CMV: Good and Evil Are Subjective

[u/Goober_232]

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/Goober_232]

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 → u/Goober_232]

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 → u/LCDRformat]

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 → u/Goober_232]

The nature of morality is a question of meta ethics, yes. See my original comment for my answer to that

[u/Goober_232 → u/LCDRformat]

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?

[u/LCDRformat → u/Goober_232]

You could argue that. It's not relevant to my point

[u/Goober_232 → u/LCDRformat]

I think it might be, because if you take animals as acting agents as well, then that makes restricting the rights of those acting agents (death as one example) morally wrong, meaning even in animal eating another animal for it's own survival becomes bad, because it clashes with the prey's desire to survive.

Going back to just humans, you say that respecting others' rights to freedom and well-being is not a subjective preference. What if a person's agency causes them to act directly against their own well-being? Do we have a right to restrict them?

[u/LCDRformat → u/Goober_232]

I think it might be, because if you take animals as acting agents as well, then that makes restricting the rights of those acting agents (death as one example) morally wrong

You could argue that. I probably wouldn't. I'm not convinced animals are rational agents. It's still totally irrelevant to my point. Maybe you should talk to some vegans?

What if a person's agency causes them to act directly against their own well-being?

That depends on a lot of things. I'm in favor of assisted suicide, but maybe you meant something else?

... But again, this is the same issue you ran into earlier. You're asking what actions are right and wrong. We're not concerned with that. We're concerned with if right or wrong exist objectively. Isn't that what you asked originally?

I'm banging my head against the wall. I keep pointing out the difference between moral ontology and moral dilemmas. You asked if morals are objective. I provided an argument that yes, they are.

but time after time, you just keep coming back with moral dilemmas. We don't need to discuss moral dilemmas. We need to discuss if morals are objective or subjective.

Applied Ethics, vs. Meta Ethics

[u/Goober_232 → u/LCDRformat]

Got it, so if you don't believe animals as rational agents, I will exempt them from the argument.
The reason I brought up moral dilemmas is because I am aiming to stress test your framework on morality you consider to be objective. I'll switch it up this time.

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.

Why must you grant those same rights to all other acting agents? Is it something you are required to do, or does that come from your own framework of what logically counts as moral?

Moral duty follows: Respecting others' rights to freedom and well-being is not a subjective preference—it is a logical requirement.

Again, this is an assertion that respecting others' rights is a logical requirement without basis as to why it is logical in the first place. How would you definitively prove that your belief regarding what is logical is different than my own, or anyone else's for that matter?

Here is a circumstance under which I can claim that objective evidence exists:

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.

How would you claim that morality is objective, regardless of what anyone else believes?

Here is one such piece of evidence that would convince me: If every agent universally agreed upon one moral statement, then I would agree that there is, at least a single objective moral principle.

[u/LCDRformat → u/Goober_232]

Why must you grant those same rights to all other acting agents?

Because you are claiming these rights based on the sufficiency of your own moral agency. If moral agency is sufficient to claim those rights, then by definition of the word sufficient, it is necessarily sufficient for any entity with agency.

How would you definitively prove that your belief regarding what is logical is different than my own, or anyone else's for that matter?

We would present arguments and build cases. That's how we determine all logical truths.

Let's say I decided to ate all the pepperonis off of a pizza...

I'm banging my head against the wall. I keep pointing out the difference between moral ontology and moral dilemmas. You asked if morals are objective. I provided an argument that yes, they are.

but time after time, you just keep coming back with moral dilemmas. We don't need to discuss moral dilemmas. We need to discuss if morals are objective or subjective.

How would you claim that morality is objective, regardless of what anyone else believes?

Gewerth's moral system is predicated solely on rationality and the laws of logic, which are objective standards. If you need a reason to accept reason, you are assuming there exists a 'reason' so you already accept reason. Logic and reason are objects and hold objectively. The DCT believer would point to God, but I'd disagree with them as an atheist. Still other might use virtue ethics (which is similar but distinct to Gewerth's system).

If every agent universally agreed upon one moral statement, then I would agree that there is, at least a single objective moral principle.

That's not objectively grounded morality, that's universally agreed morality. If you wanted proof of that, then you mislabeled your post. Not only do I not think it's the case that everyone agrees on morality, I would argue we can be virtually certain that not everyone agrees on morality. No objective system fixes that.

[u/Goober_232 → u/LCDRformat]

time after time, you just keep coming back with moral dilemmas. We don't need to discuss moral dilemmas. We need to discuss if morals are objective or subjective.

The pizza analogy was not a moral dilemma. It was a hypothetical as to what kind of thing I would consider objective. It was not about whether or not I would be justified in doing so, it was to point out that me eating the pepperonis would be undeniable, factual truth.

Gewerth's moral system is predicated solely on rationality and the laws of logic, which are objective standards. If you need a reason to accept reason, you are assuming there exists a 'reason' so you already accept reason. Logic and reason are objects and hold objectively. The DCT believer would point to God, but I'd disagree with them as an atheist. Still other might use virtue ethics (which is similar but distinct to Gewerth's system).

After looking more into Gewerth's moral system, it seems like the main disagreement here is whether rational consistency proves objective morality?

I would argue that Gewerth's moral system fails to provide reason as to why denying another agent their rights is objectively morally wrong? An agent can justify this by calling another agent irrational. I could then justify impeding on the rights of any other person by deeming them an irrational agent.

Because of this, the framework has established that agents have reasons to defend their own agency, but hasn't demonstrated the requirement to respect the rights of other agents.

[u/LCDRformat → u/Goober_232]

I could then justify impeding on the rights of any other person by deeming them an irrational agent.

What's the argument for that? Gewerth's system establishes reasons for behavior. Reasons for behavior are what we call morality. This claim that you can just 'call someone irrational' and do whatever you want needs to be backed up. It's just a claim right now.

I would argue that Gewerth's moral system fails to provide reason as to why denying another agent their rights is objectively morally wrong?

His system uses rationality as the 'object' to which morals are tied. When you asked if morals were objective, you were asking how can morals be grounded in something that exists outside of our whims. The Gewerth system seeks to ground morals in logic. He argues that denying others their rights is irrational. To take actions witch are irrational is definitionally wrong.

[u/Goober_232 → u/LCDRformat]

His system uses rationality as the 'object' to which morals are tied. When you asked if morals were objective, you were asking how can morals be grounded in something that exists outside of our whims. The Gewerth system seeks to ground morals in logic.

The logic "if you claim rights simply because you are an acting agent, you must grant those exact same rights to all other acting agents." is a leap in reasoning.

For the first step, you claim rights simply because you are an acting agent. Let's take this as a given.
The next step, that you must grant those same rights to all other acting agents, does not naturally stem from the first.

Person A could reason:
1. I am an acting agent
2. I would like all other acting agents to be able to exercise the same free will I do
3. Therefore, I will give all other agents the same rights.

Person B could reason:
1. I am an acting agent.
2. I would like to acquire substantial wealth, regardless of what I do to other acting agents.
3. Therefore, I will lie, cheat, and steal from other agents for my own personal gain.