Morals and Ethics

[skeptic griggsy]

It turns out that both objective and subjective systems are right ,supplementing each other!
As John Beversluis notes in his "C.S.Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion,' the Golden Rule bases itself on wide reflective subjectivity: Following David Hume, he notes:"The Golden Rule is not a substantive moral rule from which we can deduce specific duties; it is a formal rule that requires impartiality. Its content is provided by our preferences,
; not as Lewis would have us believe , in the sense of whatever we happen to like and dislike, but in the very different sense of our judgments of approval and disapproval-judgements that are often at odds with what we personanlly like or dislike and based on the insight that, as a rational being, I cannot reasonably ask people to treat me in certain ways unless I am willing to treat them in the same ways. Such judgments are subjective in the sense that they originate in the feeling of the people making them.But they are also objective in two important ways: first, they are universal and apply to everyone; second; they are based on the principles of equity and equality of treatment. So from the fact that moral jusdgments are subjective, it follows neither that they vary from person to person nor are they are just'private ideas' in people's minds."
Again, no god need apply!

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Subjectivity makes objectivity- intersubjectivity at work

Folks, I now, after reading John Beversluis's "C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion, find it paradoxial that a form of subjectivism underpins objective morality! Whether one agrees with that, either subjective or objective morality binds on us.
"The Golden Rule is not a substantive moral rule from which we can deduce specific moral dutes; it is a moral rule requiring impartiality. Its substantive moral content is provided by our preferences; not as Lewis would have us believe, in the sense of whatever we happen to like or dislike, but in the very different sense of our jdgments of approval and disapproval- judgments which are often at odds with what we personally like or dislike and based on the insight that, as a rational being, I cannot reasonably ask people to treat me in certain ways unless I am willing to treat them in the same ways. Such judgments are subjective that they originate in the feelings of the people making them. But they are objective in two important ways: first, they are universal and apply to everyone; second, they are based on the principles of equity and equality of treatment. So from the fact that moral judgments are subjective , it follows neither that they vary from person to person nor that they are just "private ideas" in people's minds."
This is wide reflective subjectivism as opposed to the simple one of tastes and whims that the writers of the Tanakh and the Testament list or of Lord Bertrand Russell or Michael Ruse [ Those two's are fine. ] Hobbes and Hume came out with this; this is my name for it.
That subjectivism comes from our evolved moral sense which we ever refine to see those consequences that show objective morality!
So theists who bray that we naturalists have no standard even if we are ourselves moral, err. Those consequenses show a consenquential morality; now the humanists one is also deontological in that we do follow the common decencies and it is also a virtuous ethic. Nihilism is a straw man!
Blessings and goodwill to all! The happy neurotic.
I did not see the previous post before I wrote this one but this is more explicatory.
Oh, what are the consequences for adult consensus sex, even adult incest for better or worse on the people involved that would make it immoral or not? I find none as with homosexuality.What about legalizing prostitution? I pose these two questions to urge others to discern that consequences count; now does deontology- rules- outlaw them? How are the virtues involved?
Yes, Rand fan, John Hospers notes that about those pathological peope and the Golden Rule[ It and the Silver one find themselves in ethics long before Yeshua!] in "Human Conduct," where he wrongly also justifies egoism.

 

[Henners]

" Morals are subjective if different moral values are arbitraiily created by each different person ....This means that if it's morally wrong to rape a somebody , this is morally wrong for every person.

Well, it's fairly easy to make the point when illustrating it with examples involving huge harm to others.

What happens in the grey areas, though? Is tax avoidance morally the same for everyone. What about tax evasion? What about the size of charitable donations? What if the money given to charity is from the black economy? Margaret Thatcher famously stated that there is no such thing as society. Is that POV a moral one?

 

[Henners]

Folks, I now, after reading John Beversluis's "C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion, find it paradoxial that a form of subjectivism underpins objective morality! Whether one agrees with that, either subjective or objective morality binds on us.
"The Golden Rule is not a substantive moral rule from which we can deduce specific moral dutes; it is a moral rule requiring impartiality. Its substantive moral content is provided by our preferences; not as Lewis would have us believe, in the sense of whatever we happen to like or dislike, but in the very different sense of our jdgments of approval and disapproval- judgments which are often at odds with what we personally like or dislike and based on the insight that, as a rational being, I cannot reasonably ask people to treat me in certain ways unless I am willing to treat them in the same ways. Such judgments are subjective that they originate in the feelings of the people making them. But they are objective in two important ways: first, they are universal and apply to everyone; second, they are based on the principles of equity and equality of treatment. So from the fact that moral judgments are subjective , it follows neither that they vary from person to person nor that they are just "private ideas" in people's minds."
This is wide reflective subjectivism as opposed to the simple one of tastes and whims that the writers of the Tanakh and the Testament list or of Lord Bertrand Russell or Michael Ruse [ Those two's are fine. ] Hobbes and Hume came out with this; this is my name for it.
That subjectivism comes from our evolved moral sense which we ever refine to see those consequences that show objective morality!
So theists who bray that we naturalists have no standard even if we are ourselves moral, err. Those consequenses show a consenquential morality; now the humanists one is also deontological in that we do follow the common decencies and it is also a virtuous ethic. Nihilism is a straw man!
Blessings and goodwill to all! The happy neurotic.
I did not see the previous post before I wrote this one but this is more explicatory.
Oh, what are the consequences for adult consensus sex, even adult incest for better or worse on the people involved that would make it immoral or not? I find none as with homosexuality.What about legalizing prostitution? I pose these two questions to urge others to discern that consequences count; now does deontology- rules- outlaw them? How are the virtues involved?
Yes, Rand fan, John Hospers notes that about those pathological peope and the Golden Rule[ It and the Silver one find themselves in ethics long before Yeshua!] in "Human Conduct," where he wrongly also justifies egoism.

I do feel that you are starting in the wrong place, for morality is not founded on codification of any set of rules, but is an evolved complex of instincts that have survival values. (Much like love.)

Any codification of those instincts is secondary to the underlying process. (Shall I compare thee to a summer's day.)

Game theory simulations can reveal some of the underlying rules, by playing off different strategies against each other and seeing which wins.

Interestingly, some games involving many interacting agents have stable outcomes where the agents split into two or more behaviourally distinct groups. Suppose the split is equally into (Group A) behaving one way and (Group B) behaving another. Which of the two groups would be behaving morally? What if the split is 1/3 to 2/3? What if it is 99% to 1%?

What are the ethical implications of a solution in which 99% of a population can only behave "morally" in the circumstances where 1% behave "immorally"?