A challenge for all you Tate (not the gallery) fans out there!

'... I believe in a hyper-reality that is contained within the essence of the physical... What does that make me, Mr Yan? Hmm?' I was referring to the human-centric world-within-a-world hyper-reality of civilisation where 'morality' tends to detach itself from nature and become all fluffy. Jack's reality is similar. :) There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

"I was referring to the human-centric world-within-a-world hyper-reality..." You can either play lazy-ass, William Gibson-style, nihilist games of Nothing is True And We're All Just Dreaming, or you can accept that objectivity is truth is reality and that morality is an objective concept. "Morality depends on the existence of right and wrong relative to a species...it has no objective reality. " Doesn't follow at all, Yan. Just because something relies on a sentient social species to exist does not make it subjective. Basically, you're taking the pseudo-scientists' view that objectivity stands for that which exists without anyone being there, without us. You also stated earlier that science holds nothing is proved to be true . As you're relying on science for your definitions of objectivity and subjectivity, you are also taking the position that we know nothing. So, in fact, you're own argument defeats itself. Nothing can be proved. Nothing is objective or subjective - there are simply 'most probables'. Not only that, but these faffy definitions of subjectivity and objectivity do not distinguish between something that, in the reality of our species (if you must use that qualifier) is truth - something available to all us, that we should all recognise - and what is private, individual experience. They do not tell us what is personal taste, and what is not. So when you say 'comedy is subjective', the phrase is meaningless. By your definitions, morality is subjective, facts do not exist, everything is subjective that doesn't also exist in the reality of bats. We're still in a situation where I can say "Catherine Tate is not funny" and this is as valid a proposition as saying "Murder is wrong". Telling me that this is my subjective reality is not a valid objection, because after all, if someone says, "You shouldn't kill that man" you can't counter with, "Morality is subjective." But this is a waste of words anyway. Let objectivity stand for truth, and truth be that which is available to all of us, which we should all agree on, not that which scientific devices suggest is most probably 'reality'. Catherine Tate is just not funny. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

*thinks she's developed a sudden crush on Jack*

'You can either play lazy-ass, William Gibson-style, nihilist games of Nothing is True And We're All Just Dreaming, or you can accept that objectivity is truth is reality and that morality is an objective concept' Objectivity appears to be true...given the uncertainty prinicple. Morality is not an objective concept. 'Doesn't follow at all, Yan. Just because something relies on a sentient social species to exist does not make it subjective' Again - we're venturing into the majestirium which lies outside objectivity - which makes it subjective. 'Basically, you're taking the pseudo-scientists' view that objectivity stands for that which exists without anyone being there, without us.' I'm taking the psychological/neuroscientific/biological/quantum mechanic view that states that we can only define reality (the world of appearances) within our own limited senses - for now. The pseudoscientist joins the dots to reach a pre-determined conclusion - I follow what the experts of the field relay to me. 'They do not tell us what is personal taste, and what is not.' Are you referring to subjectivity, Jack? 'But this is a waste of words anyway. Let objectivity stand for truth, and truth be that which is available to all of us, which we should all agree on, not that which scientific devices suggest is most probably 'reality'.' Let objectivity stand for what it means, Jack - what appear to be true. Unless you want to re-define objectivity to suit your subjective worldview. Let objectivity stand for fundamental truth - which we should all agree on - fine! But not everyone agrees that Catherine Tate is "just not funny" .... which makes it a subjective opinion ;) Catherine Tate is just so funny! Objecitvely prove me wrong and I'll accept your argument. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

"Let objectivity stand for what it means, Jack..." Well, it means a different thing in philosophy, and in common language, to what it means in quantum physics, apparently. The meaning you have been putting on it is useless to us - you have been arguing that objectivity is not 'what appears to be true' (a phrase you've just come up with, and which contradicts what you've said previously) but what exists for bats as well as it does humans. This is the basis on which you argued morality was subjective was that it does not exist the same for other species. That's not the same as 'not appearing to be true'. "But not everyone agrees that Catherine Tate is "just not funny" ....which makes it a subjective opinion ;)" OK, you're being an idiot. Subjectivity is not just something that people don't agree on. You've shortcutted all the reason we've gone through and arrived back at this pathetic idea. Objectivity is truth (or, if you like, what appears to be true). Right and wrong are objective concepts because we do not believe things are 'right' only for whoever sees them as 'right' - we believe they are right full stop, right in a way that everyone should recognise, that it is objective/true that they are right. So morality also relates to the objective. Your protestations to the contrary are utter nonsense. It is also true that Catherine Tate is not funny. If people find her funny, they are wrong to do so, just as they are wrong to find homosexuality disgusting, just as they would be wrong to think killing someone is right. You're also avoiding the beetle in the box model. Subjectivity is not something people can argue about, or even discuss. They cannot compare their beetles because no one can see each other's - they only have their own to go on. You simply cannot compare your private experience to another. So if you think morality is subjective, then you are saying it is impossible to debate. Of course, the reality is that morality is an objective idea, relating to truth - when we debate it, we are debating what is true, not mistakenly trying to compare our personal tastes. So sure, we can argue about whether Tate is funny or not. But we'd not simply be comparing subjective impressions (which is impossible) - we'd be arguing over the objective - over what is true. I don't need to make the argument that Tate isn't funny because David has already put it forward. If that doesn't convince you fine, but that doesn't make it a subjective matter. A racist is not convinced by all the arguments in the world that his race is not superior, but he cannot hide behind a curtain of subjectivism - he is simply wrong. So too are you when it comes to Catherine Tate. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Well, a pseudo-scientist would be someone who acts or speaks as if they are using science or scientific terminology to support their views when their understanding of it is inadequate for the discussion. I didn't accuse yan of being one, but of holding views that I would expect of one. Peps, you act like you're very confused. See if this helps: Take the colour blue. Objectively, it is the wavelength of light, but our subjective experience is how 'blue' appears to us. We can talk about 'blue' and agree whether or not something is blue or not, but we can never actually explain to one another what 'blue' is to us, right? I mean, you might see a different colour to me when you look at a blue object, but how would we ever know? That's what it means when something is subjective. It's that part of our experience that is only available to us. Now do you see why morality cannot be subjective? ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I think it's whether or not one agrees with what they're saying, peps... Jack, you were sounding very logical for awhile there, but you've stumbled into cockiness and ruined the show. 'So if you think morality is subjective, then you are saying it is impossible to debate. Of course, the reality is that morality is an objective idea, relating to truth - when we debate it, we are debating what is true, not mistakenly trying to compare our personal tastes.' This is a semantical argument. The *truth* is that morality is a cultural construct and therefore *very* subjective. I don't think Yan is saying it's impossible to debate; what he's saying is that consensus is reached only by those who can agree to a shared perspective on it. The fact that no-one on Earth can agree to the exact parameters of 'what' morality is, and the fact that morality (and humour, for that matter) change so often, are clear indications that they *reflect* subjective perspective, rather than embody some clearly-delineated truism. From a post-modernist view, there is no such thing as 'objectivity' when related to very subjective issues such as morality or humour; even our most objective observations are coloured by our own viewpoints. Science is perhaps able to embrace a certain amount of objectivity because they are seeking to prove/disprove theories via empirical investigation. But trying to reach some sort of objective observation on the merits/demerits of a comedienne is an exercise in futility: it's entirely personal. This is getting silly.

Sorry, peps, wrong spelling...majesterium..that's better..:) AG pretty much sums it up for me. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

"The *truth* is that morality is a cultural construct and therefore *very* subjective." Therefore? No. That doesn't follow. Cultural constructs are not automatically subjective. "I don't think Yan is saying it's impossible to debate; what he's saying is that consensus is reached only by those who can agree to a shared perspective on it." If you believe morality is subjective, you either don't understand the meaning of subjectivity, or you're saying it is impossible to debate. Look at it this way: objectivity, as Yan said, is what appears to be true, or, for simplicity's sake, what is true (as close to true as we can ever come). If morality is subjective, then right and wrong are subjective. If right and wrong are subjective, then they only exist in different people's private realities, none of which are more true than any other. Ergo, the view of someone who believes murder is right is equally true to the view of someone who believes murder is wrong. It is impossible to debate which position is more valid, because both are entirely internalised realities that are not more true, or more right, than each other. In short, if you believe morality is subjective, you do not believe anything is truly right or wrong. Since this is not the position of anyone here, it is likely the case that you do not understand what subjectivity is. "From a post-modernist view, there is no such thing as 'objectivity' when related to very subjective issues such as morality or humour; even our most objective observations are coloured by our own viewpoints." Well, any view that says there is no such thing as 'objectivity' is effectively destroying the words - there can be no 'subjective' without there being an 'objective'. Let me make the definition clear again: the objective is that which is available to all of us, eg. the specific wavelength of light that denotes a colour. The subjective is our particular private experience of that colour. It is difficult to understand what aspects of things like comedy and art relate to the objective and the subjective, but being 'coloured by our own viewpoints' does not mean there is no objective element to them - it simply means that our judgement is influenced by subjective reactions. Don't argue - that is *literally* what it means when we say someone's view is 'coloured' - that their view of the objective is 'tainted' by subjectivity. This 'postmodernist' viewpoint you describe is basically one that says there is no such thing as truth. It's, as I keep saying, a lazy, slacker, nihilist viewpoint that attempts to circumventing the difficulty surrounding concepts such as truth and objectivity by claiming that they do not actually exist, in the process taking a great big dump on humanity's moral striving. If you say there is no such thing as objectivity, then the subtext is that there is no point in debating anything, because there is no truth you are aiming for and no one's view is more valid than another. If you don't understand it this way, then you're going by a faulty understanding of subjectivity. Simple as. No subjective experience is more valid or more true than anyone else's, or can be proved as such. That's the nature of subjectivity. It does not simply refer to something that is influenced by personal experience, or something that people fundamentally disagree on - it is something that is available only to the person who is experiencing it. Do you see? Does the beetle in the box model help? Subjective experience is having a beetle in a box that no one else can see and that you cannot measure with constants like rulers. You cannot possibly decide if your beetle is bigger than another person whose beetle you can't see. Objectivity is when the beetles are in the room for everyone to see. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'In short, if you believe morality is subjective, you do not believe anything is truly right or wrong.' No, no, no. You are not seeing the forest for the trees. Feeling something is subjective does not automatically negate any type of opinion about morality; but one has to accept that there are always going to be differing views on the same thing. I *do* believe in 'right and wrong'; however, these are my subjective views. A member of the Taliban, say, has a much, much different view of right and wrong. Do I agree with his view? No. Would he agree with my view? No. Each of our views are shaped *by the culture from within which we are viewing the world*. See: Subjective (def): Relating to, proceeding from, or taking place within an individual’s mind, emotions, etc. 2. Originating from or influenced by one’s personal interests, prejudices, emotions, etc. 3. Of the mind or emotions only. (As opposed to objective). Objective (def): undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence" [syn: nonsubjective] [ant: subjective] You cannot tell me that your opinion of, say, Catherine Tate is based on observable phenomena undistorted by emotion or personal bias. There can be no truly objective opinion about anything whose conclusion has not been reached by empirical investigation. Perhaps it would be a more worthy debate to decide the methods by which two diametrically opposing views can come to a compromise: could you with your left-wing well-educated highly literate white Western upbringing find the areas of commonality with someone who believes everything in life should be conducted under Sharia law? If you were to engage in such a debate, *then* you might see that the only objectivity you are ever able to have in a morality debate will be those things to which you both, subjectively, agree.

Thank fuck there are people out there who hate Catherine Tate as much as I do. My younger brother and I who spend most of our time giggling together, finds her hilarious. You pays your money etc..

Oooh, hate is a strong word for a television programme, styx! Surely 'intensely despise' would work just as well...?

"No, no, no. You are not seeing the forest for the trees. Feeling something is subjective does not automatically negate any type of opinion about morality; but one has to accept that there are always going to be differing views on the same thing. " AG, that is NOT what subjective means! If you say something is subjective, you are NOT saying that there are differing vews on it. If that is what you mean to say, you are misappropriating the word 'subjective'. 'Subjective' means that it is not relating to anything true - anything constant in all our experience - but to our private experiences. The definitions you quote here: "Subjective (def): 2. Originating from or influenced by one’s personal interests, prejudices, emotions, etc." and: "Objective (def): undistorted by emotion or personal bias;" are related to subjective/objective solely in the field of reason, not in the philosophical sense that we are arguing it. And in reason, only opinions and arguments can be subjective or objective - the discussed matter cannot be described as such. If you say 'morality is subjective', you are using the philosophical definitions of subjective/objective, and that relates to what I said earlier re. the colour blue. The objective is that which is available to all, the subjective that part of experience that is only available to you - what 'blue' looks like in your mind. If you say 'your argument is subjective', you are using the alternative definitions of the terms, where 'subjective' means simply 'biased' and objective means 'without bias'. Wikipedia has pretty much the same distinction under 'subjectivity' I know it's confusing, but there's a pretty clear distinction between these uses of the words. If an *opinion* is subjective, it is biased. If anything else is subjective, it is related purely to an individual's unique experience and is unavailable to anyone except the individual. So, if you tell me that most *views* on morality are subjective, you are telling me that most people are biased. That's fair enough, although I would argue that people are still capable of arguing morality without bias - it is possible to come at it from an unemotional, logical POV, and this is indeed what people attempt to do when they debate it seriously. But if you tell me that morality itself is subjective, you are saying that it exists purely as private experience - that there is no part of morality that is available to everyone, or related to truth. This is the thing that is utter balderdash, and translates as moral nihilism. "You cannot tell me that your opinion of, say, Catherine Tate is based on observable phenomena undistorted by emotion or personal bias." This is a reasonable accusation and, in my case, you may be right. It is nevertheless possible for someone to form a view on Catherine Tate that is based on observable phenomena, where they remove their personal emotions and bias from the table as much as possible. "There can be no truly objective opinion about anything whose conclusion has not been reached by empirical investigation." This is again a more reasonable opinion that 'X is subjective', but again, I think I would disagree, at least to the extent that I would say people can form opinions on matters that are so close to objective that they might as well be. Again, I would cite, as an example, the fact that in music people are capable of agreeing something is bad, even when they enjoy it. Similarly, I think it is possible to argue objectively about morality, although subjectivity has a strong tendency to creep in. That's what moral philosophy *means* to be, and how it is distinguished from people simply 'feeling' that things are wrong. It doesn't matter which side of this debate you take though - in both cases, morality itself is still not subjective in the philosophical sense. "If you were to engage in such a debate, *then* you might see that the only objectivity you are ever able to have in a morality debate will be those things to which you both, subjectively, agree." Again, it doesn't have to be that we 'subjectively' agree. We can both, without personal bias, agree that killing innocent people is wrong. That is not something that requires emotional bias - we do not have to have seen people killed. We can agree, using reason, that killing innocent people is unjust, and we can build a debate from that. As before, if you close down the definition of 'objective' or 'unbiased' to the point where you believe, as humans, we can never achieve it, then you are destroying the words. In order for them to have any meaning, there has to exist an accepted realm of argument where people are being objective. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Yan - isn't this basically your position? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_skepticism ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'If you say 'morality is subjective', you are using the philosophical definitions of subjective/objective, and that relates to what I said earlier re. the colour blue. The objective is that which is available to all, the subjective that part of experience that is only available to you - what 'blue' looks like in your mind. If you say 'your argument is subjective', you are using the alternative definitions of the terms, where 'subjective' means simply 'biased' and objective means 'without bias'.' I understand the difference, and I see what you're getting at, but in terms of 'morality', there simply *isn't* an objective perspective; the nature of philosophical debate precludes that. You are in essence saying that there are (or perhaps, should be) 'isms' in morality, 'isms' being those things which *everyone* collectively accepts to be true, because morality, to be objective in this sense, will have to be collectively agreed upon. And it simply isn't. Morality is not something that is available to everyone, because morality is dependent upon one's *subjective*, in the philosophical sense, experience of and reinforcement of, that morality, above which lies what I would call a 'pan-morality' of the collective agreement of that culture. Murdering one's relatives *is* wrong in this culture (objective), and should someone in this culture commit such an act they do so with an awareness that they are breaking the collective agreement, but whatever drives them to the murder outweighs the collective agreement; therefore, their subjective morality has overridden the objective. However, murdering one's relatives is *not* wrong in parts of Pakistan (objective); therefore if one commits such an act there there is little thought given to a subjective definition of morality because it is acceptable within the collective agreement. If this same person then comes to the UK and murders a relative, their subjective morality has still taken precedence over the collectively agreed morality of the prevailing culture, and no amount of punishment will convince that subjectively-derived morality to change. 'Again, I would cite, as an example, the fact that in music people are capable of agreeing something is bad, even when they enjoy it.' Yes, *some* will agree, but not *all*, and this is where the flaw in assuming there must be an *objective* argument for X or Y being something, if objective means 'available to everyone'. Musical taste, like morality, is subjective; that lots of other people agree is very nice, but it doesn't change anything.

"You are in essence saying that there are (or perhaps, should be) 'isms' in morality, 'isms' being those things which *everyone* collectively accepts to be true, because morality, to be objective in this sense, will have to be collectively agreed upon. And it simply isn't." It doesn't have to be collectively agreed upon. Objective truth can be something that remains unknown for centuries (like the fact that the world is round) and can remain an unknown or unagreed upon thing. If you believe in objective truth, it doesn't follow that you believe it is known, or that if it was possible to arrive at an understanding of it, that understanding would have been reached already. You seem to be taking the moral skeptic's view - see the link I posted for Yan. Three strands - ethical nihilism, ethical relativism or ethical subjectivism, the latter of which holds that moral truths are "only true so long as you hold those beliefs". I see this as a slippery slope to the radical subjectivism described in this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism I also just don't agree with the logic here: "However, murdering one's relatives is *not* wrong in parts of Pakistan (objective); therefore if one commits such an act there there is little thought given to a subjective definition of morality because it is acceptable within the collective agreement. " Just as the world was not flat in an age just because everybody had decided it was flat, I don't believing that murdering relatives in parts of Pakistan is objectively *not* wrong just because everyone there thinks so. The mistake is in thinking that objectivity stands for some kind of ultimate collective agreement, and that the absense of an ultimate collective agreement is proof of the lack of the objective. Whereas someone who believes in moral objectivity can believes it exists whether or not people can agree on it. I believe, for example, that it *could* be a morally objective truth that killing *anything* is wrong, but that this is something we have simply not discovered yet, through the course of moral progress, just as for centuries we had not discovered that the world was, in fact, round. There may be no thought given to morality without a sentient social species, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. We could say that there is morality for Yan's bats, that there exists morality in a world where there are only bats - it simply has no bearing on a species that is incapable of moral consideration. We do not let animals kill each other because we believe are exempt from morality, or doesn't exist for them - we simply believe that it is not actually immoral to allow them to kill each other, or that there is no more moral course of action than allowing them to live as they do. Similarly, with the music, just because some people do not agree yet does not disprove an objective truth - it just means not everyone might not have come to it yet. Literary historians place a lot of importance on the idea that a piece's 'true worth' is not necessarily recognised in its time. I doubt many of them believe that different values simply indicate that Van Gogh was crap when he was alive, but great when he was dead - they believe that he was great all along. Similarly, it looks like however staunchly I might grate my teeth at the Beatles, most people have come to recognise them as objectively great and will not accept that their greatness is a matter of subjectivity. Although in that instance it rubs me up the wrong way, I think that kind of belief is generally much better for a person's cultural health than one which blithely accepts that such difficult things as art and morality are forever a case of subjective opinions clashing. I find it difficult to see how a true moral skeptic can engage with any real gusto in a debate about morality, since they believe that their 'right' and 'wrong' are no more true than anyone else's. I mean, yeah - moral skepticism seems to me to lend itself to not giving a crap about evil stuff that goes on in other societies. Because it's not actually 'evil' over there, is it? ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Additional clarification: Seems that my view on this is called either moral realism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism Or moral absolutism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism The latter of which is (I'm chuffed to say) the basis on which human rights theory is formed. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I agree that my example above was weak; I was trying to write something quickly before leaving the office! I suspect you are seeking an answer that relies on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism. I tend to be more relativistic about things. Morality is contextual, not universal; and morality is dictated to a large extent by the prevailing culture; or maybe I should say that, even in the face of a 'universal' morality, the contexts under which that morality could be challenged are manifold, and therefore may not hold true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism The world of medical ethics, for example, is filled with heated debate about absolute morality; and as far as I know they have yet to reach any absolute conclusion. Concerning the Beatles I would tend to agree; although I cop to liking 'Eleanor Rigby' a lot.

Hi. Are we still debating Catherine Tate? There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

lol! In theory, yes.

'Objective truth can be something that remains unknown for centuries' I agree, but I doubt that whether or not Catherine Tate is funny or not is going to be debated for centuries - unless Jack outlives the rest of us :) Due to my slap-dashiness I'm embarrassed to admit that I previously had no idea that you're Jon Stone. I recall a good few times when you came to my defence in the past when all odds were stacked against me...so thanks ;) I can appreciate and sympathise with all angles of this debate but to 'believe' that there is an objectivity to morality (or comedy) suggests that I must step outside level-headed debate and start eagerly avowing the incomprehensible (check sig :)) which, if you ARE a true advocate of human rights, you'll understand leads to blind faith and we all know what that's done (and will do) in the future. ?? There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

I agree, yan. A lot of nasty things have occurred in the name of moral absolutism...

"I agree, but I doubt that whether or not Catherine Tate is funny or not is going to be debated for centuries - unless Jack outlives the rest of us :)" Well, I've only ever been arguing that there is a validity and a point to saying that something "is not funny" or definitively right or wrong, and that taking the line that the thing in question is subjective - and therefore that no person's view is more true than another's - is not something a defence we should accept. I spent most of last night arguing with some other moral relativists, and another moral realist. You know how, when you debate, you have to establish common ground, and keep appealing to something you both agree on in order to build your argument from that? Well, the floor kept crumbling away from me with respect to that, to the point where one of the moral relativists just ended up arguing that we are unable to communicate, there is no such thing as communication, that words have no meaning and that there's no such thing as knowledge. When it goes that far, you know you're never going to get back to anywhere useful. "I can appreciate and sympathise with all angles of this debate but to 'believe' that there is an objectivity to morality (or comedy) suggests that I must step outside level-headed debate and start eagerly avowing the incomprehensible (check sig :)) which, if you ARE a true advocate of human rights, you'll understand leads to blind faith and we all know what that's done (and will do) in the future. ??" Here's the thing: although thinking through one string of logic might lead people to believe in moral relativism, in practice, everyone with a view on morality is acting as if they believe in an absolute right and wrong, like in AG's world of medical ethics. You can't adopt a practical position where you believe in right and wrong, but also believe those values are subjective. Demonstration: Q. There is no objective right and wrong. So what does it mean to you when you do something that is 'right'? A. I am doing it according to a cultural idea of what is 'right'. Q. So it's pure comformity? You think that because everyone else does it? A. Well, no. I'd only do it if made sense to me. Q. On what criteria does it 'make sense'? A. If it is, say, for the good of everyone within my society. Q. So surely you believe that what is 'good' for your society is 'right'? A. Well, what's 'good' is 'good'. We know what 'good' means. I'm doing it because it's 'good'. Q. So you believe in an objective 'good' then? A. Well, no. What's good is what suits everyone in my society best. Q. But then you must believe it is objectively 'right' that society pursues what suits most of its members best? A. No, but obviously, that's what a society will do. Q. But you don't think that's objectively right or good, and you already said you're not doing it just to conform. So why do you go along with the rules? A. Because what's best for my society is going to be best for me. Q. So you think it's objectively right that you benefit? A. No, but again, obviously, I'm going to go after what suits me. Q. But if not because you believe it's objectively right, then why? A. Because I get pleasure or comfort from doing what suits me best. Q. So you're saying that you essentially pursue pleasure and avoid pain, and that all your morality springs from that? A. Right. Q. Well then, you would surely never submit yourself to pain, or forfeit pleasure, for another person's sake? A. Well, I would, if I thought it was right. You see what I mean? However far you go back, there's got to be something that you believe is actually 'right' for you to take a moral position on something. You can't be doing it just for your own benefit, or else you would always value your own safety and health above everyone else's. You can't just be doing it because society says so, unless you're a rampant conformist, or unless you believe that what is best for everyone is an objective right. The only other option that I can see is that you believe you do things that are 'right for you' with absolute no rationale behind them. So re. what I was trying to get at earlier - *yes*, some forms of moral absolutism would seem to relate to fanaticism, but anyone advocating *true* moral relativism must believe, ultimately, in the arbritrariness of morality. They therefore have no moral position on anything - they must believe moral debate is simply different people's irrational moralities clashing. Whereas if you believe in any kind of rationale behind your morality, as demonstrated above, it must either: a) ultimately lead back to the fact that you believe in an objective right, or b) lead back to an absolute selfishness, which is no kind of morality at all. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

JC, I love the Q and A example. But I disagree with many of your answers. And have ameded the below accordingly. I have removed questions that I feel are dealt with in answers given, if that's okay. Q. There is no objective right and wrong. So what does it mean to you when you do something that is 'right'? A. I am acting according to what I believe to be the best course of action for me. What makes sense for me, if you like. Q. On what criteria does it 'make sense'? A. If it is according to my concept of good. Q. But then you must believe it is objectively 'right' that society pursues what suits most of its members best? A. No. But obviously, in order to live together, I must make consessions to my ideas of right in order to find some middle ground between millions of conflicting ideas--like the overlap in a venn diagram. That overlap moves constantly, depending on the place or time and so cannot be seen as objective, because the nature of objective good--if it existed--would have to be good for all poeple, at all times. That's what objectvie is: it stands true away from mankind. Q. But if not because you believe it's objectively right, then why? A. Because I get pleasure or comfort from doing what suits me best. Q. So you're saying that you essentially pursue pleasure and avoid pain, and that all your morality springs from that? A. No. I persue my own values, which may lead to either pleasure or pain. If I thought it was 'right' to dive in front of a bullet for a friend, I would. I can't see that my choice of whether to do that is objective, because not everyone would react the same way. So it must be subjective. Enzo.. Read my rubbish novel as it happens! http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

Q. Well then, you would surely never submit yourself to pain, or forfeit pleasure, for another person's sake? A. Well, I would, if I thought it was right. Q. why is that? A. Because what benefits another at present will, if the system holds, serve to benefit me in the future. (recall the vampire bats) Fair enough. We can take a glimpse at history and witness morality evolving relative to human insight and progress. For example, let's say that neurologists discover that human consciousness (self-will and self-determination) arises as a result of a convergence of separate areas of the brain which give the illusion of consciousness as distinct. Now let's say that it is also discovered that animals possess these exact same processess and it can be confirmed that they share the same 'conscious spark' as a human does. Would slaughtering animals still be morally justified. So morality, in that sense, would be considered relative to progress, culture and intelligence would it not? Time and motion are both relative, something that has been confirmed objectively but the west are still quite happy to perceive 'time' absolutely as derived from Newtonian law. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Yan: "A. Because what benefits another at present will, if the system holds, serve to benefit me in the future." But if the purpose of the system is to benefit you, then when the system clashes with what is of direct benefit to you, there is no sense in following the system. It would be like creating a company purely in order to make yourself money, but then bankrupting yourself in order to keep the company afloat. Also, if your system is purely designed to benefit you, then you cannot possibly see anything wrong with another culture in which their system allows murder, as long as it stays away from you. Enzo: "Q. On what criteria does it 'make sense'? A. If it is according to my concept of good." Your 'concept of good' is your belief in an objective good, or again, an objective right. If it wasn't objective, you would be talking about an irrational, arbitrary idea of good that you don't believe is any more true than anyone else's idea of good. If you have a rationality to your idea of good, you must again trace if back to a root concept of good or right, or something based on selfishness (which is not good at all, and would not allow you the possibility of self-sacrifice). "A. No. I persue my own values, which may lead to either pleasure or pain. If I thought it was 'right' to dive in front of a bullet for a friend, I would. I can't see that my choice of whether to do that is objective, because not everyone would react the same way. So it must be subjective." Q. But again, do you believe that your decision is irrational? You did it because you thought it was 'right', but you believe that 'rightness' is something that has no moral logic or reason behind it? A1. Well, of course there is a moral rationale behind it. (We again trace back the rationale to something that you believe is objectively right.) A2. No, there is no rationality, in this case, to my decision. It simply seems like something I should do. (But then you are saying that your decision is actually no more right than a decision to let your friend take the bullet. If both decisions are equally without rational basis, then there is actually no right or wrong decision.) The basic principle here is that if you are do something because you think it is right, you are acting on the belief that it is objectively right. For example, if someone says killing is wrong, they are not saying, "I personally would never kill someone," and acting according to that rule - they are saying that all killing should be prevented and that people who kill are wrong to do so. This is a distinct position from someone who believes that, for them, killing doesn't make sense or doesn't seem like something they should do. For someone who only believed that killing was wrong *for them* it does not follow that they have to prevent killing elsewhere, because they must be aware that, for other people, killing might be OK. Sure, you might step in, if you'd made a rule for yourself that you should prevent killing where possible, but you could not believe that people who killed were wrong - because their morality is theirs, yours is yours. So, yeah, if you say something is wrong or right, you are really saying that this is an objective reality that all people should recognise. It stands in contradiction to, "Well, I live my life according to these arbitrary rules, and other people live their life by another set of arbitrary rules, and neither is more right or wrong." ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

C'mon Jack, it's lunch time. Try and keep these posts shorter :) I'll have to read this fully when I've finished my tuna butty/ There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

I'm with Yan. Shorter posts! The things is this: You are saying that rationality comes from an objective good. I am saying that the process of rationalisation - to quote Kierkegaard - is a process of mediation that happens where you simply judge whether or not something is good for you to do. That judgement is based on your own values, not through a 'window to the objective nature of the universe' or anything like that. Those values are, influenced by your community and wider society. If you persue objectivity to its end, you deny emotion and humanity. It simply doesn't make sense. You suggest that we all know what good is and act according to, or agaist it. Clearly, this is not the case. Look at history. Look around you. Killing: sometimes good, sometimes not. Homosexuality: once evil, now (for most[!]) not. There can be no objectivity derived from anything that is tangible. All truth is personal and temporal. There is no truth for all. There is me, and for you, most probably, there is you. When it comes to specific differences of opinions, which are real and do exist, objectivity fails because not ONE THINK can be shown as objectively true for all, for all time. Enzo.. Read my rubbish novel as it happens! http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

"Everything everyone ever does is selfish. Selfishness is at the root of morality." No. No, no, no. No. Suppose you had £5 on the table in front of you, and you had the choice to either have it given to you, or given to a charity. The catch is that as soon as you make your decision, and the transaction happens, you and everyone else involved in the transaction will forget that it has taken place. There is no reward. No one knows you've done it. If everything everyone did was selfish, there would be absolutely no way anyone would give that money to the charity. No way at all. And yet, what would you do? Enzo: "You are saying that rationality comes from an objective good. " No. I am saying that all moral action arises from belief in an objective good. These are the 'values' that you are talking about. These 'values' are tied to what you consider to be objective good or objective right. If you didn't believe they were objectively good, then it is impossible to believe that they are better values than anyone else's. The principle thing is: you cannot have your cake and eat it. You can't believe that your values are worth more than someone else's, and yet that they are not, objectively. You either believe your values should apply to everyone, or they should apply only to you. If you believe they only apply to you, then you cannot judge other people based on your values - you can only judge them based on their own values. "If you persue objectivity to its end, you deny emotion and humanity. It simply doesn't make sense. You suggest that we all know what good is and act according to, or agaist it." Not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that all human moral endeavour rests on the instrinsic belief in moral objectivity and that moral progress is a route towards agreeing what that moral objectivity is, what values are absolute and what are not. If you only believe in moral subjectivity, you do not believe your values apply to anyone else. If you believe in moral relativity (where morals apply within specific cultures, rather than individuals) you do not believe your values apply outside your culture. Here's a couple of scenarios for you: 1) On a distant planet, light years away, there is a race of aliens who kill and torture one another. In their race's moral belief, this is the correct way of doing things. They will never come into contact with us, or have any bearing on our lives. They have nothing to do with our society. Should they stop? How can you possibly say yes without appealing to Universal moral values? 2) In Tanzania and Kenya, the practice of female circumcision still continues to this day. This means that they cut the woman's clitoris off around puberty, and in some cases, sew up their vaginas until the night of their wedding. This is perfectly acceptable in the Maasai society, and in that of other African tribes. Obviously, their values are different to ours. Should they revise them? Again, how can you possibly say that? In order to suggest that our values in this matter are more important than theirs you must again appeal to the existence of a Universal morality. The simple fact is this: If you see moral subjectivism through to its logical conclusion, you have no right to intervene in someone else's moral value system. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Ok, 2 points: 1. "No. I am saying that all moral action arises from belief in an objective good. These are the 'values' that you are talking about. These 'values' are tied to what you consider to be objective good or objective right. If you didn't believe they were objectively good, then it is impossible to believe that they are better values than anyone else's." Exactly what I'm saying!!! I agree many people's values are based on a *belief* in objective good. That is a subjectvie belief. What I am saying is: there is no such thing as objective good in and of itself. It is something that people belive in; Just as many poeple base their values on a god's word: I say there is no god at all. 2. "The simple fact is this: If you see moral subjectivism through to its logical conclusion, you have no right to intervene in someone else's moral value system" No. We are back to disagreeing about what subjectivity is. I am saying the following: - I believe something. - It is subjective, in that I believe it to be true but accept that opinion may change from person to person, or in my own mind, over time. - If I so choose to impose that belief on others, it is not because I am appealing to any objectuive truth, it is because my actions are what I consider to be good, as per my own values. I would very much like to have this conversation face to face one day. I find all this difficult to explain writing and while I know we may never agree, it would be better if we didn't agree but fully understood each other. Forgive typos please. Enzo.. Read my rubbish novel as it happens! http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

I think you're still in have-your-cake-and-eat-it mode, Enzo. "I agree many people's values are based on a *belief* in objective good. What I am saying is: there is no such thing as objective good in and of itself." If you don't believe in an objective good, then you can't be basing your own values on an objective good (you can't base them on something you don't believe in). If you aren't basing your values on an objective good, then you don't believe your values are any truer than someone else's who are entirely different. Therefore, you have no right to impose your values on them, because your values only apply to your subjective reality. Crux of the matter is here: "It is subjective, in that I believe it to be true." This is an impossible position. Objectivity is truth. If you believe something is true, you believe it is true for everyone. If it's subjective, it is fundamentally neither true nor false - it is an illusion. This isn't really philosophy anymore, but back to semantics. Take a quick gander at the wiki article again on moral skepticism again - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_skepticism - there are generally three possible positions you can logically come to from the proposal that 'there are no objective truths in morality'. You either believe morality does not exist, that moral values only apply to the individual who believes in them, or that moral truths only apply to a culture within which those moral truths are agreed. In the third case, you do not believe your own values apply to anyone outside of your culture. In the second, you believe your own values apply only to yourself, or someone else who happens to share those values. In the first, you do not believe in values. As I say, this isn't really philosophy - it's back to understanding what subjectivity is, and that is something cannot be true nor false, right or wrong. We're back to our previous argument where if you don't accept that objectivity stands for truth, then the words are meaningless. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Peps, you have completely ignored my scenario and question and gone off on a ramble instead. "Does it not make us “feel good”? Would we do altruistic things if there was no positive emotional benefit? Or, to take it to a more metaphysical level, if there was no (percieved) benefit to our soul? I’d say not… Therefore everything we do, however altruistic it seems to be, has an ultimate selfish motive." Read the scenario again. There is no emotional benefit. You will forget about the £5 as soon as you make the decision. So will everyone else. You will not get the chance to feel good about it, and you won't perceive any benefit to your soul. If people were incapable of being anything other than selfish, no one would give the £5 to charity. And yet, ask yourself: what would you do? ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe Just to avoid me (and

Just expanding on the £5 thing for a mo. If you see a child fall into the river the first thing you would is help the child regardless of the consequences. But we have to be aware of the fact that we still possess the same brain as we did 100,000 years ago. A tribesman relied on strength in numbers, not only for protection against predators but also against rival tribes. It was in the tribesman's interests to jump in and save his tribe buddy to ensure his own long-term survival. Not to mention the fact that most tribes were mostly inbred so therefore genetically motivated. We still have that in-built instinctive tendency to help other and besides these scenarios can all still be well covered by reciprocal altruism (where, to my surprise, the vampire bat anaolgy crops up) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism Another reason the mr.tribeman may have jumped into the river is because he was showing off his alpha-maleness which would have had good returns regards leadership and reproduction (this info comes from studies into monkeys and other ape-things). There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

I DUNNO! lol...to be honest I've kinda lost track now because I'm worried about taking my daughter for a hair cut...it's traumatic for both of us. Your topic-head is coming back to haunt me, peps: 'and on it goes! No rules or anything, just see how long we can string it out… OK? Just for fun!' There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

You're wriggling out of it, Peps. There is no instantaneous good feeling. Let me put it this way - you are on some sort of medication and find that you are incapable of feeling good about anything. If you've suffered ever been on strong anti-depressants you'll know that this is possible. The forgetting scenario also takes place - it is absolutely instantaneous, as soon as the decision is made. Would you honestly still not give money to the charity? I think I would. "If you see a child fall into the river the first thing you would is help the child regardless of the consequences." No, I think that's ridiculous. I wouldn't go in if the water was going to kill me and I didn't stand a chance of saving the child. I wouldn't go in until I'd checked that the child couldn't sort it out himself, or that no one else was already on the scene? Even then, do I know if I would? The premise of Camus' 'La Chute' is that the main character has watched a woman drowning and done nothing to save her. I would suggest that it's plainly absurd to think we would save a child as the result of some sort of tribal instinct. Some people wouldn't. What - have they got different ancestors? I think you're going down the wrong path entirely in trying to argue that we do things because of instinct. Look at this way: any decent survival instinct would see you getting far away from a fire. You can't possibly argue that some sort of 'tribal memory' would cause someone to go back in for someone - two burn victims are no use to a caveman tribe at all. And yet, some people would do it. Again, if you think a moral value is just an agreed subjective way of doing things that will benefit the most people most broadly, there is absolutely no reason to risk your life, because the reason for that moral value existing is in conflict with the value itself. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Bloody hell. The rest of this thread makes my eyes sore just to skim it. So I'm giving up. Just one last thing about the original (ish) question and I’ll leave you to your five pound note (btw, wouldn't the person gain a pre-decision buzz from *contemplating* doing the honourable thing which would then push him to hit the ‘give the fiver to charity’ button? Or have you covered that? I'm not a Hobbsian btw.) Anyhow… “Well, I've only ever been arguing that there is a validity and a point to saying that something "is not funny" or definitively right or wrong, and that taking the line that the thing in question is subjective - and therefore that no person's view is more true than another's - is not something a defence we should accept.” I agree there is a validity and a point to saying that certain things are definitively this or definitively that. I have never put forth the theory that everything is ‘subjective.’ Just because the Crusades were considered ‘right’ and justified at the time, for example, doesn’t mean they actually were. You can successfully debate something like a military campaign because, although people may cherry-pick the consequences they want to focus on, the actual results of a military campaign are fixed. Perceptions of the campaign may change over time or from different standpoints but the actual consequences, e.g. body count, stays the same. Not everything follows this simple pattern of actions and definitive consequences. Some actions produce outcomes that *differ* according to a variable element. For instance, whether hypnotherapy is effective or not depends on the skill of the practitioner *and* the susceptibility of the patient. In that case I believe it is valid to say, if hypnotherapy works for you, it works. That’s not washing my hands of a debate on the efficacy of hynotherapy – that’s my answer to it. I believe the same is true of comedy. The actual outcome of the exact same comedy performance will vary according to who is watching it, depending on their susceptibility to that particular form of humour. You can say that X’s material is lame or witless or repetitive or whatever, it may well be all of those, but to say something is categorically unfunny, implying not just unfunny to me but unfunny to other people even though it obviously causes them to laugh, doesn’t make sense to me. What clouds the issue is that, in some cases, the same performance can have additional consequences which have to be taken into account. That is when the laugher is elicited at other people’s expense. Then the outcome includes hurt, offense, harmful encouragement of negative stereotypes etc. I would accept a debate on those grounds as to why X’s comedy is bad or the people laughing are doing so for nefarious reasons, but the Roy Chubby Brown’s can’t explain every case. That is why, in my previous example, I cited Lee Evans because, to my knowledge, he doesn’t rely on any stocks and tomatoes humour, yet I still don’t find him funny. Other people find him funny, so I accept that for them, Lee Evans is funny. That is what I meant by comedy being subjective. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

'There is no instantaneous good feeling' No? Are you fooling yourself? 'Let me put it this way - you are on some sort of medication and find that you are incapable of feeling good about anything.' what is he 'on'? anti-anti-depressants? 'If you've suffered ever been on strong anti-depressants you'll know that this is possible' It's possible...but it's relative to the standard of mental health service you may have been lucky or unlucky to have experienced. 'Would you honestly still not give money to the charity? I think I would.' Alot of people give to charity under the bizarres impression that they're going to be rewarded for it at some point - maybe in the afterlife?? religion (or absolute truth) offers rewards just as reciprocal altruism does! Amongst many other factors. 'No, I think that's ridiculous. I wouldn't go in if the water was going to kill me and I didn't stand a chance of saving the child. I wouldn't go in until I'd checked that the child couldn't sort it out himself, or that no one else was already on the scene?' Welcome to the world of natural selection, Jack. Where's the objective morality gone? Not everyone has the 'balls' to believe in themselves! Even then, do I know if I would? The premise of Camus' 'La Chute' is that the main character has watched a woman drowning and done nothing to save her. I would suggest that it's plainly absurd to think we would save a child as the result of some sort of tribal instinct. Some people wouldn't. What - have they got different ancestors? No Jack...they have subjective opinions as to what is moral and immoral I think you're going down the wrong path entirely in trying to argue that we do things because of instinct. Look at this way: any decent survival instinct would see you getting far away from a fire. You can't possibly argue that some sort of 'tribal memory' would cause someone to go back in for someone - two burn victims are no use to a caveman tribe at all. They may be no use to a 'caveman' tribe, Jack...but the prospect of rescuing them promises great rewards for the hero. Ever wondered why women naturally have a 'thing' for firemen? Jack - again you're appealing to a majesterium outside rational debate. Arguments immediately break down when you refer to the incomprehensible. if you insist on this train of thought then we might aswell accept that this whole argument is subjective. To address one of 2lou's comments: 'Some actions produce outcomes that *differ* according to a variable element. For instance, whether hypnotherapy is effective or not depends on the skill of the practitioner *and* the susceptibility of the patient.' I would agree with 'susceptibility' but due to the ability of hypnotherapy to create false memories I wouldn't go further than to suggest that hypnotherpay is merely a technique to assess how 'vulnerable' a person is - period! There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

I missed too much and can't read through it all. Just one point on this: ""I agree many people's values are based on a *belief* in objective good. What I am saying is: there is no such thing as objective good in and of itself." If you don't believe in an objective good, then you can't be basing your own values on an objective good (you can't base them on something you don't believe in)." I'm saying *I* don't believe in an objective good, any more than I believe in a god. But I acknowledge others do, and the rest of your argument seems to follow for those people that do. Enzo.. Read my rubbish novel as it happens! http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/