There’s the Qur’an if you want to know the overall left and right limits (or just the Ten Commandments if you just can’t read that much, lol, but it’s better to do so), but regardless, your soul points towards it, always. Any honest conversation about a situation will end up with two people, happily or not, having to admit there’s one path more moral than others (it’s more ethical not to steal the towels from the hotel, even if you want a souvenir, lol. You might still do it cause you decided you could afford the lack of virtue, and in small cases like this I understand, but it’s still less ethical than just not stealing the towels). Wanting to do it or not is something else, but right and wrong and clearly defined in every situation, and even in the absence of data the general attitude and direction of action you have to take are obvious (sure, maybe that one homeless dude got more fent with the money you gave him but being charitable is the right thing to do, for example).
I feel like this argument falls apart when considering things like the trolley problem. To wit:
A trolley has lost control and is traveling down its track towards a group of people. Nearby there is a switch that will divert the trolley onto a different track where there is only one person. Do you
A) Activate the switch, thereby being actively responsible for a person’s death.
B) Do nothing and allow multiple people to die due to your passive inaction.
How might your answer change if that one person were your child? Or if they were a notorious criminal? What if the group were all children? What if they were prisoners? Different people will reasonably disagree on which choice is more moral.
No, what you’re saying is that being emotionally compromised and biased might make me choose differently. And of course, we’re people. But the better, more humane, nobler and fairer option can be easily found, and if not, at least the direction of action. I mean, trolley wise, everything else being equal it’s obvious that it’s better to be 4 people up than 4 people down, and with more details in this thought experiment (which, btw, is extremely unrealistic and has very little uhh ecological validity) you can develop, slowly but surely, a set of answers to it (what if the 5 guys are 5 Hitlers?! and stuff like that requires a bit more analysis, but again, it’s very divorced from reality).
Emotion is not necessary for the different scenarios to have potentially different moral considerations. For example, does your moral responsibility as a parent to nurture and protect your children change the equation?
Even if you assume everyone involved are strangers, what is the better, more noble, more humane option or direction of action?
No, no it doesn’t, because we’re all equally valuable by default, they’re all someone’s kid and that doesn’t change just because I’m involved. It would just be a superbly shitty position to be in and I would almost certainly save my kid in exchange for 5 lives, but that ain’t right, it’s just what I would most likely do. I mean, sacrifice my child (that I truly love) for the greater good (and more lives saved, ceteris paribus, is the greater good)… who am I, Abraham? 😅 You need to be on the level of a prophet to see this clearly and then act upon it, detached because the worldly life is passing and not that important, etc etc, basically.
So if I’m understanding your answer correctly, and assuming everyone involved were strangers, you believe that saving many lives at the cost of one is the more moral choice.
What would you say to someone who disagreed because they could not bring themselves to be actively responsible for the death of someone, and considered inaction the more moral choice because the group would have died anyway if they weren’t there and able to intervene?
The point I’m trying to get at is that I don’t believe there is a correct answer as to which choice is more moral. There are valid reasons to conclude that either option is both moral and amoral in equal measure. You could argue for either choice in circles, and both parties would be correct while never convincing the other.
In my opinion some questions of morality are clear and easy to answer, but some are much more nuanced, and that is where there is room for subjectivity.
Nuanced doesn’t mean there are many equally better options, it just means it’s harder to get to it because we cannot see and understand everything, some things are beyond our capacities to see clearly. Even more so when we’re presented with unrealistic scenarios I don’t think anyone yet has ever experienced IRL, lol. But we can both agree with the background moral framework at work (murder is wrong, life should be protected), with the fundamental values.
And just because you cannot bring yourself to do the big right thing doesn’t mean there isn’t one, lol, you’re admitting to its existence by refusing to do it! Not being able to go through it just shows our weakness, that’s all, which is human and all, I’m not saying it would be something easy for me either but the answer is clear. How’s the more moral action letting people die when you can help it? And like I said, everything being equal between participants (it’s not an innocent kid Vs 5 Palantir executives 😅), the decision is clear cut: you wanna be 4 up and not 4 down. And of course with more different participants we would have to analyse it further, that’s all, and maybe we hit a roadblock cause we don’t truly know the individual values of the people involved (only God knows, and going to Heaven or Hell is the final proof of your value) but we can still make working general rules based on this sometimes clouded but still visible moral reality. It’s a mixture of the limitations of our mental capacities and fundamental epistemological issue that permeates everything we can think about and say that involves reality, not just a thing about morals.
Nuanced in the sense that there is no absolute, objective correct answer.
That person may argue that actively causing the death of a human is murder, which is always objectively and morally wrong. Doing nothing is the morally correct option from that perspective. To be clear, I’m not personally arguing in favor or against either choice, because I personally believe that there is no objectively best option.
There have actually been studies that involve this exact scenario, but of course without anyone being in actual danger (unbeknownst to the subject).
Let me ask the question in another way. Do you think that God would judge a person who acted one way or the other?
To answer the last question promptly: yes, but the difficulty behind making that decision would certainly have a softening effect on His judgment.
But again, okay, I’ve given you my views when it comes to the trolley situation involving my kid, or being scared of pulling the lever, I’ve even admitted it would be difficult for me even if the answer, everything else being equal, is obvious: 4 lives up is better than 4 lives down. But you also say you don’t really disagree… so do you just not want to pronounce yourself on the topic? That’s fair/your prerogative but that’s not proof that we cannot, individually and together as well, reach a very good subjective understanding of the objective moral reality, that we can recognise being somewhere there even if our vision is clouded/doesn’t go that far clearly. You just don’t want to take that step which, again, is your right and all of that. You have to take a stand, on my side or whatever other, that is better than the one I proposed in your view, that’s all, to have a productive conversation about any moral issue, you can’t just say “we cannot know so I don’t say A or B” when A or B are presented…
Any honest conversation about a situation will end up with two people, happily or not, having to admit there’s one path more moral than others
You don’t say that they agree on which path is more moral than the other, but I’m assuming that’s what you mean. But also, no, that doesn’t happen. In an honest conversation where you disagree on morals, you just learn that you both have different values.
There are some things that more people are likely to agree on, like your example about stealing a towel from a hotel. But there are also many that people vehemently disagree on. For example, is it morally right to kill someone who has (and will continue to) indirectly kill many of other people?
How could you disagree on that? Okay, there are two options: either the person in this situation is shooting/stabbing people and cannot be reasoned with presently, so, in order not to let another innocent soul die by his hand, you take him down. He went from man to rabid dog so we had to put him down. That’s a clear-cut scenario, right? Now, another, in which someone used to kill indiscriminately and has vowed to do it, again, he’s unrepentant and just unimaginably bloodthirsty (so the “will continue doing so” makes sense because people do have free will and can repent and change their ways, we cannot see the future after all)… You could either kill him, or simply restrict his freedom forever, in solitary so he doesn’t kill. But these are two goods we’re arguing about, so the direction (not allowing a killer to continue killing, because we believe murder is wrong) is still the same, and this is not a major issue comparatively, not a major disagreement that would collapse our moral framework but just a limitation of our judgment and understanding. It’s clouded, but we can both see the same, more or less, behind the veil.
Now, from my perspective as a religious man, and because we simply cannot see the future, I’d choose solitary confinement. Who knows, maybe he’ll see the light in his dark room, with good, enriching literature, maybe he will repent, at least in spirit if not in action because what can he do in containment, and he’ll have a better chance with God and His judgment. What do you think? Even if you’re not religious, don’t you think it’s better to give this person a chance to reflect and repent than die a complete villain? Isn’t it more humane? And the resources are there, it’s not like there are that many serial killers percentage wise in the world, right?
I think you missed the “indirect” part. This isn’t someone going around stabbing people. It’s someone who goes obstructing people from getting medication or medical treatment that they need, or from acquiring food, or someone who indiscriminately gets people fired from their jobs and put on the streets where they’ll die a slow death.
Regarding solitary confinement: As an individual, you don’t have the power to detain someone in that manner. But you do have the power to kill.
But why can’t we do something about it before having to murder the dude ? We live in a society! This scenario doesn’t make much sense, IRL you can report it to the authorities, bring it to the media, etc etc. Sure, if you live in a corrupt decaying empire/police state like the USA, maybe it’s more difficult but even then I feel there are so many things to do before just going full vigilante murderer…
But the whole point is that societies usually have a moral framework when they’re not entrenched in moral relativism, so of course this is not the case for America but around the world, as corrupt as people can be, they can never be like America. I mean, bribery is legalized and the president openly receives bribes and gifts and posts it online, lol, it’s crazy. And everything happened because American society, which for a while had a working democracy, doesn’t have a proper moral framework. Just saying. 🤷
Yep. I mean, the moral reality of things aren’t, that’s still there and the rest of the world sees it clearly (mostly), but of course without strict limits (“thou shalt not kill” is a solid one), that people truly believe in (no empire and people who support believes in it, they make money out of forever wars, murder and pillage), perhaps through the belief in God as the rule maker (so, very objective, as categorical as it can be), these societies can only conceive morality as relative, ideologically. Their hearts might initially tell them A but without guidelines in your brain you’re more likely to forgo virtue (because, what’s right or wrong, right? If I can do it and I like it, why not?), and once you accept one you can more easily accept the others. So, yeah, that’s the whole problem!
Without this objectivity, these strict guidelines that one can build upon but are fundamentally undeniable (because God put them in place, for example), you leave it to yourself, the supreme subjective, to make the rules. Unless you’re Solomon or someone like him, that’s just asking for trouble.
So when you say “I believe in objective morality”, you mean that you believe morality should be objective, not that it is objective. I’m inclined to agree because that would certainly simplify life a lot, but unfortunately, you can’t just make morality objective any more than you can make gravity not exist. It is what it is, and we have to figure out a way to work with what we have.
There’s the Qur’an if you want to know the overall left and right limits (or just the Ten Commandments if you just can’t read that much, lol, but it’s better to do so), but regardless, your soul points towards it, always. Any honest conversation about a situation will end up with two people, happily or not, having to admit there’s one path more moral than others (it’s more ethical not to steal the towels from the hotel, even if you want a souvenir, lol. You might still do it cause you decided you could afford the lack of virtue, and in small cases like this I understand, but it’s still less ethical than just not stealing the towels). Wanting to do it or not is something else, but right and wrong and clearly defined in every situation, and even in the absence of data the general attitude and direction of action you have to take are obvious (sure, maybe that one homeless dude got more fent with the money you gave him but being charitable is the right thing to do, for example).
I feel like this argument falls apart when considering things like the trolley problem. To wit:
A trolley has lost control and is traveling down its track towards a group of people. Nearby there is a switch that will divert the trolley onto a different track where there is only one person. Do you
A) Activate the switch, thereby being actively responsible for a person’s death. B) Do nothing and allow multiple people to die due to your passive inaction.
How might your answer change if that one person were your child? Or if they were a notorious criminal? What if the group were all children? What if they were prisoners? Different people will reasonably disagree on which choice is more moral.
No, what you’re saying is that being emotionally compromised and biased might make me choose differently. And of course, we’re people. But the better, more humane, nobler and fairer option can be easily found, and if not, at least the direction of action. I mean, trolley wise, everything else being equal it’s obvious that it’s better to be 4 people up than 4 people down, and with more details in this thought experiment (which, btw, is extremely unrealistic and has very little uhh ecological validity) you can develop, slowly but surely, a set of answers to it (what if the 5 guys are 5 Hitlers?! and stuff like that requires a bit more analysis, but again, it’s very divorced from reality).
Emotion is not necessary for the different scenarios to have potentially different moral considerations. For example, does your moral responsibility as a parent to nurture and protect your children change the equation?
Even if you assume everyone involved are strangers, what is the better, more noble, more humane option or direction of action?
No, no it doesn’t, because we’re all equally valuable by default, they’re all someone’s kid and that doesn’t change just because I’m involved. It would just be a superbly shitty position to be in and I would almost certainly save my kid in exchange for 5 lives, but that ain’t right, it’s just what I would most likely do. I mean, sacrifice my child (that I truly love) for the greater good (and more lives saved, ceteris paribus, is the greater good)… who am I, Abraham? 😅 You need to be on the level of a prophet to see this clearly and then act upon it, detached because the worldly life is passing and not that important, etc etc, basically.
So if I’m understanding your answer correctly, and assuming everyone involved were strangers, you believe that saving many lives at the cost of one is the more moral choice.
What would you say to someone who disagreed because they could not bring themselves to be actively responsible for the death of someone, and considered inaction the more moral choice because the group would have died anyway if they weren’t there and able to intervene?
The point I’m trying to get at is that I don’t believe there is a correct answer as to which choice is more moral. There are valid reasons to conclude that either option is both moral and amoral in equal measure. You could argue for either choice in circles, and both parties would be correct while never convincing the other.
In my opinion some questions of morality are clear and easy to answer, but some are much more nuanced, and that is where there is room for subjectivity.
Nuanced doesn’t mean there are many equally better options, it just means it’s harder to get to it because we cannot see and understand everything, some things are beyond our capacities to see clearly. Even more so when we’re presented with unrealistic scenarios I don’t think anyone yet has ever experienced IRL, lol. But we can both agree with the background moral framework at work (murder is wrong, life should be protected), with the fundamental values.
And just because you cannot bring yourself to do the big right thing doesn’t mean there isn’t one, lol, you’re admitting to its existence by refusing to do it! Not being able to go through it just shows our weakness, that’s all, which is human and all, I’m not saying it would be something easy for me either but the answer is clear. How’s the more moral action letting people die when you can help it? And like I said, everything being equal between participants (it’s not an innocent kid Vs 5 Palantir executives 😅), the decision is clear cut: you wanna be 4 up and not 4 down. And of course with more different participants we would have to analyse it further, that’s all, and maybe we hit a roadblock cause we don’t truly know the individual values of the people involved (only God knows, and going to Heaven or Hell is the final proof of your value) but we can still make working general rules based on this sometimes clouded but still visible moral reality. It’s a mixture of the limitations of our mental capacities and fundamental epistemological issue that permeates everything we can think about and say that involves reality, not just a thing about morals.
Nuanced in the sense that there is no absolute, objective correct answer.
That person may argue that actively causing the death of a human is murder, which is always objectively and morally wrong. Doing nothing is the morally correct option from that perspective. To be clear, I’m not personally arguing in favor or against either choice, because I personally believe that there is no objectively best option.
There have actually been studies that involve this exact scenario, but of course without anyone being in actual danger (unbeknownst to the subject).
Let me ask the question in another way. Do you think that God would judge a person who acted one way or the other?
To answer the last question promptly: yes, but the difficulty behind making that decision would certainly have a softening effect on His judgment.
But again, okay, I’ve given you my views when it comes to the trolley situation involving my kid, or being scared of pulling the lever, I’ve even admitted it would be difficult for me even if the answer, everything else being equal, is obvious: 4 lives up is better than 4 lives down. But you also say you don’t really disagree… so do you just not want to pronounce yourself on the topic? That’s fair/your prerogative but that’s not proof that we cannot, individually and together as well, reach a very good subjective understanding of the objective moral reality, that we can recognise being somewhere there even if our vision is clouded/doesn’t go that far clearly. You just don’t want to take that step which, again, is your right and all of that. You have to take a stand, on my side or whatever other, that is better than the one I proposed in your view, that’s all, to have a productive conversation about any moral issue, you can’t just say “we cannot know so I don’t say A or B” when A or B are presented…
You don’t say that they agree on which path is more moral than the other, but I’m assuming that’s what you mean. But also, no, that doesn’t happen. In an honest conversation where you disagree on morals, you just learn that you both have different values.
There are some things that more people are likely to agree on, like your example about stealing a towel from a hotel. But there are also many that people vehemently disagree on. For example, is it morally right to kill someone who has (and will continue to) indirectly kill many of other people?
How could you disagree on that? Okay, there are two options: either the person in this situation is shooting/stabbing people and cannot be reasoned with presently, so, in order not to let another innocent soul die by his hand, you take him down. He went from man to rabid dog so we had to put him down. That’s a clear-cut scenario, right? Now, another, in which someone used to kill indiscriminately and has vowed to do it, again, he’s unrepentant and just unimaginably bloodthirsty (so the “will continue doing so” makes sense because people do have free will and can repent and change their ways, we cannot see the future after all)… You could either kill him, or simply restrict his freedom forever, in solitary so he doesn’t kill. But these are two goods we’re arguing about, so the direction (not allowing a killer to continue killing, because we believe murder is wrong) is still the same, and this is not a major issue comparatively, not a major disagreement that would collapse our moral framework but just a limitation of our judgment and understanding. It’s clouded, but we can both see the same, more or less, behind the veil.
Now, from my perspective as a religious man, and because we simply cannot see the future, I’d choose solitary confinement. Who knows, maybe he’ll see the light in his dark room, with good, enriching literature, maybe he will repent, at least in spirit if not in action because what can he do in containment, and he’ll have a better chance with God and His judgment. What do you think? Even if you’re not religious, don’t you think it’s better to give this person a chance to reflect and repent than die a complete villain? Isn’t it more humane? And the resources are there, it’s not like there are that many serial killers percentage wise in the world, right?
I think you missed the “indirect” part. This isn’t someone going around stabbing people. It’s someone who goes obstructing people from getting medication or medical treatment that they need, or from acquiring food, or someone who indiscriminately gets people fired from their jobs and put on the streets where they’ll die a slow death.
Regarding solitary confinement: As an individual, you don’t have the power to detain someone in that manner. But you do have the power to kill.
But why can’t we do something about it before having to murder the dude ? We live in a society! This scenario doesn’t make much sense, IRL you can report it to the authorities, bring it to the media, etc etc. Sure, if you live in a corrupt decaying empire/police state like the USA, maybe it’s more difficult but even then I feel there are so many things to do before just going full vigilante murderer…
But the whole point is that societies usually have a moral framework when they’re not entrenched in moral relativism, so of course this is not the case for America but around the world, as corrupt as people can be, they can never be like America. I mean, bribery is legalized and the president openly receives bribes and gifts and posts it online, lol, it’s crazy. And everything happened because American society, which for a while had a working democracy, doesn’t have a proper moral framework. Just saying. 🤷
So morality is relative in a society that doesn’t have a proper moral framework?
Yep. I mean, the moral reality of things aren’t, that’s still there and the rest of the world sees it clearly (mostly), but of course without strict limits (“thou shalt not kill” is a solid one), that people truly believe in (no empire and people who support believes in it, they make money out of forever wars, murder and pillage), perhaps through the belief in God as the rule maker (so, very objective, as categorical as it can be), these societies can only conceive morality as relative, ideologically. Their hearts might initially tell them A but without guidelines in your brain you’re more likely to forgo virtue (because, what’s right or wrong, right? If I can do it and I like it, why not?), and once you accept one you can more easily accept the others. So, yeah, that’s the whole problem!
Without this objectivity, these strict guidelines that one can build upon but are fundamentally undeniable (because God put them in place, for example), you leave it to yourself, the supreme subjective, to make the rules. Unless you’re Solomon or someone like him, that’s just asking for trouble.
So when you say “I believe in objective morality”, you mean that you believe morality should be objective, not that it is objective. I’m inclined to agree because that would certainly simplify life a lot, but unfortunately, you can’t just make morality objective any more than you can make gravity not exist. It is what it is, and we have to figure out a way to work with what we have.
No, I believe that it is and it should be understood that way. But yes, I’m glad we at least see eye to eye in how it would simplify life, haha. 👍