|
Hey Storm Crow, I'm by no means an ethics expert, I've read a bit on the subject and it interests me I'm actually a bio major (undergrad), but I have a little background in sociology/psychology. So… here goes:
"I suppose you could make the argument that if there is only one criteria determining morality, it is an objective value. Interesting take. I disagree though, for one reason. Society by nature is a subjective thing. Different people view it differently. A subjective input does not translate to an objective output." -SC
Ok, let's say there are multiple criterion, but ultimately Society IS the ultimate determinant. There's still a rather big problem in what defines society, and what are its borders. For example, I would think it's possible for a person to belong to multiple societies - organized religion, country, political group, etc.
Lets say you happen to belong to an organized religion (anti abortion), but also live in a country that is pro choice. Whose rule's do you follow at that point?
My argument is that Society isn't the standard for determining something like this because there's a clear difficulty in defining the borders of society … rather, it's the individual. As you said, the individual is an intricate interaction of environmental/social and biological factors - producing a person with a unique set of morals.
On the issue of subjectivity, I totally agree… I would think morality is equivalent to judging a piece of art… 2 people might disagree on whether or not they like the painting, but their opinions are just that - not objective statements that apply universally to all art - they're expressing an individual preference for a certain kind of art. It could be argued that other subjective constructs like beauty and morality work the same way.
This preference is shaped by outside factors, but in the end, I think it has to be the individual that determines what this is… not society.
"I don't think I stated my opinion well enough: yes morality is determined by the consequences of the act and by personal convictions, etc. , but the consequences of the act are determined by society." -SC
I always thought that from a social view, whether or not an action was deemed moral/immoral by a society was determined entirely by perception and consensus. The more people that perceive an act as threatening will likely label that act as evil… this act need not have any objective basis (eg. Homosexuality was considered immoral for a long time in North America among other places), but sometimes it does (eg. rape)
But in defense of the objective morality view, to some degree, I would think some acts are incompatible with society - murder for instance. If you lived in a society where it was OK to kill anybody at any moment, it'd give rise to a mass feeling of paranoia… you'd tend to avoid other people and try to live in isolation from that society. Even if you formed small groups away from this society, it'd have to be with other individuals that you trusted wouldn't kill you… but in that case you have a small society where it's implicitly agreed that killing is wrong. Some laws are just necessary for a society to function… so I guess it can't be entirely subjective.
Also there's that whole evolutionary argument where our ancient ancestors would have pooled their resources because humans are a species that is physically weak, but mentally and collaboratively strong. Those individuals that were incapable of contributing to the tribe were probably banished from the collective along with those that were unable to follow the rules of the tribe. Only those who were good at cooperation would survive to produce offspring - so it's a bit paradoxical that a mechanism such as "survival of the fittest" would produce a cooperative species… but I'm digressing.
So you see, the issue really isn't "plain and simple" as you suggest it to be. That's why ethics is a major branch in philosophy - philosophy deals with all those tough age-old unanswerable questions. Sure is fun to argue about tho.
"Personal convictions that disagree with laws and morals come from your upbringing, environment, genetics, etc. All determined by society" SC.
Hmmm… I agree with that… except for the genetics/environment part. How can biology and physical environment be any thing other than objective?
"Society doesn't directly determine morality but all factors determining it can be traced back to it. I think you misunderstood what I meant by society. I wasn't referring to the objective portions of it (laws, rules) I was referring to the larger, subjective portions (mores, folkways) as well as the even more subjective factors such as environments, experiences, and the like." SC
So by "subjective portions" of society, are you referring to the more implicit rules of conduct? Like telling your kids that you love them? I still can't see how environment can be considered subjective, although I can see how experience is. 2 people can experience the same event but perceive it differently… in which case experiences are subjective, but environment clearly is not (unless you're arguing that we might be living in "the matrix").
"Just because society determines your morality doesn't mean you agree with everything about it." -SC
Right… but just because I wanna be clear about it: IF society is the sole determinant then you're disagreement with that society to the extent where you'd try to produce reform would be immoral simply by definition. If you disagree with your society, then you're wrong because society determines morality in the first place. |
