Here's a log of an AIM conversation between me and Yevaud that I thought might be of interest...
IcyMonkey: Okay, changing the subject slightly in order to establish something before we continue with my line of though...
IcyMonkey: I believe there can be no objective basis for any moral system.
IcyMonkey: Prove me wrong.
IcyMonkey: This is assuming that the universe was not created by an anthropomorphic god, btw.
Yevaud333: Of course.
IcyMonkey: See, you can basically divide any statement about a particular situation/object into two general categories...
IcyMonkey: existence and evaluation.
IcyMonkey: not exactly the best words, perhaps... basically I mean by existence "is" and by evaluation "should be"
Yevaud333: Um.
IcyMonkey: Now, any statement you can make about your observations of the outside world ALONE must be of the "is" variety.
Yevaud333: Clarify.
IcyMonkey: And there doesn't seem to be any way you can go from "is" to "should be"
IcyMonkey: Okay, it's an objective fact that this man is currently stabbing that man.
IcyMonkey: But how can you go from that to saying that this man should not be stabbing that man, without imposing subjective desiure onto it?
Yevaud333: ...
Yevaud333: subjective desiure == ?
IcyMonkey: desire.
IcyMonkey: Typo.
Yevaud333: (Now you're the one using... oh.)
Yevaud333: lol
Yevaud333: Sorry.
Yevaud333: Well, the thing is,
Yevaud333: while you can affirm that all morals are subjective,
Yevaud333: if you make them subjective based on the will of the many rather than the will of the few,
Yevaud333: you wind up with something approaching objectivity.
IcyMonkey: Ah, but wait.
IcyMonkey: Well, here's my view.
Yevaud333: ('Course, there's no reliable way to ascertain the will of the many, but anyway....
)
Yevaud333: Okay.
IcyMonkey: First of all, I consider morality to be certain instinctual genetic drives as elaborated by the cultural environment we develop in.
IcyMonkey: So a certain component of it is universal to humanity, but the details tend to be cultural
Yevaud333: Okee.
Yevaud333: How do you define ethics?
IcyMonkey: Now, technically this doesn't actually change the way I'm going to act.... but it does make the semantics of what I do more complicated.
IcyMonkey: waitasec.
IcyMonkey: Okay, now, the simple view is, I see a murderer killing someone - the murderer is doing something bad... I prevent this. I am doing something good.
IcyMonkey: My view is, I see a murder about to occur.
IcyMonkey: Now, let's say this murderer is a psycho.
IcyMonkey: If he truly believes what he's doing is good, then it is - to him. Now, before you protest let me clarify.
IcyMonkey: this all works out to my actions being the same in the end, so don't worry.
Yevaud333: lol
Yevaud333: 'kay.
IcyMonkey: However, it is bad to me.
Yevaud333: (Keep typing... I need to run for a sec but I will read when I return.)
IcyMonkey: I do all I can to implement my own moral ideas... Does this mean that I'm imposing my view of others? To a certain extent, yes.
IcyMonkey: However, part of my moral system happens to involve not imposing my moral system on other except in the case of certain fundamental tenets.
IcyMonkey: These tenets are just as arbitrary as the ones I don't impose - however, they're stronger, so that I probably would be very disturbed to see them violated, and also more universal, so that it's easier to get everyone to do them without too many problems.
IcyMonkey: Now, I prevent the murder, and the murderer goes to jail...
IcyMonkey: Still, to him, what he did was good, period. And there's really no way to get around that, because you can't establish morality outside the bounds of human psychology.
IcyMonkey: However, that doesn't prevent mne from thinking, due to my moral impulses, that he should still be prevented from murdering again, and hopefully that his moral views should be changed to something more in line with my own.
IcyMonkey: In cases where my morality opposes the moral views of the majority, I usually don't care. However, if theoretically one of my fundamental tenets was violated by the morality of the majority, I would still oppose the will of the majority and try to change their system.
IcyMonkey: Why?
IcyMonkey: Simply because I'm driven to.
IcyMonkey: See, it's unfortunate, but morality, being a product of human psychology, just can't be turned into some nice neat logical system.
IcyMonkey: That's why debating morality doesn't do much, except when you are simply trying to show that someone's moral vieews are directly inconsistent... because it's generally acknowledged that obvious, large inconsistencies in one's moral system is a "bad thing".
IcyMonkey: Moral systems, being instinctual and human, will inevitably have inconsistencies, but it's best to hide them as well as possible.
IcyMonkey: Now, the idea of morality being illogical and subjective is obviously uncomfortable, but it's also kinda true, unfortunately. Sort of like the traditional idea of free will, it's just a fiction that human beings can't live without...
IcyMonkey: Just like choice, morality is a psychological perspective rather than an objective state.
Comments? Thoughts?