points in this definition of benevolence which deserve attention. First, benevolence consists in overcoming the self. Second, to be benevolent one has to return to the observance of the rites.
Take the first point first. It is a central tenet in the teachings of Confucius that being moral has nothing to do with self-interest. To be more precise, to say that two things have nothing to do with each other is to say that there is no relationship whatsoever between them, either positive or negative...Why, then, it may be asked, is it so important to emphasize this lack of relationship between the two? The answer is this. Of all the things that are likely to distort a man's moral judgement and deflect him from his moral purpose, self interest is the strongest, and most persistent and the most insidious."

pgs 19-20, Confucius: The Analects

(By the way I had to type all that)
Therefore, what is the point? That, while personal liberty is no doubt an important factor of a healthy society, in a form in which self-interest is the only goal, your society disentegrates (again, sorry for spelling if wrong). As Confucius said, self-interest is the strongest reason one's moral judgement is corrupted.

Then, how can this be so? Is morality not subjective? It is, but as I have said previously, in a society it cannot be.

That, there must be a standard of decency, respect, tradition, and morality. To eliminate these (by allowing every individual to subject them to his own whim) is to, basically, destroy all forms of true unity and the in-common factor of a society; to put it simply, you are destroying the foundations of common ground between the people.

This is done because, as stated, people no longer have anything in common (hence, destryonig the foundations of common ground between the people); well, not that they don't have anything in common, but rather that there is no really established tradition, no "real" nation/society. No "real" faction or peoples; no "real" culture.



Therefore, this is the flaw with liberalism; in essence, a society must establish its own standards to function; otherwise, society would not be society, but rather a group of people with no common ground or even relation living in an area.


That, certain traditions and accepted standards must remain as they are, for the sake of preserving (Conservatism) the society itself.


I look forward to the responses, and I hope that your reading of my post has resulted in enlightenment:D

Peace

Can one who says "morality is subjective", and that "there is nothing wrong", object? And if he does, does that not make him a hypocrite?

This is one flaw in liberal thinking.


I don't think you understand most liberals. I do not see liberals as saying morality is completely subjective not that 'there is nothing wrong'. Compared to conservatives there is a tendency to be more permissive when it comes to consenting adults - neo conservatives are also often quite liberal around such social issues. Religious conservatives tend to follow rules where certain kinds of behavior are considered wrong even if one cannot show that someone is being harmed. But both liberals and conservatives thinks some things are wrong, period. Even libertarians, who leave even more up to the individual adult to decide, think certain things are wrong.

I think you are confusing liberalism with relativism. I have some sympathy for that standpoint, but the arguments you put forward in your OP do not have a sound foundation.

They have plenty sound foundation; to allow people to do as they please, even if it harms no one, will lead to a disintegration of society, culture, tradition, and any standard of respect and morality. There is no longer reason to relate to others, no "real" society; we must have established standards, primarily of tradition and morality.

Norsefire your right that morality is subjective in that there is no outside force of the universe inflicting morality

HOWEVER evolution does favor certain things, (like not killing every female sexual partner BEFORE she gives birth or not destroying the binding force of your tribe) so moral "laws" that bind the tribe together and allow it to advance compared to other tribes COULD be said to be objective

Even if we argue that morality is subjective this doesn't discount group morality. Lots of groups have specific ethical or moral structures in place but lets look at the heath professions as an example.
In health there are two competing structures one is clinical health, ie that which deals with the specific pt and is bound by a set of moral codes. The best code I believe is that of "principle based ethics". Under this ethical code there are 4 balancing principles, that of Beneficence (to do good), Non-Malfeasance (above all, do no harm), Autonomy (the right for the individual to decide what they do and what happens to their body), and Justice (in the sense of social justice)

We also have public health which is guided by the harm minimisation principle and is all about the good of the group as a whole. This is where quarantining sick individuals and things like anti smoking laws come from rather than from the clinical side of health

These two conflicting ethical sides of health keep each other in balance and are there for able to act in the best interests of society. Now yes each set of principles is both conflicting and subjective but it is on a general society wide level. For instance a doctor who took Pt's hearts out to see what would happen (or worse there kidneys or liver) would be acting by his own subjective morality but would be in conflict with both the morality of the health profession and that of society as a whole.

Now it could be argued that he should be left to do as he sees fit but that would breach the objective morality because it would cause a break down in sociaty (or the tribe) which is what the fundermental purpose of morality is to prevent

Asguard, I am not arguing that morality is subjective! Did you not read my post? I said that morality was subjective, but in a society it cannot be; therefore, liberals are doing nothing but leading to our demise.

There must be a moral, and traditional, standard within society, in order to keep in place that which we know and that which is common place, tradition (in regards to all things, including government, religion, lifestyle, love, etc)

They have plenty sound foundation; to allow people to do as they please, even if it harms no one, will lead to a disintegration of society, culture, tradition, and any standard of respect and morality. There is no longer reason to relate to others, no "real" society; we must have established standards, primarily of tradition and morality.

1) there is a liberal tradition
2) there is a liberal morality

Liberals have values, choose to legislate, judge others moral character and actions, strive to do the right thing and have done these things long enough to have a tradition.

I don't know where you get this idea that liberals wish to have or cause a society where 'there is no reason to related to others'. 1) liberals relate to others, they even relate to conservatives 2) some of their values ALLOW a wider range of relationships between people.

As far as no 'real' society. I think what you want I would call a rigid monoculture. I think, for example, if Syrians move to the US, they should be allowed to follow their religion whatever it may be, celebrate their holidays, wear the clothes they traditionally wore, etc. etc. But, despite your ideas about liberals, it is possible that some behaviors considered ethical by some Syrians will run counter to US law. In cases like this liberals along with conservatives want the immigrants to stay within legal boundaries.

Liberals tend to tolerate diversity better. In fact that is one of the bases of their morality, not a sign of a lack of one.

As far as the disintegration of respect: liberals have often challenged traditional laws that were disrespectful: for example against minorities and women. This is, yet again, an example of moral values and, on occasion, in fact often throughout history the disintegration of certain practices has been necessary for the health of people.

At what year should Americans, for example, accepted all traditions.

Should a tradition like Female Genital Mutilation be upheld because it is traditional? Many people are concerned that if women have intact clitorises family life will break down, and besides it is a tradition in many places. However liberals, and in fact most US conservatives, would be against this practices ON MORAL GROUNDS.

To talk about converving without reference to what you want to conserve is meaningless. Conserving is not good in and of itself. It depends on what you want to maintain.

oh ok norsefire sorry, ok lets take my post a step futher and aplie it to librals (well i guess im a socialist not a liberal but meh whatever), if we take the 4 principles liberals belive that Autonomy should be respected UNLESS it impacts on someone else. There for when you combine Autonomy with social justice there is no reason why for instance gays shouldnt marry and have children because it doesnt inpinge on anyone else's rights and they "chose" (in the formal ethical sence) to do it so we should respect that choice.

If we then look at gun laws however we see that guns cause harm and under the principle of Non-Malfeasance this cant be alowed so we limit the harm caused by limiting the amount of guns.

Drugs are another instance where we have to decide if Autonomy should trump Non-Malfeasance or vice versa. At the moment the feeling is that the harm inflicted (on both the indervidual and sociaty) by this catigory of drugs is to great for the "choice" to be left to the indervidual. Liberals tend not to agree and generally cite achole statistics to show that we allow achole causes more harm than legalising drugs would

Prosititution is another example where a good statistical analis of the benifits to the indervidual and sociaty as a whole of legalisation and regulation as oposed to crimilsation would be of benifit

Now, to elaborate, morality is subjective; however, can morality be subjective and still retain a working society? I think the answer is no.

This depends on the content of those subjective moral values.
"Subjective" does not necessarily mean 'in discord with or opposition to the rest'.


For instance, if morality is subjective, what is to stop people from committing horrendous acts?

Belief in God and God's judgement; in karma; in Natural Laws ...


To allow all to do as they please, so long as it does not come at the cost of another's life or well-being, is still to allow such acts; and while, within smaller communities or non-societies(1), such may be acceptable, within any true nation and society, there MUST be established respect, tradition, and morality.

Regarding harm:
People tend to underestimate the harm being done.
It is impossible to act in a manner that nobody would feel hurt in one way or another.
People also tend to underestimate how small negative effects can add up to a crisis.


That, there must be a standard of decency, respect, tradition, and morality.

And who is to decide what this standard is?

greenberg explaine the harm a gay couple getting married would cause because i as a citizan and as a health proffessional (who are the ones who are trained to anilise HARM) have never seen any harm from two guys or two girls fucking

I have however seen the harm that homophobes cause

greenberg explaine the harm a gay couple getting married would cause because i as a citizan and as a health proffessional (who are the ones who are trained to anilise HARM) have never seen any harm from two guys or two girls fucking

For example: Many people would be less or more upset over a gay marriage. In this upsetness, their already existing medical conditions would get worse; they would take out their anger and frustration on people around them; they would slack at their work (even if just for a few minutes).

Therefore, this is the flaw with liberalism

Actually it isn't liberalisms fault it is a humans fault. Humans sometimes lose their common sense as well as their moral sense which leads them into many problems with the rest of societys viewpoints on their consensus of what is normal and rational.

1) there is a liberal tradition
2) there is a liberal morality
Yes, the morality of letting people do anything they please so long as it does not harm anyone, no matter how disgusting that act may be


Liberals have values, choose to legislate, judge others moral character and actions, strive to do the right thing and have done these things long enough to have a tradition.
If they choose to legislate, they become hypocrites.
Liberal ideology is one where the self is more important than society; this cannot work in society, and creates a scenario in which a society (should it exist) is void of culture or relation

I don't know where you get this idea that liberals wish to have or cause a society where 'there is no reason to related to others'. 1) liberals relate to others, they even relate to conservatives 2) some of their values ALLOW a wider range of relationships between people.

The problem is liberals would allow acts that, in any sensible society, would be frowned upon; at what point are these "wider range of relationships" to be allowed?
If a man wants to eat shit and act like a hyena every day for the rest of his life, in a liberal society he'd be allowed to, whereas in a respectable society he'd quickly be taken to a mental hospital. Would YOU allow such an atrocity within a society? And yet, liberals want to allow all sorts of immoral acts (according to conservative morality), including drug use, prostitution, and even gay marriage;


As far as no 'real' society. I think what you want I would call a rigid monoculture. I think, for example, if Syrians move to the US, they should be allowed to follow their religion whatever it may be, celebrate their holidays, wear the clothes they traditionally wore, etc. etc. But, despite your ideas about liberals, it is possible that some behaviors considered ethical by some Syrians will run counter to US law. In cases like this liberals along with conservatives want the immigrants to stay within legal boundaries.
Syrians moving to the US can either form their own societies or act accordingly to the locals; it isn't our country, we aren't in charge.
Secondly, even "within legal boundaries", again, things such as prostitution and drug use would be allowed.

Liberals tend to tolerate diversity better. In fact that is one of the bases of their morality, not a sign of a lack of one.
That's simply the problem; at what point is "diversity" to be tolerated? Even to the point where, to any common-sense person, it becomes immoral?

As far as the disintegration of respect: liberals have often challenged traditional laws that were disrespectful: for example against minorities and women. This is, yet again, an example of moral values and, on occasion, in fact often throughout history the disintegration of certain practices has been necessary for the health of people.
In Liberalism there is no such thing as respect; there are rights, but not respect, because everybody could do as they please as long as they harm no one else, and the problem with that scenario is that, well, anybody can do as they please! Even disgusting, lustful, greedy acts would be tolerated; how can one raise a family under such conditions?
Morality and respect are allows oriented around the family, nation, and faith


At what year should Americans, for example, accepted all traditions.
Hey, it's nearly perfect right now. Just make sure stupidities such as drug use and prostituion are criminalized (and dealt with very, very harshly), and other crime, and keep some respect to traditional love

Should a tradition like Female Genital Mutilation be upheld because it is traditional? Many people are concerned that if women have intact clitorises family life will break down, and besides it is a tradition in many places. However liberals, and in fact most US conservatives, would be against this practices ON MORAL GROUNDS.

To talk about converving without reference to what you want to conserve is meaningless. Conserving is not good in and of itself. It depends on what you want to maintain.

Conserving is great if what you conserve is great; again, there are things which need conserving, such as sensibility in regards to issues like drug use or prostitiuon, or marriage; marriage has always been the premise of a man and a woman, there is no reason whatsoever that that needs to be changed. Society itself centers around love, and love is centered around the man and woman; how can we change that?

This depends on the content of those subjective moral values.
"Subjective" does not necessarily mean 'in discord with or opposition to the rest'.



No, subjective means subject to one's views; therefore, the content regardless makes no difference. If all people within a society had entirely their own morality, that morality with the only purpose of self-interest, then society woudl not function; society is social.
Belief in God and God's judgement; in karma; in Natural Laws ...
And what if such a person, as the hypothetical man I described, subjected morality to entirely his own views, and believed that "to kill and torture is righteous, and to be opposed is to be evil"? Can you stop him? A liberal, can a liberal stop him?




Regarding harm:
People tend to underestimate the harm being done.
It is impossible to act in a manner that nobody would feel hurt in one way or another.
People also tend to underestimate how small negative effects can add up to a crisis.



And yet a liberal society would allow for harm.
And who is to decide what this standard is?

It's decided already; common sense.

oh ok norsefire sorry, ok lets take my post a step futher and aplie it to librals (well i guess im a socialist not a liberal but meh whatever), if we take the 4 principles liberals belive that Autonomy should be respected UNLESS it impacts on someone else. There for when you combine Autonomy with social justice there is no reason why for instance gays shouldnt marry and have children because it doesnt inpinge on anyone else's rights and they "chose" (in the formal ethical sence) to do it so we should respect that choice.

No, we cannot simply live by a "so long as it doesn't harm anyone, there's nothing wrong" mentality; this mentality ALLOWS for things that, to your or me, would be disgusting! It would be un-family-oriented! It would be ultimately immoral and offensive.

Even if they don't inpinge on anyone else's rights, their act is simply wrong; it just is. Man and woman are how it was meant to be, you can't deny that, I can't deny that. It's common sense. If one chooses to eat shit daily and act like a hyena, we should just respect that choice? Of course not!

Society centers around love, and love centers around the man and the woman; everything, every romance story, every show, every book, every song, almost everything involving love, is straight! It's how it is, and there is no reason to change it.

Also, the children WOULD be affected

If we then look at gun laws however we see that guns cause harm and under the principle of Non-Malfeasance this cant be alowed so we limit the harm caused by limiting the amount of guns.
Guns cause no harm; they are tools. People cause harm. There is no reason why someone shouldn't be allowed to own a gun to protect themselves.

Drugs are another instance where we have to decide if Autonomy should trump Non-Malfeasance or vice versa. At the moment the feeling is that the harm inflicted (on both the indervidual and sociaty) by this catigory of drugs is to great for the "choice" to be left to the indervidual. Liberals tend not to agree and generally cite achole statistics to show that we allow achole causes more harm than legalising drugs would

Wow, man, what kind of views do you have? We can't have a family-oriented society if we legalize drugs; it isn't sensible, drugs are just people giving into lust and greed. No, drugs are illegal for a reason. They are stupid. So, culture becomes only drugs? Personality becomes only when one is drunk or high?

Prosititution is another example where a good statistical analis of the benifits to the indervidual and sociaty as a whole of legalisation and regulation as oposed to crimilsation would be of benifit
No, it's wrong and, as I said, just people giving into lust and acting like morons. It isn't beneficial, because it's just wrong; it is, and that's common sense.

greenberg explaine the harm a gay couple getting married would cause because i as a citizan and as a health proffessional (who are the ones who are trained to anilise HARM) have never seen any harm from two guys or two girls fucking

I have however seen the harm that homophobes cause

The act in itself is wrong; if you go out and look, a quick search on the internet, you'll easily find drug-using, porn-addicted, morally void asshole morons who care for nothing but that, and getting lazy and fat.

Is this what society you want? Well, it's the society you'd allow.

Whatever happened to patriotism? Duty? Honor? Respect? Loving your family and being a good person? Faith (not as in religion)?

Hell, whatever happened to COMMON SENSE?

Yes, the morality of letting people do anything they please so long as it does not harm anyone, no matter how disgusting that act may be

Disgusting to whom? to you? to the majority? Oral sex would have disgusted most people perhaps 50 years ago. I am disgusted by people eating certain kinds of food, not to mention the bowel movements this must create. Can I ban these things? If I remember right you're from the Mideast. Ever consider that most of people here and most of the people there might not agree on some things they are disgusted by. I get disgusted when people treat service personel like shit: you know, waiters, servants, etc. Can I make a law against that. I mean seriously it make me feel ill.



If they choose to legislate, they become hypocrites.
Liberal ideology is one where the self is more important than society; this cannot work in society, and creates a scenario in which a society (should it exist) is void of culture or relation
Well, you said it again, but it's not true. In fact liberals are often trying to get rich people to participate in society rather than just feeding off it. You've noticed that, right? Agree or not with certain kinds of taxation and social support systems, these are precisely liberal projects where they are concerned about having people who might not normally be connected in society be seen as part of one society. Your generalities do not make any sense. And, again. Liberals have and create culture and participate in relationships. You can keep saying what you said above, but it is not connected to reality.

The problem is liberals would allow acts that, in any sensible society, would be frowned upon; at what point are these "wider range of relationships" to be allowed?
Well, in traditional societies members of different races were not really supposed to socialize. That would mean that if you moved to, say, the US and they all acted traditional, you would be isolated at work, would not be able to marry outside your race and religion, and even having friendships outside you race would be looked down on. Let alone membership in certain clubs, access to the same real estate. Liberals have tried to open doors for many kinds of relationships that you yourself, I would bet, would engage in. It's not just homosexual sex. All kinds of interracial, interreligious dialogue. Etc.


If a man wants to eat shit and act like a hyena every day for the rest of his life, in a liberal society he'd be allowed to, whereas in a respectable society he'd quickly be taken to a mental hospital. Would YOU allow such an atrocity within a society? And yet, liberals want to allow all sorts of immoral acts (according to conservative morality), including drug use, prostitution, and even gay marriage;
More hallucinations, except for the gay marriage issue. Most liberals in the US and Europe are for laws restricting drug use and are against prostitution. Again, you either do not know what you are talking about or you are assuming the whole world is like your country.

Syrians moving to the US can either form their own societies or act accordingly to the locals; it isn't our country, we aren't in charge.
So you think they should be isolated and criticized for following their own traditions.

That's simply the problem; at what point is "diversity" to be tolerated? Even to the point where, to any common-sense person, it becomes immoral?
Well, that's a complicated issue. At what point do you think diversity should not be tolerated? Be specific.


In Liberalism there is no such thing as respect; there are rights, but not respect, because everybody could do as they please as long as they harm no one else, and the problem with that scenario is that, well, anybody can do as they please! Even disgusting, lustful, greedy acts would be tolerated; how can one raise a family under such conditions?
Morality and respect are allows oriented around the family, nation, and faith
Let's take one falsehood in what you wrote above, though there are many. Greed. Conservatives, at least in the US and Europe, have no problem with greed. In fact they have less trouble than liberals. It is part of the sacred market force. In fact, the idea of being greedy does not really exist. It is simply ambition.


Hey, it's nearly perfect right now. Just make sure stupidities such as drug use and prostituion are criminalized (and dealt with very, very harshly), and other crime, and keep some respect to traditional love

In traditional love the woman and the children were seen as the property of the man. A husband, for example, could not possibly be prosecuted for raping his wife.

Conserving is great if what you conserve is great; again, there are things which need conserving, such as sensibility in regards to issues like drug use or prostitiuon, or marriage; marriage has always been the premise of a man and a woman, there is no reason whatsoever that that needs to be changed. Society itself centers around love, and love is centered around the man and woman; how can we change that?


Actually in many places in Europe and the Mideast it was traditional for older men to have sex with young men and boys. This later became immoral. At what point in history do you think we should go back to. Slavery was traditional. Was it wrong to go against tradition?

Actually the conservative agenda can be criticized as not caring about morality but rather with keeping things the same - immoral or not. To conserve is to keep the same. It is not a moral outlook.

It was traditional for Europeans to see people from the Mideast as non-Christians, therefore as infidels who were going to hell and whose lives basically had no value. Unfortunately this is still true for some today. It this a traditional value we should have kept in the west? Or is it good that liberals have, for generations, been hacking away at this horrible outlook?

For example: Many people would be less or more upset over a gay marriage. In this upsetness, their already existing medical conditions would get worse; they would take out their anger and frustration on people around them; they would slack at their work (even if just for a few minutes).

This would be true for interracial marriages, for certain races getting to enter certain fields of work, for men becoming nurses and women becoming electricians or truck drivers. It certainly would be upsetting to many if people leave traditional religious practices and do other things.

Which is not to say that the reactions should be treated like nothing. The urge to rush things often has something unhealthy about it also. While the urge to end slavery quickly, for example - something that I am quite sure made a lot of white southerners quite uncomfortable and no doubt affected stress affected medical conditions amongst them - should be addressed quickly despite how shocking and uncomfortable this may be to some, other reforms or changes perhaps should be handled slower. Shutting down anyone's emotional reactions just adds to the problems. Let those who are upset, be upset and public about it. Draw the line at violence.

This would be true for interracial marriages ...

That too. I was responding to gay marriages. My father, for example, is very upset over them, and so are many other people.

No, subjective means subject to one's views; therefore, the content regardless makes no difference.

Of course the content makes a difference. If a person's views are in line with society's, they are subjective, but they are also society's.

Many people's views are not unique.


Belief in God and God's judgement; in karma; in Natural Laws ...

And what if such a person, as the hypothetical man I described, subjected morality to entirely his own views, and believed that "to kill and torture is righteous, and to be opposed is to be evil"? Can you stop him? A liberal, can a liberal stop him?

I don't think a liberal -as you describe "liberal"- could or would stop such a person.


And who is to decide what this standard is?

It's decided already; common sense.

Nonsense. There is no Declaration of Common Sense. Common sense is a concept very much subject to interpretation.

this is my view on the difference between liberals and conservitives

TRUE (nither side of 2 party politics is truly liberal) Liberals (in this sence i DONT mean libertarians) tend to want laws which enable people to make there own choices (anti discrimination laws) and contribute to sociaty (tax laws) and are more interested in providing SOCIAL programs (like unemployment benifits, universal health care etc)

Concervitives (ie Norsefire) are more interested in trying to regulate EVERYTHING about a persons life (anti gay laws, no anti discrimination laws etc) to make them a slave to sociaty but have no interest in surporting people (no social projects)

thats the difference

i agree with the person who said that morality would be meaningless to a person living entirely alone on a planet. but it does have meaning once you have more than one person and they start to interact.
i equate it with fairness. in particular the golden rule. no one should get special treatment.
i dont think fairness is subjective.

as for your comments about 'respectable society', i think the idea that a society of disreputable people will somehow collapse under its own weight is naive.

if people want to surround themselves with respectable people that is a personal choice. its more a matter of segregation than locking people up.

i agree with the person who said that morality would be meaningless to a person living entirely alone on a planet.

A person finding themselves stranded ona deserted island or living high up in the mountains or deep in the forest still acts upon a particular moral code. Without it, they couldn't survive.

A person finding themselves stranded ona deserted island or living high up in the mountains or deep in the forest still acts upon a particular moral code. Without it, they couldn't survive.

for example?

for example?self care. Hopefully they would kill what they eat in a way that minimizes pain or at least without enjoying whatever pain is caused. Not being overly destructive to the environment. Taking responsibility for one's own part in ending up where one is, rather than simply blaming it all on others or justifying a move there through purely misanthropic musings.

That too. I was responding to gay marriages. My father, for example, is very upset over them, and so are many other people.
And I do believe that upsetness should be treated with respect. It should not be simply shut down and guilt tripped, even where I am clearly a supporter of whatever it is that upsets such a person.

self care. Hopefully they would kill what they eat in a way that minimizes pain or at least without enjoying whatever pain is caused. Not being overly destructive to the environment. Taking responsibility for one's own part in ending up where one is, rather than simply blaming it all on others or justifying a move there through purely misanthropic musings.

self care is not a moral issue.
killing painlessly falls under living with others. being alone would imply that there are no animals either.
destruction of ones environment would be equivelent to destroying ones personal property. its not a moral issue as long as there are no other people around to be hurt by it.
taking responsibility? good mental health-see self care above.

self care is not a moral issue.

What??
For me, self-care is primarily a moral issue.

self care is not a moral issue.Then why do people feel guilty when they treat themselves poorly. I don't mean simply feel bad. I mean they feel like they have been a bad person. And if you doubt this happens, I assure you it is very common.
killing painlessly falls under living with others. being alone would imply that there are no animals either.OK.
destruction of ones environment would be equivelent to destroying ones personal property. its not a moral issue as long as there are no other people around to be hurt by it. On a big island or alone, say in the US, after some biological accident, I would not start burning forests even if I could get away safely and of course knowing there are plenty of resources for me elsewhere. Even if I was bored and wanted to try living in another ecosystem. Not only would I not do it. the idea would bother me.
taking responsibility? good mental health-see self care above.
For you perhaps. For me it is a moral issue.

What??
For me, self-care is primarily a moral issue.
I agreed, obviously, see above. I think not noticing that it is like this for many people is where what 'should' be in the mind is often confused with what is - before really taking an empirical scouting trip.

Then why do people feel guilty when they treat themselves poorly. I don't mean simply feel bad. I mean they feel like they have been a bad person. And if you doubt this happens, I assure you it is very common.
OK.
On a big island or alone, say in the US, after some biological accident, I would not start burning forests even if I could get away safely and of course knowing there are plenty of resources for me elsewhere. Even if I was bored and wanted to try living in another ecosystem. Not only would I not do it. the idea would bother me.

For you perhaps. For me it is a moral issue.

people feel guilty for all sorts of reason including for no reason at all. if you deflne morality as anything you feel guilty about then yes you are right.
the fact that it would bother you doesnt make it a moral issue.
being responsible is a moral issue because we are not alone. on a island it would be different.

It is in matters of self-care that morality is most evident, IMO.
It seems some people think that self-care is something that goes without saying, something that one needn't learn or train oneself in.

people feel guilty for all sorts of reason including for no reason at all. if you deflne morality as anything you feel guilty about then yes you are right. Guilt is a moral phenomenon. It is a reaction to moral rules. My definition is not odd or wild. Without moral injunctions that tell us to take care of ourselves or that it is, for example, immoral to smoke, even if no one else is affected, we would not feel guilty. We might feel the bad effects, but not guilty. Just as morality is everywhere, guilt shows up everywhere.
the fact that it would bother you doesnt make it a moral issue.
But it would be one for me. And if you said you would burn forests, just for the fun of it, if you were in that situation. I wuold think less of you. On moral grounds. I am not saying I should have a moral attitude about your behavior. I am saying that I do and I would not be alone in this. Even though it would not affect a single human being.

being responsible is a moral issue because we are not alone. on a island it would be different.
I don't think so. I think I would still have ideals of honesty that I would live up to or not. Perhaps after many generations of people being alone on a desert island....but you see the contradiction in that.

It is in matters of self-care that morality is most evident, IMO.
It seems some people think that self-care is something that goes without saying, something that one needn't learn or train oneself in.

i can see what you are saying. self care isnt always something that comes naturally.

but i dont agree that it would be a moral issue if you were living entirely alone on an island.

I am never more concerned with my morality than when I am alone.

Guilt is a moral phenomenon. It is a reaction to moral rules. My definition is not odd or wild. Without moral injunctions that tell us to take care of ourselves or that it is, for example, immoral to smoke, even if no one else is affected, we would not feel guilty. We might feel the bad effects, but not guilty. Just as morality is everywhere, guilt shows up everywhere.

But it would be one for me. And if you said you would burn forests, just for the fun of it, if you were in that situation. I wuold think less of you. On moral grounds. I am not saying I should have a moral attitude about your behavior. I am saying that I do and I would not be alone in this.


I don't think so. I think I would still have ideals of honesty that I would live up to or not. Perhaps after many generations of people being alone on a desert island....but you see the contradiction in that.


guilt is not about morals. guilt is unnecessary. one can know one screwed up and know that one needs to change without feeling guilt or shame about it. in practice of course that is easier said than done but it is possible.

equating guilt with morals is exactly what is wrong with this society.

morality is about fairness. its as simple as that.


if you want to destroy your property for the fun of it why is that a moral issue? it becomes a moral issue if it hurts others.

who said anything about honesty? where did that come from? how is honesty an issue on an island?

guilt is not about morals. guilt is unnecessary. one can know one screwed up and know that one needs to change without feeling guilt or shame about it. in practice of course that is easier said than done but it is possible.
Guilt has everything to do with morals. I am not saying guilt is a good thing. I acknowledge what you are saying is healthier. But that is beside the point. People feel guilty because of implicit and explicit moral rules.

equating guilt with morals is exactly what is wrong with this society.
I agree though perhaps not so sweepingly. I think there are other problems. But that wrongness is endemic and my point is that that wrongness would still occur on the hypothetical desert island, even though you and I agree it 'should' not.

morality is about fairness. its as simple as that. Again. This is how it should be. I and perhaps Greenberg have been talking about what is.


if you want to destroy your property for the fun of it why is that a moral issue? it becomes a moral issue if it hurts others. And here we have differing morals. I think I have moral obligations to more of nature than you do.

who said anything about honesty? where did that come from? how is honesty an issue on an island?honesty with myself. If I took my sailboat out in bad weather and ended up on a desert island I could sit around and blame everyone in my life, starting with my parents, for making me make a poor decision. But I have a moral rule to try to be honest. Even if I thought I would never be found, and, obviously even if my blaming everyone else would not hurt anyone, I still feel like it is wrong to blame them.

Granpa,
you and I have sparred before. You are intelligent and write clearly and you have a lot of stamina. I think I have made my case fairly clearly so I will leave it here.

To sum up: I think you are confusing how the mind should be with how it is.

i believe that we are getting into semantics here.

the fact that niggers dont exist doesnt mean that black people dont exist. the fact that guilt is unnecesary doesnt mean that people should not feel bad if they do something wrong.

guilt is an over reation. just as a nigger is a caricature of a black person so guilt is a caricature of repentance.



no doubt a person who likes to destroy their private property just for fun must have something wrong with them. but on an island it isnt a moral issue.

what do you mean by 'obligations to more of nature'? what do you consider nature. animals. there arent supposed to be any animals. plants? do you consider a plant to be something that you owe some respect to like you would an animal? if so then there cant be any plants on the island either.

i certainly believe in an objective moral code too but i believe it is based on reason.

i guess i can see what you are saying though. strict rules have their place. especially with the young and irresponsible.

There is a fundamental logical flaw underlying your entire premise. That morality is subjective does not mean it is entirely random and therefore entirely varied from person to person.

Think of it like "language"...there is no objectively "best" language and I suspect everyone would agree that if you were raised speaking Chinese, Maori, English, Spanish, Swahili or any other language, that there is nothing wrong or regrettable with that. That said, note that the fact that people agree with those sentiments does not suggest that people speak random languages. The language you actually speak, much like the moral system to which you adhere, will be heavily influenced by the society and culture in which you are raised, as well as by the culture in which your parents were raised.

So, even if you believe that it is acceptable for the original starting language/moral structure to be different for others, that does not in any way affect the reality that those raised in the same culture as you are very much likely speak the same language and/or have similar moral intuitions.

Morality is entirely subjective, and therefore it is subject to each individual; as a society, however, there must be established moral standards, otherwise, a scenario in which I will describe further on can occur.

In addition to the flaw noted above (the failure to accept the commonality of cultural influences on moral intuition that lead to moral systems that are, broadly speaking, compatible within a given culture), I think you are suggesting that everyone in a society must have the lock-step "same" morality, and that is demonstrably not the case. For group cohesion it is only necessary that people's views be similar on a very high level, and the "do no harm" rule suits that rather well as a principle around which to coordinate. In fact, that is a much stronger foundation for group cohesiveness than the one most societies have actually had, since most have allowed some levels of harm to befall of there members of that same society.

In the west, it is perfectly acceptable to shout annoying rhetoric into the air, despite the emotional harm that causes to others, and to kill another in self-defense (though that too is "harming another"). In some parts of the Islamic world, it is entirely acceptable to beat a woman to death if she has been raped. Throughout most of history, most cultures have endorsed slavery. In each of those cases the principle seems to have been "do not harm, but..." followed by the laundry list of exceptions.

In reality, what happens is that culture shapes morality of the local population, but there is still some variation from person to person. If you imagine a Venn Diagram representing morality, overlaying each such person's moral structure, you can begin to delineate the bounds of a "commonly accepted" morality, often with a great number of sub-groups whose moral positions are widely-held, but not quite the majority (though they may believe their views are the consensus, since their views may be common to their local group or peer group). You also get pockets of people with beliefs that are in a distinct minority and that are distinctly outside most measures of the "mainstream."

Again though, culture guides the process and so despite the individual variation, there is, within a given culture, a great deal of uniformity. Subjective does not mean "randomized."

Now, the hypocrasy is quite apparent within liberalism; that to believe that morality is subjective (and therefore that which is immoral is only so to you/a person), and then to say that "if it doesn't harm anyone", is to become a hypocrite.

For instance, if morality is subjective, what is to stop people from committing horrendous acts?

It sounds like your point here is "If morality is subjective, then it doesn't bind anyone, so what good is it?" or, possibly "If morality is subjective, then it doesn't really exist."

So let me ask the obvious question, "If morality is objective, what's to stop people from committing horrendous acts?" I think it can be said that almost everyone agrees that murder is immoral. *If* morality were objective, then I would expect "murder is immoral" to be an objective principle. Yet, despite this, most murders are committed by people who believe that murder is immoral, their understanding of the immorality of it (objective or subjective) does not prevent them from engaging in it.

So, what *is* to stop people from committing horrendous acts? The answer is twofold. First, morality is shaped by one's culture and acts as an internal break on horrendous acts because it imposes an emotional cost (shame and guilt) on us for committing acts that fall outside its precepts. Second, because we all know that some people will commit such acts despite those costs (and worse that some people have moral concepts so different that the "horrendous acts" do not instill feelings of guilt in them in the first place), we have "punishments." Those punishments come in two forms: social punishments and governmental punishments. The latter, governmental punishments, are obvious, kill someone and you will go to jail, and you may even be killed yourself. The former are often overlooked, but are a major factor in enforcing moral (and really all social) norms. If OJ Simpson moves in across the street, people will shun and ridicule him, even though the government was not able to criminally sanction him.

These things happen will occur whether morality is subjective or objective. Which brings me to your next error:

Here is a scenario: there is a very sick (according to my standards) man who enjoy the torture of other people and animals; he enjoys killing and butchering them, and generally harming them; this man, however, believes that he is doing the right thing, and that he is righteous, and those who oppose him are evil and sick

Can one who says "morality is subjective", and that "there is nothing wrong", object? And if he does, does that not make him a hypocrite?

No, objecting does not make him a hypocrite. You are proceeding from the obvious assumption now that if morality is subjective, then it cannot ever be applied, and that I can only hold other people to objective standards, but that's a false assumption.

That morality is subjective does not mean that I do not use my own moral intuitions to judge the behaviors of others. It's never meant that, not to anyone, liberal, conservative or otherwise.

Despite its subjective nature, first of all, I have no choice but to evaluate the actions of others in light of my moral precepts. If I speak to someone, I have to use my own internal set of definitions to evaluate the meaning of what they are saying, and in judging actions I have to use my morality to evaluate the moral implications.

So what value does the belief in subjectivity does add? As I noted above, the amalgam of societal views on morality will contain, roughly speaking, three groups: (i) the true majority consensus, (ii) widely held, but non-majority positions and (iii) the views that are distinctly outside the mainstream. Understanding that morality is subjective does not mean that you must embrace the views of everyone, but what it does mean is that you need to recognize, every time you start to apply your moral standards to the actions of another, that your views might be in categories (ii) or (iii) *and* that the actions of the person you are evaluating might merely be from category (ii) and not necessarily (iii).

When Mr. "It's righteous to murder dogs in cold blood in my backyard" comes along, the moral relativist must evaluate the situation with some humility in knowing that his standard may not be the only potentially appropriate one, but once he humbly determines that his personal moral views (don't ruthless kill dogs) are in category (i) and the dog-killer's are in (iii), then he can conclude that the dog-killer's actions fall outside the bounds of what is morally acceptable in the society and he can act on that basis.

The moral relativist must also realize that his interpretation may be wrong, but again, that is true with the application of "objective" morality too, if that existed (which it doesn't really, imo). Even assuming its existence, though, it's clear some people get it wrong from time to time.

This is one flaw in liberal thinking.

As noted, moral relativists (which not all liberals are) *never* thought that. Your position was a caricature of the reality, so the flaw arose mostly from your misunderstanding of the position. Relativism does not mean "everything is equally acceptable," it means "everything has be viewed as relative to its context."

Sometimes, things are "relatively far out there" and moral relativists are free to treat things as such.

Now, I know someone will say "well, yea, but so long as they don't harm anyone", so before you do, let me counter this: what does this prove? That morality CAN NOT be subjective within a society, at least not on the personal level. That, there must be established standards of morality and tradition; that to allow those to do as they please, is to lead to the disentegration (sorry for my spelling) of society.

I think that "do no harm" provides an excellent way of sorting through those moral questions that we feel odd about personally but feel might be category (ii) (and therefore acceptable within the society) and those which are clearly outside the bounds of acceptability. You have offered no reason to believe that "do no harm" as a governing principle for when to act would lead to disintegration.

Most societies have had very loose, non-absolute, standards about doing harm to others and one can very easily make the facile argument that any society which permits harming others will disintegrate (after all, if I have the moral right to hurt others, then others will seek to hurt me in retaliation...apply that society-wide and it's a recipe for anarchy, right?)

Furthermore, for liberals who may agree that, within a society, there must be established morality, and believe that this morality is the "there's nothing wrong with it so long as it doesn't harm anyone" concept, such morality can work; however, it would be harmful to all sense of culture and tradition.

It would allow for, to a common sense person, acts that are generally disgusting or even horrendous; acts which are irritating or annoying; acts which, by simple concept, would deter one from living within a society.

Freedom of speech leads to acts (speeches) that are annoying and horrendous. That some speech bothers us is no reason not to let it be heard. It is not at all clear that allowing pernicious and upsetting speech is harmful to culture and tradition, nor is it clear that putatively "immoral" acts between consenting adults that cause no harm to anyone are so harmful.

You say it "deter[s] one from living within a society" and I suppose that's true, but even the most anti-homosexual crusader i know would rather live in the USA with homosexuality being condoned than to leave the country for the sort of society where it's banned. He might agitate to change American culture, but he's not sufficiently incentivized to walk away from it. In the modern world, almost no one can retreat back to the "State of Nature" and we are all faced with the challenge of choosing which society we want to live in. There is no choice to simply "leave' society anymore, just to move to a new one.

Since everyone's morals are shaped by the local culture, though, moving to a new culture will almost certainly leave you confronted with more "deviant" moral norms than the number that made you flee in the first place.

Further, even if we could flee to some deserted island where our morality controlled, we'd be alone on that island. That's a bad thing by itself because humans are a social species and deserted islands do not get cable (not even CSPAN).


To allow all to do as they please, so long as it does not come at the cost of another's life or well-being, is still to allow such acts; and while, within smaller communities or non-societies(1), such may be acceptable, within any true nation and society, there MUST be established respect, tradition, and morality.

To allow all those to do as they please, you destroy the very basis of culture and tradition, as people no longer have much in common (if anything), as well as, that people no longer have loyalty towards each other; effectively, you create no more a society than a simple group of people in one area (which is not a society, by the way)[/quote]

No, by allowing others to do as they will so long as they harm no one, you establish a culture of liberty, traditions of liberty and a morality based on the primacy of liberty. You form the very basis of a culture and tradition, grounded in individual freedom that gives people a strong bond in common and a strong reason to be loyal to one another: in order to defend my liberty, it is necessary that I defend yours. Conversely, an attack on my fellow citizen's liberty surely risks undermining my own. With this tradition we, to use your formulation, create an identity which those of a society can be loyal to, and therefore create a feeling of brotherhood and faith.... People feel more united, in my opinion, if there is an established culture, an established tradition, morality, etc [centered on liberty], and it draws people together in the practice of such [liberty].

MORALITY....
To me your sense of Morality is the system which lets you decide right from wrong.
Even though this may mostly be individual/personal there is still universal guidelines which most of us will have all taken on board...
Sometimes your actions may lead people to question your sense of morality.
I.E. you cannot demand fresh water for the world whilst urinating in a well..
(terrible analogy)

guilt is an over reation. .

Actually I think it is qualitatively different from remorse rather than quatitatively.

I have felt guilty about actions BECAUSE I can feel that I would either do it again, or would want to. I feel bad because I broke the rule, while at the same time
knowing
that on some level I don't really get why it is bad
or my urge to do the act again is not affected by the rule.

Remorse on the other hand has no split.

I realized, for example, that when I broke up with a girlfriend, I said some things I should never have said. I was cruel unintentionally, but as a result of being disconnected and self-centered. I did not feel guilty when I realized this, I felt remorse. I was not split on the issue. I would never and have never wanted to do the same things again. I got it.

Guilt is an unresolved state where we are at war with ourselves.
Remorse is not. We get it. There is no little part of us saying 'why can't I do that?' or 'But I still feel this strong urge to do that'. Our understanding of what happened changed us.

As a tangent: it is for this reason that when we feel guilty we must take seriously the possibility that the rule is wrong. It may be right or it may not be. But we must be open to the possibility that it is a rule whose purpose is to split us and freeze us and make us hate ourselves. If we feel remorse it is another story.

Actually I think it is qualitatively different from remorse rather than quatitatively.

I have felt guilty about actions BECAUSE I can feel that I would either do it again, or would want to. I feel bad because I broke the rule, while at the same time
knowing
that on some level I don't really get why it is bad
or my urge to do the act again is not affected by the rule.

Remorse on the other hand has no split.

I realized, for example, that when I broke up with a girlfriend, I said some things I should never have said. I was cruel unintentionally, but as a result of being disconnected and self-centered. I did not feel guilty when I realized this, I felt remorse. I was not split on the issue. I would never and have never wanted to do the same things again. I got it.

Guilt is an unresolved state where we are at war with ourselves.
Remorse is not. We get it. There is no little part of us saying 'why can't I do that?' or 'But I still feel this strong urge to do that'. Our understanding of what happened changed us.

As a tangent: it is for this reason that when we feel guilty we must take seriously the possibility that the rule is wrong. It may be right or it may not be. But we must be open to the possibility that it is a rule whose purpose is to split us and freeze us and make us hate ourselves. If we feel remorse it is another story.


there is nothing in your post that i would argue strongly against. i believe we often misunderstand what our conscience is telling us. we believe its telling us that we should never do something when in fact it is only telling us that we are doing it the wrong way.
people also think the conscience is arbitrary since one person can do something and feel guilty about and another can do the same thing and not feel guilty about it. but its a matter of how its done. the same action can be done in different ways. so the conscience isnt technically wrong. its just misunderstood.

I agree.