r/changemyview • u/Goober_232 • 20h ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Good and Evil Are Subjective
This may be a controversial take, so I'll try my best to explain my position as clearly as I can. I believe is considered moral of immoral is largely dependent on circumstance, societal and personal beliefs.
For instance, Stealing (by most people) would probably be considered wrong, yet stealing from the rich and giving to the needy is usually considered a bit less of a bad thing, or morally grey. You could argue that this example that was a wrong followed by a right, so I'll provide another one.
The consumption of animals, or eating certain types of animals in some religions is considered wrong because the animal has a life of it's own, or that it is special in some way that makes it wrong to eat, while plenty of other people see absolutely no harm in doing so, because animals are a source of food just the same as plants.
Providing care for your parents in their old age is considered a moral obligation by some, and that not doing so would be wrong because of how much care they put into raising you for decades of their life , while others would argue that you have no obligation to do so.
Let's take a more extreme example. Murder, by most, is considered wrong, but there are exceptions to be made for self defense or protecting others.
We can even take into consideration situations where lives are guaranteed to be lost, and only some can be saved. Difficult choices have to be made.
COUNTEREXAMPLES:
Some people cause others to suffer for their own pleasure. We generally call that cruel.
There are those who absolutely would steal, or hurt someone else to get something they want. I'd call that selfish.
And then there are situations where people would go against their own moral code to ensure their own survival, which comes from desperation.
Even so, selfishness, desperation, and even cruelty aren't inherently morally wrong.
Someone can be selfish by eating the last chocolate bar even after knowing their friend really wanted it, but that's not necessarily wrong.
Another person's desperation may cause them to beg for help from others.
It's also possible that someone could be deliberately cruel towards people who they believe where monsters. The cruelty describes their behavior, but whether that behavior is morally justified is another matter entirely.
CONCLUSION:
I believe our ideas of 'good' and 'evil' are shaped by individuals, societies, and the circumstances surrounding a situation, even when we're discussing the most heinous actions imaginable. The rule I personally follow is to avoid causing intentional serious harm to anyone whenever possible, and you can feel free to come up with your own sense of right and wrong.
And most importantly, you absolutely can stand by your moral convictions and act on them. I just don't treat morality of any kind, even my own, as objective truth.
•
u/Great-Exercise4277 7∆ 17h ago
I was struck by something in the last part of your post.
"The most important thing is that it's perfectly fine to stand by your moral convictions and act on them. I simply don't treat any kind of morality, even my own, as objective truth."
I think it's natural for people to have their own beliefs and act on them. I would agree with that.
However, I have some doubts about adding the word "moral" and the judgment that it's "perfectly fine."
For example, let's imagine someone who holds a religious belief that killing nonbelievers is the right thing to do.
I can understand that this person genuinely believes that. Different beliefs can coexist, with one person saying, "I see. But I don't agree."
However, if that person actually kills someone in accordance with their beliefs, is it really okay for a third party to say that there's "nothing wrong with that"?
I'm not a philosopher, so I may be misunderstanding how these terms are used.
When you say "moral convictions," do you simply mean beliefs a person holds about right and wrong? Or does the term also imply that acting on those beliefs is acceptable?
To me, adding the word "moral" feels as though it gives those beliefs some degree of moral rightness.
I'd like to understand what you mean when you use this term.
I wrote this text, and ChatGPT translated it.
•
u/Goober_232 16h ago edited 16h ago
No worries! I also used ChatGPT to sharpen my wording for this post, the thoughts were my own.
I am arguing that morality is not a universal truth. different people or cultures can hold different ideas of what is good and what is bad. In that way, it is subjective like an opinion.
If a person kills a non believer in accordance to their belief, that person may believe they are justified. However, acknowledging that someone has their own logic as to what they consider to be moral behavior does not require you to dismiss what they did.
You can still be angry about it. You can still personally believe what they did was wrong. Saying that the person is objectively wrong is a claim that can't be made, given they have their own moral framework. Stopping a person who believes such a thing is equally justified.
I believe acting on your moral beliefs, even if it's something like the example you provided, is acceptable (within their own moral framework). However, those actions come with consequences.
I would say it is important to cultivate empathy, integrity and kindness. Those traits tend to contribute to general welfare. Even that is just my opinion.
•
u/Great-Exercise4277 7∆ 15h ago
Regarding another person's beliefs, I can judge them as right or wrong based on my own values. However, I cannot determine whether they are objectively right or wrong. I can simply recognize that our beliefs differ.
Because objective morality does not exist and all morality is subjective, I cannot make an objective judgment about whether another person's beliefs are right or wrong.
Is this an accurate understanding of your position? If so, I have no particular objections, and that concludes my questions.
I wrote this text, and ChatGPT translated it. I'm not a native English speaker, and if I tried to discuss this in English on my own, I might lose some of the subtle nuances. That's why I use AI translation. Thank you for your understanding.
•
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 20h ago
I just had this conversation over on the Cosmic skeptic subreddit! So you're going to run afoul of DCT for the most part, but as an atheist I've been looking into Gewerth's attempts to ground objective morality recently. Curious what you think of this:
All action has a goal: Whenever you act voluntarily, you do so to achieve a goal you consider valuable.
Action requires basic conditions: You cannot pursue any goal without freedom (agency) and well-being (life, health, physical integrity). Gewirth calls these generic goods.
You must claim a right to these conditions: Because you need freedom and well-being to act, you logically must insist that others do not interfere with them. You are committed to the claim: "I have a right to freedom and well-being."
The claim is based solely on agency: You make this claim simply because you are an acting, goal-directed agent—not because of your special identity, wealth, or status.
Universalization is logically required: By standard rules of logic, if you claim rights simply because you are an acting agent, you must grant those exact same rights to all other acting agents.
Moral duty follows: Respecting others' rights to freedom and well-being is not a subjective preference—it is a logical requirement.
•
u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 3∆ 19h ago
Universalization is logically required: By standard rules of logic, if you claim rights simply because you are an acting agent, you must grant those exact same rights to all other acting agents.
I would disagree. My claim is right because it is my claim, not because I consider myself, or do not consider myself, an acting agent.
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 18h ago
If being yourself is sufficient reason to claim a right to freedom and wellbeing, then you must grant that logically any person who is themself is able to claim a right to freedom and wellbeing
Unless you mean being Realistic_yougurt1902 somehow grants you greater ontological value than other people, I'd love to hear that argument
•
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ 14h ago
I can grant that anyone else who is ME can universally have the same rights. Not my fault that I am the only “me” around.
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 11h ago
Everyone is a 'Me'. Meaning if being the self is sufficient to claim a right to health and well-being, by claiming that right you grant that every 'me' has that right. You're just confused about what an agent is.
Unless you mean being Ndvorsky somehow grants you greater ontological value than other people, I'd love to hear that argument
•
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ 1h ago
You are trying to make a basis for objectivity but have snuck in some assumptions.
1) Prove that I’m not more valuable.
2) prove that I should care if others are equaly valuable.
To be clear, I don’t need to prove it because you are making the so far unjustified claim as part of the argument.
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 1h ago
To be clear, I don’t need to prove it because you are making the so far unjustified claim as part of the argument.
? You can't make a claim and then say 'I don't have to justify my claim, it's your argument'. You're not immune to the burden of proof just because I hold a position. You made a claim in order to attack my position. That claim must be justified, or my position stands. How do you justify that being you grants certain rights and privileges?
Point 1:
This is known as the egoist's objection and it's a pretty common response to Gewirth's ethical system.
Imagine the egoist lost the ability choose, to act, to pursue goals. Would they still claim a right to freedom and wellbeing?
Obviously not. Just being 'you' isn't sufficient to claim those rights. You must be an agent. Therefore, you are saying you need rights BECAUSE you are an agent who seeks to achieve goals. The egoists' response just folds right back into Gewirth's position.
Point 2:
Should I just restate the argument? The whole argument is just proving that you should care. If you're asking that then you don't understand it. You're welcome to read the argument again or have someone smarter than me explain it to you. The whole argument is just 'Why you should grant freedom and wellbeing to other rational agents.'
If you mean why should you emotionally care, that's not required for this argument to succeed.
•
•
u/B0ulderSh0ulders 2∆ 19h ago
if you claim rights simply because you are an acting agent
What if your goals as an acting agent are to use your rights to enslave others?
•
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ 14h ago
That would violate the universality component of the argument. Their moral argument would be objectively wrong because the freedom to enslave is a direct contradiction.
•
u/B0ulderSh0ulders 2∆ 5h ago
How and why? You are saying that freedom is being an acting agent and claiming the right to be so. So why is there a magical rule that says enslaving people using your freedom is logically contradictory to you yourself being free? It sounds like you're describing subjective morality.
If I can be respectfully honest here, it seems like you have read/heard about a very smart idea and are sharing it without fully understanding it. Like I think there probably is more logic behind this, but you aren't fleshing it out enough to actually establish your claim.
•
u/Goober_232 19h ago
Would you respect the rights and freedom of someone who actively tries to take those things away from others?
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 19h ago
No, that would be in violation in logic. It would require permitting someone to take the freedom from agents who you grant have a right to freedom. It would be saying both that agency is sufficient to grant a right to freedom and well being, but also the agency isn't sufficient to grant a right to freedom and well being.
•
u/Goober_232 19h ago
I see. u/eyetwitch_24_7 gave an additional example: "Some societies allowed for human sacrifice to tame the weather. In those societies, human sacrifice was not evil. It was necessary."
In that situation, taking away someone's agency would be considered needed in order for long term prosperity. They were factually wrong regarding whether it works, but regarding what they believed to be true, does that make them morally wrong?
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 18h ago
They were morally wrong because they were actually wrong. They were wasting lives. That's wrong whether you know it is or not. I'm pretty sure that holds in literally any moral ontological view though, I don't think that's specific to Gewerth's
•
u/Goober_232 18h ago
If I understand what you're saying correctly, what you consider moral is the preservation of human life. What if an action results in saving more lives but causing great suffering to the lives spared?
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 18h ago
To be clear, this has actually nothing to do with moral ontology, which was the subject of your original post. Asking 'Are good and evil subjective or objective' is not a question of ethical decision making. This weird trolley problem you're presenting me with would fall under the purview of Applied Ethics, where your original question concerned Meta Ethics
You are asking "What kind of apple do you like?"
Your post originally asked "Do apples even objectively exist?"
As to whether or not preserving the quality of life is better or the quantity of life is better, I genuinely can't say. I value both. I'm not sure which is more important. Maybe it would depend on the amount of suffering and the number of lives.
•
u/Goober_232 16h ago
Sorry for the late response. What my post asks is not whether morality exists, both whether or not morality is objective. Opinions exist, yet they cannot be factually proven correct or incorrect.
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 11h ago
The nature of morality is a question of meta ethics, yes. See my original comment for my answer to that
•
u/Goober_232 5h ago
That's where I think we agree, I think what we disagree on is whether granting those exact same rights to all other acting agents is objectively morally correct.
Based on your definition of an acting agent, which I believe is acting voluntarily to achieve a goal you consider valuable, that would extend beyond humans to animals as well.
Most animals likely have the desire or goal of living. Does that make it objectively morally incorrect to slaughter one?
→ More replies (0)•
u/Nucaranlaeg 11∆ 14h ago
It doesn't universalize because there are people who believe in determinism. They don't have the right to those things (in this way) because they don't believe themselves agents in the same way. It's therefore valid to harm determinists.
IOW, you also need a theory of mind here - that other people have rich internal worlds as well, because then you can universalize by positing that they also are agents. But it isn't necessary to grant that, and so you're limited to "People have rights to the extent that they claim them."
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 11h ago
I don't follow the determinism point... I think this argument works even if determinism is true, insofar as me being an agent who takes actions to achieve goals is true whether my actions are determined mathematically or not
•
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ 14h ago
I have heard this before but take issue with 2 parts, the right and universality.
Because I aim to do something does not mean I have a right to do it, merely that I have a desire or ability to do something.
In order to go to Cabo, I must have a passport and money, that does not mean I have a right to these things (well maybe the passport part).
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 11h ago
Because I aim to do something does not mean I have a right to do it,
True, and a common misunderstanding of the argument! When you pursue an end, you necessarily claim that you have the right to the freedom and well-being necessary to pursue that end. You do not have a right to success in all your endeavors.
•
u/Wrote_it2 7h ago
In what way does claiming that you have a right makes the right good? The psychopath can claim to have the right to the freedom necessary to kill, that doesn’t make his claim necessarily objective and it doesn’t make that freedom necessarily morally good, it doesn’t make it morally good to allow people to carry rocket launchers.
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 7h ago
In what way does claiming that you have a right makes the right good?
It does not. I'm only providing arguments for why you ought behave certain way, not whether certain rights are themselves good or bad.
The psychopath can claim to have the right to the freedom necessary to kill
Okay so it might help to clarify what morality is. When I say something is immoral, I only mean we have a reason not to do that thing.
The psychopath would be in violation of rationality. He would be affirming both: That agency is sufficient for to claim rights (his own freedom and wellbeing), and also that agency is insufficient to claim rights (his victims' freedom and wellbeing). So committing murder would require affirming both a and also not a simultaneously. So they have a reason not to do that.
This is usually the portion of the conversation where people confuse enforcement over reason-giving morality. Just because people ought not do something doesn't mean we can stop them from doing it if they decide to behave irrationally. This is not a correctional argument, only a moral one.
it doesn’t make it morally good to allow people to carry rocket launchers
Yeah you've lost me completely
•
u/Wrote_it2 6h ago
When I say something is immoral, I only mean we have a reason not to do that thing.
I might need you to clarify what "reason not to do something" means.
As stated, I think that makes a lot of actions immoral, even ones I would have classified as moral by my definition. For example, a child is drowning in a pool, I have many reasons not to rescue him: it will make me wet (let's assume I don't want to be wet right now), it will require me to stop the pleasant conversation I'm having with my friend, etc...
I don't think that definition works.
The psychopath would be in violation of rationality.
Yes, maybe you can say the psychopath is acting irrationally, but that the psychopath behaves irrationally can't rescue the argument you were making earlier.
You said "When you pursue an end, you necessarily claim that you have the right to the freedom and well-being necessary to pursue that end"
The psychopath pursues an end (killing), but does he necessarily claim that he has the right to the freedom and well-being necessary to kill? I'm not so sure: I believe it is possible the psychopath would claim that he doesn't have the right to the freedom to kill, but his desire makes him pursue that end either way. I'm saying people can pursue acts they don't believe they have the right to do, and also that they can act immorally.
Maybe this is what you mean by "confusing enforcement over reason-giving morality". You might mean something else than I do when you say "having the right to do something". I think of it against a code of conduct (a law, social norms, etc...). Because I think of morality as subjective, I don't really know what having the moral right to do something, something like it conforming to the moral judgment of the majority of people?
it doesn’t make it morally good to allow people to carry rocket launchers
Yeah you've lost me completely
You addressed the point I think: if the psychopath claims to have the right to the freedom to kill with a rocket launcher, he claims the right to carry a rocket launcher. I don't think carrying a rocket launcher is necessarily objectively morally good just because one person claims to have the right to do it.
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 5h ago
"reason not to do something" uh, this would be like an ought? Like you ought do this, or you ought not do it. You ought save the drowning baby and you ought talk to your friends. Obviously one is a *little* higher priority than the other.
In what way does the definition fail? I understand morals to be a question of things people ought and ought not do. I can work with your definition if you have a different one.
that the psychopath behaves irrationally can't rescue the argument you were making
That the psychopath acts irrationally just is the argument I'm making.
The psychopath pursues an end (killing), but does he necessarily claim that he has the right to the freedom and well-being necessary to kill?
yes, taking any action necessitates making that claim. He's irrational because he thinks his right to pursue the ends of murder is somehow more important than his victims right to freedom and well being, when both claims are based on the sufficiency of agency.
I'm saying people can pursue acts they don't believe they have the right to do,
You're confused in the exact same way you were earlier. It's not that he has the right to do something, it's that he has the right to the freedom and wellbeing necessary to pursue his goals. Whether his external actions align with his internal goals is more of a mental health question.
I don't really know what having the moral right to do something, something like it conforming to the moral judgment of the majority of people?
yes that would be an example of a subjective moral system, one tied to whim or popularity.
-The rocket launcher thing slips away from moral onotology and starts asking questions about moral application; that is what should or should not we permit as a society. In our claim to freedom and wellbeing necessary to pursue our goals, and in our recognition of these claims in other agents, we have to make decisions based on that to govern our society. I'm not pro-rocket launcher either, but that's an opinion built on respecting the freedom and well being of thinking agents.
•
u/Wrote_it2 5h ago
"When I say something is immoral, I only mean we have a reason not to do that thing."
In what way does the definition fail?
Well, I have a reason not to save the kid who is drowning in the pool (it would interrupt my discussion and it would make me wet which I dislike), saving the kid is immoral by that definition.
I was being imprecise when I said the definition didn't work. I believe most people will say "saving the kid is not immoral", and so your definition is not the way most people use the word. It fails in that way, in that it doesn't capture what most people mean by the word "moral".
yes, taking any action necessitates making that claim [that he has the right to the freedom and well-being necessary to kill]
I can speed on the highway and claim I don't have the right to do that, that I did it despite the fact that I had no right to do so. Taking an action doesn't imply I claim to have the right to take that action.
Maybe there is a meaning you put behind "right to something" that allows you to say that's the case, but that's not a meaning I understand, you'll have to clarify.
It's not that he has the right to do something, it's that he has the right to the freedom and wellbeing necessary to pursue his goals.
I still don't get it: apply this to the psychopath who wants to kill people with an RPG. Does that not mean he has the right to the freedom to kill people with an RPG? Does the right to the freedom to kill people with an RPG not include the right to carry a rocket launcher (do you really have the freedom to kill people with an RPG if you don't carry a rocket launcher?)
You seem to claim the psychopath has the right to carry a rocket launcher as if it's a self-evident thing that doesn't require debate... I don't grant him that right, I don't understand the argument, how you reach that conclusion.
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 5h ago
Taking an action doesn't imply I claim to have the right to take that action.
No, you never claim the right to an action. I don't mean to be rude my friend, but I have explained this exact problem maybe three times now. You don't claim the right to take an action. You claim the right to the freedom and wellbeing necessary to pursue your goals.
Does that not mean he has the right to the freedom to kill people with an RPG?
No, he does not. By choosing to pursue his goal of doing a spree shooting, he is asserting that agency (his own) is sufficient to claim a right to the freedom and wellbeing necessary to pursue his goals. By executing a spree shooting, he is asserting that agency (of the victims) is insufficient to grant them the right to freedom and wellbeing. He would be in violation of rationality if he asserted both a (agency is sufficient to claim rights) and not a (agency is insufficient to claim rights). There are reasons not to do that. You ought not do it.
Well, I have a reason not to save the kid who is drowning in the pool (it would interrupt my discussion and it would make me wet which I dislike), saving the kid is immoral by that definition.
You have a moral obligation to save a life, meaning you ought do it. Surely that moral obligation outweighs the moral obligation to self that would maintaining your comfort by being dry? Also this isn't even a question of moral ontology, it's a question of ethical dilemmas. You're assuming morality to even ask that question
•
u/Wrote_it2 4h ago
You claim the right to the freedom and wellbeing necessary to pursue your goals
OK, my bad. I still don't think I claim the right to the freedom to speed on the highway. Again, it might be because we put different meanings behind "right to do something"... I can claim that speeding on the highway is one of my goal and that I don't have the right to the freedom of going past the speed limit, that the government is justified in preventing the ownership of cars that can do so for example (which would be hindering/going against my hypothetical right to my freedom to speed on the highway).
By choosing to pursue his goal of doing a spree shooting, he is asserting that agency (his own) is sufficient to claim a right to the freedom and wellbeing necessary to pursue his goals.
In your original OP, you said "respecting others' rights to freedom and well-being is [...] a logical requirement". Given the context, I think you meant others' right to freedom to pursue their goals.
Applying that general rule to a particular case should not change the conclusion. All I did was apply your general rule to the psychopath. The rule becomes "respecting the right to the freedom to kill people with an RPG is a logical requirement". I take it that forbidding carrying a rocket launcher is not respecting the right to the freedom to kill people with an RPG (because you must carry a rocket launcher in order to kill people with an RPG), so your rule entails that "allowing carrying a rocket launcher is a logical requirement".
I don't understand where the disconnect is. I understand you can make a separate argument that the psychopath is acting irrationally, but that's unrelated to the discussion, I'm not arguing whether the psychopath is acting rationally or irrationally, I'm discussing the veracity of your general statement that "respecting others' rights to freedom and well-being is [...] a logical requirement"
You have a moral obligation to save a life, meaning you ought do it. Surely that moral obligation outweighs the moral obligation to self that would maintaining your comfort by being dry? Also this isn't even a question of moral ontology, it's a question of ethical dilemmas.
I'm literally just applying your definition. You said "When I say something is immoral, I only mean we have a reason not to do that thing".
Is getting wet a reason not to save the kid drowning in the pool? Yes, it is. I'm not saying there are no reasons to save the kid, I'm saying "we have a reason not to do that thing", so it is immoral by your definition, that's all.
If you don't mean for saving the kid to be immoral, then you mean a different definition of the word immoral, that's all. Your definition is mistaken.
You're assuming morality to even ask that question
I don't understand what that could possibly mean. You gave me a definition of a word, you just defined it, how could it not exist after you defined it? What do you mean by "assuming" a word?
→ More replies (0)•
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ 1h ago
I still don’t see the connection. Unless you mean that rights are equal to ability or something like that? Then there is no claim to the right to freedom or wellbeing just by having a goal. To want something is not to have a right to it.
What is a right?
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 1h ago
Then there is no claim to the right to freedom or wellbeing just by having a goal.
I think this is just directly wrong. By having a goal you claim a right to pursue that goal, which requires freedom and wellbeing necessary to pursue that goal. It's kind of baked into the definition of a goal. Otherwise, you're not really pursuing anything. Not sure how you could work around this
What is a right?
A right is a power or privilege held by individuals, groups, and entities, usually as the result of a constitution, statute, regulation, or judicial precedent (Obviously in this case the right is claimed and not granted by a court).
•
u/eyetwitch_24_7 15∆ 9h ago
Survival of the fittest is logical. Survival of the fittest is the antithesis of universalization of agency. At some point in nature, it is perfectly logical (and inevitable) for one creature's well-being to come into direct and unavoidable conflict with another creature's.
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 9h ago
Right, this argument doesn't speak for all creatures, only thinking agents. Even if you're talking about thinking agents coming against each other in direct, unavoidable contact for survival, I don't agree that this is an issue with any given moral system, let alone Gewerth's moral system. It's just an unfortunate reality of the world. Not sure how it serves as a criticism here
•
u/eyetwitch_24_7 15∆ 9h ago
Survival of the fittest human being is logical as well. Saying that in order to be logical about one's own agency requires universalization is, to my mind, a subjective leap. Especially when one restricts it to "only thinking agents." Does that not include people with severe mental disabilities? Infants?
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 8h ago
Saying that in order to be logical about one's own agency requires universalization is, to my mind, a subjective leap.
How so? If you act to achieve ends, then you are claiming a right to the freedom and wellbeing necessary to achieve those goals. If simply acting is sufficient to grant you those rights, then it must be true for all agents who act to achieve goals. That's just what it means to have sufficient reason.
Yes, I would include the disabled and infants. Disabled people are still moral agents and infants are humans who I value and will soon be moral agents.
Survival of the fittest human being is logical as well
What's the argument for this?
•
u/eyetwitch_24_7 15∆ 8h ago
Survival of the fittest is absolutely logical in humans. One could simply amend the statement "if one has agency and the strength to enact it, then it is logical that all other beings with agency and the strength to take what they need should do so as well. And if a being does not have the strength, then it is logical that that being does not have the right do so."
Going from I need freedom and well-being to pursue goals (which is not necessarily true depending on the goals) to freedom and well-being are therefore a universal right is a huge leap.
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 8h ago
if one has agency and the strength to enact it, then it is logical that all other beings with agency and the strength to take what they need should do so as well
No, you fundamentally misunderstood the argument. It's not about achieving the goals, it's about pursuing them. It makes no sense to say 'I ought to have my ends.' You can only say 'I pursue my ends, therefore I claim the freedom and wellbeing to pursue my ends'. Then it universalizes simply: by claiming a right to freedom and wellbeing on the basis of your agency being sufficient to claim that right, you grant that all other agents have that right as well.
You haven't provided an argument for why survival of the fitness is logical. 'If one has the strength to enact a goal, then all agencies with strength ought enact their goal' makes no sense and doesn't follow. You're not making an argument. It's just assertions.
•
u/eyetwitch_24_7 15∆ 8h ago
You can only say 'I pursue my ends, therefore I claim the freedom and wellbeing to pursue my ends'. Then it universalizes simply: by claiming a right to freedom and wellbeing on the basis of your agency being sufficient to claim that right, you grant that all other agents have that right as well.
Claiming freedom and well-being that currently exists is not the same as saying it's a "right." You're simply describing a situation that currently exists, and then expanding it to a right. But the situation does not necessarily exist and it's certainly not something that "ought" to be considered a right.
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 8h ago
It's not describing a set of freedoms and a state of wellbeing that currently exist.
When you take actions to achieve goals, that necessarily entails that you have the freedom and wellbeing to pursue those goals. You are claiming those rights simply by acting, and by no other authority. Your agency is sufficient to claim those rights. Since it's what the word 'sufficient' means, if agency is sufficient to claim those rights, then all agents necessarily have those rights.
•
20h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/yyzjertl 582∆ 19h ago
This is really not controversial at all. Unless someone believes in a higher power (like God), then good and evil are definitionally subjective
To the contrary, this is a small minority position among working moral philosophers, even atheist philosophers. Moral realism is the majority position even among those who reject theism, and moral subjectivism is a "minority of the minority" as non-cognitivism is generally more popular than subjectivism among moral anti-realists.
•
u/eyetwitch_24_7 15∆ 9h ago
You're talking about a very small number of human beings in the world (how many people actually responded to that survey). And their arguments are not particularly convincing. They all come down to some version of "objective morality exists because __________ is objectively better for human beings." But, the followup question can always be "why is __________ objectively better?" And we're back to square one.
And I don't believe that even those who hold objective morality to be real would consider subjectivism "controversial."
•
u/yyzjertl 582∆ 9h ago
And their arguments are not particularly convincing.
Can you name some of the philosophers in question whose arguments you've read and are describing in this way?
And I don't believe that even those who hold objective morality to be real would consider subjectivism "controversial."
Well, sure, but the reason why there's no serious controversy is that there are so few moral subjectivists among academic scholars so there's no one to have the controversy with.
•
u/eyetwitch_24_7 15∆ 9h ago
Tell me the arguments you're referencing and I'll deal with those arguments. Utilitarians, Constructivists, Naturalists, whatever. And, again, how many human beings actually responded to the survey you're referencing when you speak of "a small minority position among working moral philosophers." And, further, do they all therefore agree with each other as to how objective morality can exist? If not, then they're not on the same philosophical side.
•
u/yyzjertl 582∆ 9h ago edited 9h ago
You're the one who referenced arguments! You said "And their arguments are not particularly convincing." I'm asking you whose arguments you're talking about specifically.
And, again, how many human beings actually responded to the survey you're referencing
The original survey included 1803 philosophy faculty and it was then reproduced later with 1785 faculty.
And, further, do they all therefore agree with each other as to how objective morality can exist?
Yes: the portion I mentioned all agree with each other on moral realism.
•
u/eyetwitch_24_7 15∆ 9h ago
I'm talking about Utilitarians, Constructivists, Naturalists, Objectivists etc. Their arguments. Not particularly convincing.
And you're saying, at most, the majority of 1,803 people believe that objective morality can exist. I'm saying that's a minority of a minority of a minority of people.
•
u/yyzjertl 582∆ 9h ago
I'm talking about Utilitarians, Constructivists, Naturalists, Objectivists etc. Their arguments.
Sure, so name some. Whose arguments specifically have you read?
And you're saying, at most, the majority of 1,803 people believe that objective morality can exist.
This was a representative sample of working English speaking philosophers, of whom there are about 8000.
•
u/eyetwitch_24_7 15∆ 8h ago
You totally got me. I can’t name the philosophers whose arguments I’ve either read or listened to from any of the schools of philosophy I’ve mentioned. That must mean that my conclusions are wrong. Orrrr, you are making what an appeal to authority without making an actual argument.
•
u/yyzjertl 582∆ 8h ago
Well this makes your argument very strange! How can it be the case that you have read so much of the scholarly publications of working moral philosophers that you can say about them that "their arguments are not particularly convincing...they all come down to..." but also be unable to name even one of the philosophers whose arguments you've read?
→ More replies (0)•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 7h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view, or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ 14h ago
You have it exactly opposite, good and evil being defined by god, a subject, is the purest definition of subjective. It depends upon a subject. It is inarguably subjective.
•
u/eyetwitch_24_7 15∆ 10h ago
If the God is the perfect creator of all things in existence, then it is infallible. It is not "just deciding" what is good and evil. It is objectively labeling it. You're using human terms to describe something outside of human quantification. So, no, it's not "inarguably subjective."
•
u/Goober_232 19h ago
That's a good example, thank you! I was trying to get at this, but it seems I didn't articulate my position well enough.
•
u/CrowBot99 20h ago
You don't give an argument anywhere here.
You describe people's ideas about good and evil, which is irrelevant to the proposition of their truth.
You describe things that people do, which is also irrelevant to the proposition.
You then declare, "Even so [...]" and merely assert your thesis. Even your conclusion is about people's ideas of good and evil... not good and evil themselves.
There are things that serve the life of man, and there are things that do not. It's empirically clear.
•
u/Goober_232 19h ago
Is serving the life of man morally correct? There are many who would save their pet over a random person they don't know
•
u/CrowBot99 8h ago
Preserving a loved one, even a pet... of course that serves the person who loves them.
You did it again... describing what a person might do is irrelevant to the proposition.
•
u/Goober_232 6h ago edited 5h ago
What would convince me that there is such thing as an objective good or evil is if every being with a moral framework was in agreement on at least one moral principle, or there is some tangible evidence proving something objectively morally right or wrong. If neither of the two exists, then what counts as good or bad is based on what someone believes good or bad to be, therefore making it subjective.
•
u/yyzjertl 582∆ 20h ago
You are conflating ideas about good and evil with good and evil themselves. Your view just says "good and evil are subjective" but your post says
is considered moral of immoral is largely dependent on circumstance, societal and personal beliefs
Stealing (by most people) would probably be considered wrong, yet stealing from the rich and giving to the needy is usually considered a bit less of a bad thing, or morally grey.
is considered a moral obligation by some
Murder, by most, is considered wrong
We generally call that cruel.
I believe our ideas of 'good' and 'evil' are
Your post is wholly about concepts of morality, not about morality itself. And so overall your argument is like saying "the age of the earth is subjective" because some people consider it to be billions of years old and other people consider it to be thousands of years old.
•
u/Legitimate-Reach7427 20h ago
Very well said, it’s the case with most of the posts here that there’s no real argument more of a logical issue
•
u/Goober_232 20h ago
I think I see what you're getting at; so then what is morality itself exactly?
•
u/WhichProfit6632 19h ago
Their last example is good. Do you believe that the age of the earth is an objective fact, or would you accept that if I said it is 3000 years old and you said it’s 4 billion that we are both equally right? Or would you say one of us is right and the other is wrong? It’s the same with morality, in that even if people have different views on what’s moral, if you believe that there is actually a right and wrong answer, then you would believe that morality is objective. Like do you think that murder is objectively wrong, or would you accept that if someone believed it to not be wrong that they are equally correct as you are?
•
u/Goober_232 19h ago edited 19h ago
I do believe the age of the earth is an objective fact, because it can be backed by definitive evidence proving it's age regardless of whether or not someone agrees - but you cannot definitively prove anyone's beliefs regarding what is moral is right or wrong.
Edit: For your statement about murder, if someone believed it not to be wrong, I would be very angry about it - especially if they did it for their own pleasure. But I wouldn't call them wrong (according to their own motivations), because they don't value life the same way I do.
I still believe acting according to your own moral convictions is important.
•
u/WhichProfit6632 19h ago
I’m not sure if I’d like someone who thinks murder is good to act according to their own moral convictions haha. But I do see what you’re getting at. I just think it can get difficult to really have much argumentation on moral matters and also say claim they are subjective. Like if you think any view on the morality of murder is equal, what argument can really be made about it while being logically consistent with the claim that’s it’s subjective? If you say “murder is wrong”, it’s an indicative statement presented as an objective fact. Simultaneously admitting that murder is right would be contradictory. What do you think?
•
u/Goober_232 19h ago
Lol I totally feel you on that one. Thankfully, there are a lot more people who believe murder is wrong than the opposite. To me, I feel that even if there is no universal truth to morality, then traits like empathy, integrity and kindness are what pushes people towards the interests of humanity as a whole. People without these qualities, or compromise on their moral beliefs for other reasons can be right by their own logic, but I would much rather live in a world where everyone is trying to look out for one another.
•
u/yyzjertl 582∆ 19h ago
What does it mean for there to be "definitive evidence proving it's age regardless of whether or not someone agrees"? What establishes whether some evidence proves something independently of whether people agree?
•
u/Goober_232 19h ago
Whether or not the evidence we have is correct, the age of the Earth is an objective fact. If we're wrong, then we're wrong.
•
u/yyzjertl 582∆ 19h ago
But now you're making a circular argument. Earlier you said "the age of the earth is an objective fact, because it can be backed by definitive evidence proving it's age regardless of whether or not someone agrees." But now in response to the question of what it means for there to be that definitive evidence, you say that this means "the age of the Earth is an objective fact." So you seem to be left with "the age of the Earth is an objective fact because the age of the Earth is an objective fact." And this is both not a very satisfying argument and not an argument we couldn't make about morality.
•
u/Goober_232 18h ago edited 18h ago
Ah, you're right about that.
What I mean by that is, for any historical event, the preposition of that event being true does not depend on whether there were any observers to witness said event.Let's say I decided to ate all the pepperonis off of a pizza, but no one was there to see it. Then someone walks in, asking me whether I ate the pepperoni and lie, saying that I ordered the wrong type of pizza. That person may believe I ordered plain pizza, but it does not change the fact I ate the pepperoni.
With the earth, let's say the earth was actually 1 trillion years old., and the evidence scientists have point to it being billions of years old. There is still an objective truth, but the conclusion the scientists reached, in that case, would be wrong.
With morality, there is no similar comparison that can be made, given that what constitutes as moral depends on the individual.
•
u/yyzjertl 582∆ 18h ago
given that what constitutes as moral depends on the individual,
Now you are just begging the question! You are taken as "given" what you are trying to prove.
•
u/Goober_232 18h ago edited 18h ago
Δ Lol I concede that the premise of my argument regarding the Earth is flawed. I still believe morality cannot be objectively proved, but you make a good point
→ More replies (0)
•
u/utd_api_member 20h ago
This sounds like moral subjectivism, have you looked at any counterarguments to that idea? https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/te6b23/what_are_the_arguments_against_moral_subjectivism/
•
u/yyzjertl 582∆ 20h ago
This is really not a good source for counterarguments to moral subjectivism. The post itself does not define moral subjectivism correctly (moral subjectivism is the position that moral statements are truth-apt and their truth value is mind-dependent, not that nothing is innately moral or immoral) and the one substantive argument presented does not even mention the strongest arguments against moral subjectivism, which come from a non-cognitivist direction.
•
20h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 20h ago
u/Goober_232, your comment has been removed.
In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.
•
•
u/sh00l33 8∆ 19h ago
We are one specie. in certain situations, we experience the same emotional reactions. We have the same basic needs, our bodies are built similarly and react the same way to specific stimuli.
Of course, all these experiences are subjective for each individual and may differ slightly in intensity, duration, etc. However fundamentally, some felling are objectiv, for our species. There is a certain universal set of similar experiences or internal states we all have.
Thanks to this, any one can almost always objectively assess good or evil. It's enough to imagine oneself as the recipient of given situation, and see what feelings it evokes within.
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 18h ago
Is your argument that feelings and intuition can determine our morals and so in a way that everyone agrees on? Surely you know about the serious exceptions to this... serial murders and rapists with no conscience whatsoever. What would you say to them?
Or on the opposite side, the vegan who views meat consumption as genocide. How do you explain them? Are all meat eaters wrong, or are all ethical vegans wrong?
There's no shot morals come from intuition.
•
u/sh00l33 8∆ 14h ago edited 14h ago
I believe that when a murderer puts themselves in their victim's shoes, they immediately realize how morally wrong their actions are. This, of course, doesn't have to stop anyone from committing evil consciously, purposely or deliberately.
It just shows that the mechanism people subconsciously use when making moral judgments is closely linked to emotions. All people have the same set of emotional reactions, so basically a subjectively conducted moral test leads everyone to very similar conclusions. If all people evaluate specific events the same way, then our moral values starts to acquire objective properties - of course, only within our species.
Keep in mind that those moral values although aren't absolutely objective, but when extended upon all healthy humans they get universal enough to be perceived as such.
And obviously, as you yourself pointed out, there are exceptions. although of you look closer, they still use the same mechanism based on the same emotional evaluation. First of all a lack of conscience among brutal murderers is not an obstacle for them to make proper moral judgment. As I said, all that's needed is for the murderer to reverse the roles and see how they would feel if they were being tortured to death. They will automatically feel whenever their act is moral or not. Humans evolved as carnivores, killing animals for consumption or to avoid being consumed was never viewed negatively. Humanity naturally accepts the possibility of taking life, especially from other species, in extreme cases also from ours, but it's much psychologically harder to take human life.
The case of a vegan and a slaveholder are two sides of the same coin. Both made mental effort, first to treat all spices as they own. The ladder to dehumanise different ethnic group. Not many slaveholders these days, but If you ask vegans, you'll find that none were born that way, at some point, they made a conscious decision, took effort to rewire their brain.
So yes, without feelings and emotions, no moral judgment can be made. Using logic alone quickly leads to hyper utilitarianism. Patients with brain damage that severed their emotional compass, when resolving moral dilemmas in personal scenarios - for example, in a dilemma where one had to strangle one's own crying child to save a group of people hiding from enemies - would choose to sacrifice the child without batting an eye.
•
u/LCDRformat 1∆ 11h ago
All people have the same set of emotional reactions,
This is just flatly wrong. Some people do not have the capability to empathize whatsoever. Some people are incapable of feeling regret. Like all things, ASPD and other "Psychopathic" disorders exist across a spectrum, but those tending towards the far end of the spectrum are not like us.
All that's needed is for the murderer to reverse the roles and see how they would feel if they were being tortured to death. They will automatically feel whenever their act is moral or not.
They will not. Psychopaths will object because they are being tortured, not because they agree torture is wrong.
Using logic alone quickly leads to hyper utilitarianism
This is not even remotely true. Off the top of my head I can think of two moral systems based on rationality which arrive at morals through logic alone, and have nothing at all to do with utilitarianism: Virtue ethics and the similar but distinct Gewerthian model
•
u/sh00l33 8∆ 8h ago
Ah, so you must be one of those who can't understand the longer context, so they try to refute the entire line of argumentation by nitpicking irrelevant details.
And? Some people are born without brains. Please explain to me how this is relevant to the topic we're discussing?
Perhaps before you accuse me of lying, check online to see if you're right? I'm not used to citing false or unverified information. The mentioned study exists and is well-documented. People with full cognitive abilities, deprived of access to their emotional sphere, rely solely on logic when resolving moral dilemmas, which produces soulless, utilitarian results. These aren't even people who have suddenly lost the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. They possess the exact same knowledge and thinking abilities, they simply lack the ability to feel emotions. They would kill their own mother without hesitation to save strangers - every time.
Virtue ethics - please explain to me how, without using emotion, you determine which character traits are desirable virtues and which are undesirable flaws? For example, 'courage,' we treat it as a virtue because there's some logical justification for it? And what about flaws? Can you prove only with logic that for example 'greed' is undesirable trait? Actually it's much easier to logically prove that greed is something you would rather prefer to have.
Gewirth's model looks more interesting. I hadn't heard of it before. From my initial research, I see it's very similar to the "Golden Rule." The only difference I see is that Gewirth's is limited to logic, which essentially makes it useless for a being that, like a human, also needs to satisfy its emotional needs.
Both of your suggestions are good at best as thought experiment, completely useless in real life. How exactly do you imagine that is supposed to work? You're not saying you'll break down every interaction or everyday situation into prime factors and analyze it logically. How are you going to do that and function normally?
Why even bother to do that? I gave you a method that provides an answer effortlessly and instantly. Psychology claims it's natural and you use it all the time, so what are you really trying to prove? Are you trying to waste my time?
•
u/Goober_232 19h ago
Slavery was considered a 'necessary evil' in the south.
" the slavery advocates argued that if their economy were tampered with, the great industrial cities of the North would crumble; many Southerners viewed the North as a parasite, nourishing itself on slavery while at the same time criticizing it."
Southern Justification of Slavery•
u/sh00l33 8∆ 14h ago
No one was born an monstrous slaveholder. They first had to make a significant mental effort to dehumanize black people and treat them like objects, though I think that even then, when faced to brutal cruelty, they propably naturally felt it was evil but chose to ignore that feeling.
•
u/Goober_232 13h ago
No one is born a slaveholder - that is true. It is just as true that some are born with no sense of empathy and who genuinely do not see anything wrong with cruelty. There are people who gravitate towards being more selfish, or empathetic, but that doesn't solidify their morality, either. I feel as though someone's personal experiences, conclusions they reach about those experiences, and choices they make is what shapes a person's moral position. Like opinions, moral stances can sometimes change over the course of a lifetime.
•
u/sh00l33 8∆ 13h ago
Belivs me, even with zero empathy, they would perceive cruelty as evil if they were the victim. They don't need to empathize with the victim. They just need to consider how themselves would feel in their shoes. In reality, psychopaths are usually aware of the evil of their actions, they simply choose to ignore it.
There are certain fundaments that everyone values . For some reason, everyone agrees not to kill. What you're describing is essentially the same mental effort a slaveholder makes. You rationalize, normalize certain behaviors, or push the boundaries based on external factors. You can use those beliefs as an overlay, but the underlying core values remain unchanged. For example, you might came to the conclusion that murder is only wrong within your group. Will that make it easy for you to kill outsider?
•
u/Goober_232 5h ago
Does everyone agree not to kill? Someone may justify their reasoning by claiming someone else deserves death, making it okay to that person.
Another may believe the act of killing itself is morally neutral, saying if everyone is bound to die anyway, so what if their lives were ended sooner? Or they could believe if it's okay to kill animals, why not a human?
•
u/sh00l33 8∆ 4h ago
You are right, but it is one thing to simply have justifying beliefs, and quite another to be able to hold them unwaveringly when it comes to taking someone's life.
•
u/Goober_232 4h ago
I think I see what you are trying to say, but if the requirement for objective morality to be able to hold a principle unwaveringly, that does not even apply for generally 'good' actions.
Based on a comment earlier in the thread that stated it would be "objectively good to sponsor a good-hearted homeless person and help them get back on their feet and financially stable."
Even that is not universally agreed upon by everyone. For starters, the very definition of what makes someone 'good' varies from person to person. There are probably people out there who would say it is a bad thing because they should be able to get back on the right track through their own efforts.
This is why I believe what constitutes as a moral decision depends on the individual. I think values like empathy and integrity are key to moving towards the general interests of everyone, but even that is my opinion on what I would consider to be moral behavior
•
u/ReOsIr10 143∆ 20h ago
You provide two main types of arguments:
[Broad concept] is usually considered bad, but [specific example of broad concept] isn't. However, this doesn't really have anything to do with good and evil being subjective - it just means that when people generalize about the morality of broad types of actions, they aren't actually saying that literally every instance of that action is good/bad - they just mean it as a general rule.
People disagree on whether certain actions are good/bad. Now, this observation *could* be explained by subjective morality, but it could also be explained by people being wrong. People can disagree about whether life evolves, but that doesn't make Evolution subjective. So why do I believe that "people are wrong about morality" is better than "morality is subjective"? Because I don't believe it can be correct - even subjectively - to believe that certain awful actions were good, or that certain amazing actions were bad.
•
u/Goober_232 19h ago
What constitutes as moral or immoral is up to the individual to decide. Someone who believes it's eugenics is necessary to ensure undesirable genes don't get passed on may believe that is a morally virtuous view.
•
u/Legitimate-Reach7427 20h ago
I don’t think I will reverse your view, but maybe I’ll simplify it.
Good and evil are literally words. Their precise definition is in the context of the speaker and environment. This is the case with language, you could make the case that many things are subjective. Despite this they are still valuable for communicating since there’s typically a shared understanding of their definition
•
u/Goober_232 19h ago
If I understand what you're saying correctly, it's that for many other words, they can define things even if the exact description of that doesn't perfectly fit with the meaning of the word. I think that's true, but is there anything you can say is objectively right or wrong?
•
u/Kryspo 19h ago
Imo it's easy to see that there is objective good and evil if you go to the extremes. It's objectively bad to take a baby out of a random strangers stroller and kill it, and it would be objectively good to sponsor a good-hearted homeless person and help them get back on their feet and financially stable.
•
u/Goober_232 18h ago
Here's an example from another comment:
CMV: Good and Evil Are Subjective : r/changemyview•
u/Kryspo 18h ago
People believing something is right does not make it right. Some people believe the earth is flat and can make a lengthy argument for it but they're objectively wrong.
•
u/Goober_232 16h ago
Facts remain true no matter who the observer is. Morality doesn't have the same tangible, and provable basis that facts do. A society can treat cannibalism as a normal and perfectly acceptable thing. How would you prove that society objectively wrong?
•
u/Romarion 3∆ 7h ago
Depends on your take regarding an Ultimate Arbiter. If there isn't one, then you are correct, good and evil are merely opinions. If there is one, then there are objective rights and wrongs.
•
u/Goober_232 6h ago edited 5h ago
I believe there is no ultimate arbiter. However, I would be convinced that moral objectively exists for at least one principle, if every living being capable of contemplating morality was in agreement for at least one moral statement.
•
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 1∆ 20h ago
Isn't this essentially Moral Non Cognitivism?
•
u/Goober_232 13h ago
I think I would define it more as moral subjectivism, given that I'm claiming moral assertions can be true for the individual who believes it to be the case.
•
19h ago edited 19h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 18h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view, or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/AutoModerator 20h ago
Warning to u/Goober_232 (and commenters): Your comments may be auto removed until you read the rules and confirm you have done so. These removals can also be triggered if your subreddit or sitewide karma drops below the respective threshold while your post is active if you have not confirmed you have read the rules. You will only need to do this once.
Alternative link to read the rules accessible to New Reddit users.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 18h ago
/u/Goober_232 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) | [Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)