Does morality even exist? Could genocidal dictators and serial killers be in the right?

[rationaldeath]

For those of you that are not religious, do you believe morality is objective? I've come to lean towards it being subjective. So I think the core of most people's moral beliefs is "I ought to avoid causing others suffering", and this belief is associated with a negative emotional response to actions that cause other people suffering. The naturalistic explanation for this negative emotional response would be a combination of genetics (evolving to function effectively as part of a tribe) and environment (society reinforces beliefs which are conducive to it's existence). So virtually all of us experience these bad feelings at the thought of hurting people, but does that alone justify the belief that we "ought" not hurt people? Does using the word "ought" by itself even have any meaning without objective morals?

I would answer no to both of those questions. To me "bad" just means "I don't want that to happen", and the reason I don't want certain things to happen is because I believe either consciously or subconsciously that they will cause me to suffer. I experience suffering when other people experience suffering, so I don't want it to happen. But it is also possible for a person to feel nothing, or even happiness while inflicting immense suffering on others. So as bad as it sounds there doesn't seem to be any objective moral authority we could call upon to tell someone like Ted Bundy he should stop murdering people.

Going off topic a bit, but why do we even want to avoid suffering in the first place? I would answer because it is a mechanism developed through evolution to facilitate our survival. It's hard coded into our brains. I would even argue that everything we are is just the interaction of our genetic programming and environment. We are physics in motion, deterministic (at least beyond the subatomic level) like everything else in our universe. Belief in our deterministic nature has actually helped me become a lot more empathetic towards myself and others since without free will you ultimately can't blame anyone for their actions, just as you can't blame hurricanes for forming or viruses for spreading.

Now I'm not certain of these beliefs and I'm always looking for other perspectives, so I would love to hear your ideas and any opposing viewpoints you all might have.

 

[Snake of Eden]

Ill admit i didnt read all you wrote but I will get to it at some point. I am not someone to indulge in philosophical discourse especially in regards to morality. I dont have that type of brain. I think morality has to exist in some form as it is aligned with our innate sense of justice and also morality is necessary for well being and reducing pain and suffering. The question is whats moral? I am not going to get into that because thats a long discussion. My point in commenting in here that I am mind boggled by so many intelligent sounding people who dont acknowledge a distinction at all between good and bad (moral/immoral) I guess it is cool and hip to be like that because that view endorses religions and religions are nothing but evil with no good in them I guess.

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

Could have written it myself. It's fortunate that most people end up being against the stuff I really dislike, at least.

 

[rationaldeath]

@rationaldeath blocked because he supports serial killers who mainly target women and children, and often sexually assault them. Ask yourself this asshole, if a serial killer tortured, raped, and killed your mom, sister, or daughter, would you support that? Fucking new people.

To clarify, I definitely do not support serial killers or genocidal dictators or anyone that inflicts suffering on others to any degree. I guess the title was a bit misleading. My point was that so far I have only found enough philosophical justification to say "I feel those people are evil" but not "those people are objectively evil".

Ill admit i didnt read all you wrote but I will get to it at some point. I am not someone to indulge in philosophical discourse especially in regards to morality. I dont have that type of brain. I think morality has to exist in some form as it is aligned with our innate sense of justice and also morality is necessary for well being and reducing pain and suffering. The question is whats moral? I am not going to get into that because thats a long discussion. My point in commenting in here that I am mind boggled by so many intelligent sounding people who dont acknowledge a distinction at all between good and bad (moral/immoral) I guess it is cool and hip to be like that because that view endorses religions and religions are nothing but evil with no good in them I guess.

I definitely acknowledge a distinction between good and evil, I just believe that the distinction has to come from our own minds and not from God or some other objective source.

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

To clarify, I definitely do not support serial killers or genocidal dictators or anyone that inflicts suffering on others to any degree. I guess the title was a bit misleading. My point was that so far I have only found enough philosophical justification to say "I feel those people are evil" but not "those people are objectively evil".

Don't take it personally, he just really likes blocking people. Think everyone understood what you meant.

 

[Snake of Eden]

I definitely acknowledge a distinction between good and evil, I just believe that the distinction has to come from our own minds and not from God or some other objective source.

Did it really ever come from any other source than ourselves if the popular opinion nowadays that people created god and not vice versa? It is all from us in the end

 

[Nightmare Painting]

Determinism pretty much throws the word morality right out of the window. I prefer to pretend that it doesn't exist to preserve the last fragments of my sanity.

You might've come to the conclusion that you can't blame people for their actions but they still need to to be held accountable for them because they cause harm to others and will continue to do so. I can understand why my parents were abusive and that they became that way because of their life circumstances but it doesn't mean I'm obligated to forgive them. Someone like a murderer needs to still be kept behind bars so they don't hurt others even if you understand why they turned out the way they did.

 

[Rational man]

Interesting thoughts,!. Morality is subjective but the theme is disguised by objective thoughts. One can look at religous and political representatives, who sound this theme to the likes of you, me and a whole lot more. But you would be hard pushed not to find a basket load of hypocrites amongst them. My point of view is to live your life in the way your heart directs you for you. Objectively hurting someone is wrong, for example, my family's abusive physical and emotional attacks on me. No one deserves this abuse because it can destroy people. Because my life is coming to an end soon due to chronic illness, i would like to think ive left a legacy of wisdom to a few people I know. When I die, theres no judgement day, no hell or navana. Just the memories which will also fade away. I think the human heart can be good and kind if we recognise it WITHIN. Sadly, I think this world has turned away from itself.

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

Determinism pretty much throws the word morality right out of the window.

Mistake. Determinism is too meta to throw anything anywhere.

 

[Rational man]

obligated to forgive

I found forgiveness in my family despite the abuse and neglect against me. I walked away and forgave them but it doesnt mean i can ever forget my experience. I think when you forgive, you release something that gives you permission to move on like I did.

 

[rationaldeath]

Did it really ever come from any other source than ourselves if the popular opinion nowadays that people created god and not vice versa? It is all from us in the end

I agree, although I think even many atheists are at the very least subconsciously influenced by religious morality and many of us (myself included) frequently act and think as if morality was objective.

You might've come to the conclusion that you can't blame people for their actions but they still need to to be held accountable for them because they cause harm to others and will continue to do so.

So with determinism I try to view each individual with equal value regardless of what they have done and I believe our current justice system does a lot of unnecessary harm, but I agree that criminals causing harm is also bad and definitely don't think removing it entirely is the ideal solution.

 

[Snake of Eden]

I agree, although I think even many atheists are at the very least subconsciously influenced by religious morality and many of us (myself included) frequently act and think as if morality was objective.

Thats a possibility. Or maybe we just innately know that we need structure for morality to keeps things stable. People who rule over us often themselves engage in unrestrictive type of conducting themselves. They overindulge because it is pleasurable yet they present themselves to the world as moral role models because they know that making themselves sound virtous and noble is a key to keep the world stable and so they can continue in their ways of life. There is no civilization that can exist without some degree of morality as different as it is between then

 

[Amumu]

"If all values are equal, then cannibalism is just a matter of taste" - Leo Strauss.

Relativism is a plague.

I'm an existential nihilist but I'm not a moral nihilist - I think objective values mainly come from pity.

 

[Snake of Eden]

"If all values are equal, then cannibalism is just a matter of taste" - Leo Strauss.

Relativism is a plague.

I'm an existential nihilist but I'm not a moral nihilist - I think objective values mainly come from pity.

I wanted to say exactly that but i didn't have the words for it. Bingo

 

[Somber]

"If all values are equal, then cannibalism is just a matter of taste" - Leo Strauss.

Relativism is a plague.

I'm an existential nihilist but I'm not a moral nihilist - I think objective values mainly come from pity.

Where does pity come from?

 

[Amumu]

Where does pity come from?

Imo, it's a universal feeling we already have at birth in order to keep our species alive. It's the most logical explanation.

 

[Snake of Eden]

imo pity is the root feeling for love, care, protection. It is said in ancient religious texts that gods love in mercy for his creations (living things) stems from pitying them. It is not the same pity that has negative connotation to it like looking down on someone as being less important or valuable, it is pity that stems from realization that this creature has so many flaws and does not know any better and needs help, protection and guidance. It is said that pity is the root emotion for providence

 

[rationaldeath]

"If all values are equal, then cannibalism is just a matter of taste" - Leo Strauss.

Relativism is a plague.

I'm an existential nihilist but I'm not a moral nihilist - I think objective values mainly come from pity.

How would you define objective values? I agree that most of us have things like empathy and pity that underly our values but what makes the values objective?

 

[Amumu]

How would you define objective values? I agree that most of us have things like empathy and pity that underly our values but what makes the values objective?

I'm not able to explain that clearly, I encourage you to see what kantianism is.

 

[Midgardsorm]

The negative emotional response you speak of is Empathy. A feeling triggered by neurological factors in the body, basic and useful for survival.
However when we take this to morality, justice and such else, it's a bit of complicated.

Empathy has a lot of flaws, especially nowadays where isn't as useful for survival as it was before meaning it becomes undeveloped for some (I'm not talking about Psychopaths).

I'm not totally into the Tabula Rasa theory by John Locke but there is some of behaviorism on humanity. One can be trained in a particular way to think what they do is right.

 

[rationaldeath]

I'm not able to explain that clearly, I encourage you to see what kantianism is.

I think I get the gist of kantianism although I don't fully understand the source of the objectivity. Maybe it's a semantics issue and our definitions of "objective" differ to some extent.

 

[OrcWitch]

I like thinking about these questions, but I feel like I'm reinventing the wheel when I think about it.

I like consequential morality -> because I am only concerned with the harm/benefit of any action or attitude-> because people being harmed makes my emotions hurt and feels instinctively wrong. I don't know how to say why this is anymore correct than a ruthless murderer's view of the world, it just feels right to me as this base level axiomatic value.

 

[rationaldeath]

I like consequential morality -> because I am only concerned with the harm/benefit of any action or attitude-> because people being harmed makes my emotions hurt and feels instinctively wrong. I don't know how to say why this is anymore correct than a ruthless murderer's view of the world, it just feels right to me as this base level axiomatic value.

Yeah that's exactly how I would describe my personal morality.

 

[netrezven]

I'm sure such stuff sleeps good at night. But mostly blame the masses who "just do their job", do nothing at all, or those who just need a target to hate. It's people, not dictators that pull triggers, most of the time.

 

[deflationary]

The problem is that we don't have one God-given definition of what morality is supposed to mean exactly. If you define morality in a specific way, then you can build up an "objective" morality. But the definition itself won't be objective of course. Other people are gonna disagree and there won't be any way for you to prove them wrong. I think morality is not a useful concept to use when trying to figure out how reality works on a fundamental level, it's more of a pragmatic and action-driven thing.

On a fundamental level some experiences are pleasant and some unpleasant and there's nothing beyond that. Morality I guess is about how to compare and trade different experiences (for different people) off against each other.

I guess I think morality consists of two parts, one objective and one subjective. The objective parts are all the various experiences that people have. Even if they're subjectively felt, the badness or goodness of the experiences is objective and inherent. If you're feeling bad then that's objectively a bad subjective state. Something like that.

The subjective part of morality (and which really makes the whole thing subjective I guess) is how to trade off these different experiences. I don't think you can objectively say that one person's misery is outweighed by another person's happiness and thus a given action is moral. Or vice versa. Even though I'd like to say that misery should always be given more moral weight than happiness or pleasure or whatever. I don't think I can prove it though.

If this made no sense then I don't take responsibility It makes some sense in my head. Trust me.

 

[Josh007]

I didn't read the long post but I think I got a few answers.

Morality is in itself relative, not say certain things are not wrong. The point is; it's we who give it meaning. (Unless you're a religious person in which, case you might attribute it to higher power who decided eating shrimp is evil. )That's why it's important for us to always try care about each other.

When I personally think about morality i first go with "suffering focused ethics" point of view

Suffering-focused ethics are those positions in ethics that give moral priority to the reduction of suffering. This means that they give greater weight to the reduction of suffering than to the promotion of pleasure, happiness, or to other things that one might consider valuable. According to some suffering-focused ethics, humans should concentrate exclusively on reducing preventable suffering. Other views can include additional features as the prevention of other disvalues or the promotion of other positive values while giving priority to reducing preventable suffering over them.[1]​

Not to say it's the ultimate morality because situations are always different. And taking something from A to reduce B's suffering could make A miserable.

1. So yeah i think morality is a human concept which we unfortunately don't discuss more often. Many people have different interpretations of it and unfortunately that often leads to conflict and suffering.

2. And widespread knowledge of Reducing Suffering ethics interpretation could really make the world a better place.

 

[LastFlowers]

Well, I'll need to revisit this to read it in full, but if morality didn't exist, I suppose it would be impossible for anyone to be in the right (at least, in this context).

 

[rationaldeath]

The objective parts are all the various experiences that people have. Even if they're subjectively felt, the badness or goodness of the experiences is objective and inherent.

Agree with pretty much everything you said. As our understanding of the brain improves I'd think we could start to measure the quality of those experiences to use towards implementing some kind of moral system, but as you said there would be issues deciding what exactly to prioritize.

And widespread knowledge of Reducing Suffering ethics interpretation could really make the world a better place.

Absolutely, I think it's something virtually everyone would get on board with if it was explained to them sufficiently. So much of the world's suffering seems to stem from the many layers of faulty logic and beliefs people unnecessarily build on top of the core intuitions we all share.

 

[Kalebri]

I think this concept of morality is delusional idea, an utopia, since we are human beings and therefore, animals that don't differ from any other species on Earth. The true nature of human being is cruel, is bad and grotesque. I've seen gore videos enough to come to this conclusion. We only live as a community, as a society, because we have laws to punish and make us feel bad about it and also because we're educated since childhood to believe we're good, and all those fictions and mainstream media reinforce those beliefs. Remove the laws, the concept of society, the religion, the bread and circuses, and we'll see the true nature of human being.

 

[mlha]

Morality isn't objective. It emerges intersubjectively, as a kid it's crudely carved out by operant conditioning for you and as you get older more and more the carving out is being replaced by refinement which is enabled by comparing our thoughts (sharing ethical thought experiments, policy making, etc.), but everyone ends up with a bit different model.