"Ethics is Subjective": Discuss Some Reasoning in Support of that Claim

[Boojatta]

Strong Atheist expressed concern that we were cluttering up the thread How do you define evil

This new thread is a place for the discussion to continue or for a new beginning to be made. Everyone interested is encouraged to participate.

Most of the reasoning that I have been examining was put forward by Strong Atheist in Post #43 of the thread "How do you define evil." Here is a link to that post:
43. I HAVE thought about this.

I have already attempted to consider the following parts of that post:

All of my experiences show me that our "values" are learned and absorbed from our cultures, parents, churches, schools, and other surroundings. (...) I do not see "objective values" floating around out there.

People have been disagreeing for thousands of years on what is moral (...)

Religion has not yet been mentioned in this discussion, but there doesn't seem to be a Philosophy Forum at DU, so I placed this thread where the other thread was: in Religion/Theology.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Ethics is subjective because everything is subjective, even our

experience of reality.

One cannot even make the claim that some ethics are absolute "because the Bible says so", because the Bible is very often inconsistent on most everything.

Ethics are also almost always situational. I believe it's wrong to kill, but recognize the fact that sometimes killing might be an act of mercy (terminally ill patients, perhaps) or the least of two evils (kill the perp, or let him kill you?). I think it is wrong to steal, but would not begrudge a starving person from stealing food. I think lying is wrong, but would not tell the truth about a gift that I didn't like.

And so on.

The only people who want ethics to be unsubjective and absolute are fundamentalists who aren't actually interested in the ethics at all, but are only interested in holding and wielding power over others, and who care more about rules and regulations than they do about people.

[Zebedeo]

12. I agree and disagree

I agree that ethics are often situational. In order to act morally, it is necessary to assess the circumstances surrounding one's actions.

I do not agree that morals are entirely subjective. If all morality were completely subjective, then any moral position would be as objectively correct as any other moral position. This would lead to the following absurd (and morally reprehensible) conclusions:

1. Adolf Hitler was objectively as moral in his life as Mother Theresa was in hers.

2. Burning out a bunny's eyeballs with a magnifying glass is neither good nor bad. It is morally no better or worse than petting the bunny.

3. Saving the life of an innocent child is morally equivalent to torturing and murdering the child. Some people think that saving the child's life is good; others believe murdering the child is good. Neither is more correct that the other. Both opinions are equally valid, just as some people like pistacchio ice cream, and other people don't. It's all a matter of personal preference.

Surely you do not agree with propositions 1, 2 and 3 above. Yet they follow from the proposition that morality is entirely subjective.

FWIW, I believe that morality is objective, and that the source of morality is God. I believe that God has hard-wired us to have a basic sense of what is right and what is wrong. Some people choose to do good, and some to do evil (sin). At some point, each of us has sinned. Thus, we are all guilty. That does not, however, mean that all actions are morally equivalent. Some are good, and some are bad.

[InaneAnanity]

16. I agree with 1, 2, and 3

Our morals are derived from our society. Of course, 1, 2, and 3 seem absurd even to me, but I fully understand that, if I was brought up in an entirely different society, Hitler could seem MORE moral than Mother Theresa.

I understand the relativism of my own moral code, and its a pity you don't.

[cyborg_jim]

77. Especially since old MT

had the habit of telling suffering people they were lucky because they were suffering like Jesus.

Mother Theresa seems like a bad contrapositive for Hitler.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

63. You are losing me a bit

can you give me an example of morality that is completely objective?

[Rabrrrrrr]

65. You need to do some critical self-evaluation

The statement "the source of morality is God" and "God has hard-wired us to have a basic sense of right and wrong" are very subjective statements.

And your definitions of "right" and "wrong" are also subjective.

I am not saying that your definitions are wrong - my moral foundation also comes from the teachings of Jesus, as well as some eastern philosophy - only that you aren't seeing that our foundation is completely arbitrary and subjective.

In the three examples you stated, those positions could easily be argued as valid depending on the culture.

You mention burning the eyes of a bunny as bad - but yet, in our culture, we still consider it okay to burn a bunny's eyes with cosmetics and drain cleaners (though the number in this society who find that reprehensible is on a marked upswing) for the purposes of making "human safe" products. The people who followed Hitler, who firmly believed that their race was superior and that Jews fucked everything up, were fully correct in their moral stand from their viewpoint. Many cultures, even the culture of the Hebrew people in Old Testament times, and even up to today, murdered their children in ritual sacrifice when they felt it necessary. And we continue to murder our children in wars. Sure, the US has decided not to use anyone younger than 17, but many other countries, especially the Bible-based ones of the mid-east, use children of all ages.

Morality and ethics are always situational, relative, and subjective.

[Taxloss]

2. Well, subjectivity does come into it.

For instance, most of us would consider cannibalism inethical. But if you were stranded in the frozen Andes after a plane crash and were starving, but surrounded with dead meat, suddenly the ethical situation shifts. And there are many other similar scenarios.

[katsy]

3. Morals are subjective.

Ethics is the study of moral systems.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethics_vs._Morals

[Exiled in America]

4. ethics must be senstive to context - one size never "fits all"

There are normative principles that transcend narrow contexts - the "lenses" by which we weigh factors and make decisions - but the specifics of what the "right" choice will be in a specific situation depends on the particulars of that specific situation.

[funflower]

6. Great summation, Exiled. Normative principles. Situational rules.

:)

[Tsiyu]

5. "Situational Ethics" has been the hobgoblin of the Righty Tighties

Of course, they don't mean "applying judgement to fit the level of offense." They mean not adhering to their cherry-picked lines of Old Testament and/or Paulian rules.

Yet the Right Wing consistently applies situational ethics to the US Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, Environmental Protection and other "rules" set forth as necessary for the common good.

They practice situational ethics when they deem fetal life as supreme and toddler Iraqi life as permissable to snuff out. When they cry over the unborn and turn their backs on the dying elderly.

To quote a philosopher I admire: "Law was made for Man and not Man for the Law." What this means to me is that law (relating to the ability of the society to define and punish evil) must work for the good of humankind - even unto the last individual - or that law is wrong.

[funflower]

7. "Situational ethics" is really "thinking ethics." And it's a stupid label

used by people who haven't taken the time to think about ethics.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

64. The words "situational ethics"

have become politically incorrect, but I don't understand why. There is nothing inherently evil or wrong about the concept. Even our laws look the other way when a man kills the man he finds having sex with his wife. (I'm not saying that is right..but I have a friend whose son did this and he received probation.) You can oppose late term abortion because of the horrors, but when a young mother is dying, we do it. But some things, like raping a day old infant (in the news recently) is wrong whenever, however, whomever.

It's like zero tolerance in schools. We expel kids for bringing a paint gun to school. EXPEL. Forever. Or a kid who brings cold medication for a cough.

I can think of very few instances in life when wrong is ALWAYS wrong.

[Strong Atheist]

8. I will be willing enough to restart from here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=41704&mesg_id=43100

[Boojatta]

9. Three categories

If I read you correctly, you responded to the statement "I do not understand why you believe what you believe" by making two claims.

Claim #1: There are three categories. Category one: facts. Category two: thoughts/concepts/ideas. Category three: emotions/opinions.

Claim #2: Moral statements fall into category three.

However, claim #1 doesn't seem to be a reason for believing claim #2. It seems to be an additional claim, a claim that itself requires some basis.

I am curious about category one. You wrote: "The universe can be broken up into "things" (matter and energy) and their relations to each other in time and space (...) They ARE relations, regardless of what anyone thinks of them."

Suppose you give one dollar to a person and that person gives you some goods. If we are to determine whether you bought something or exchanged gifts with someone, then do we need to know what the parties involved in the transaction think? Also, are the details of the physical transaction important? For example, must we distinguish between giving someone four quarters and giving someone a one dollar bill?

[Boojatta]

25. Description of category three

Claim #1: There are three categories. Category one: facts. Category two: thoughts/concepts/ideas. Category three: emotions/opinions.

I'm wondering whether the word "opinion" in the description of category three is exactly what was intended. Suppose that during an election you are in a log cabin with someone and neither of you has access to information from the outside world. On a certain date while you are in the cabin, you might say "I think so and so has already been announced as the winner by at least such and such a margin." If you are right, then isn't your statement a fact? Of course, it might not be the kind of fact that would be studied as part of a physics class. However, since you have no way of knowing that it is a fact, wouldn't your statement be ordinarily classified as an opinion?

Would the word "preferences" be closer to what you intended than the word "opinions"?

[Strong Atheist]

27. When you have an opinion on a matter of fact,

it fits with the second category.

Category #2:

Then there are thoughts/concepts/ideas. These can either be true, in that they accurately reflect reality (to some degree, I mean we are told that "solid" objects are mostly empty space, but for my purposes our senses on the macro level reflect A macro truth), or false because they do not reflect reality. "The Earth is more or less spherical" is a true concept, because it reflects reality. "The Earth is flat" is a false concept, because it does not even come close to accurately reflecting reality.

So if you have an opinion on who won, it is either true or false, regardless of your lack of information on the subject.

[Strong Atheist]

26. Reply:

However, claim #1 doesn't seem to be a reason for believing claim #2. It seems to be an additional claim, a claim that itself requires some basis.

We can all agree on many facts. The earth is more or less spherical. Grass is green. The sun appears to rise in the east, not the west, south or north. These are things that we all (except for the insane, or the idiots) can agree on because they are FACTS and can be SEEN to be facts. Show me ANY ethical issue where that is true. You can't, because ethics are subjective, not observable facts.

Example: A finger pulls a trigger (fact). The gun fires (fact). The bullet moves through the air (fact). It strikes a person in the head (fact). The person dies due to this (fact). Any other statements about this are not facts, they are opinions. Is it "bad"? is it "murder"? that all depends on the circumstances, and individual opinions.

For instance, is committing suicide in this fashion bad or murder? Always? what if you are in terminal pain? Would killing Hitler in this way in WWII have been "bad" or "murder"? Would shooting an intruder in your home in this way be "bad" or "murder"? Would it still be that way if they had already hurt/killed a member of your family? Is abortion "murder"? If Ethics is so obviously a matter of fact, this should be simple to answer. Is the death penalty "bad" or "murder"? This is should be easy for everyone to agree on, like grass is green, IF IT IS A FACT, NOT A SUBJECTIVE OPINION

I can guarantee that you would not only not get people to agree on all of the above examples, but that you can not get even simple majorities to agree on definitions of murder, because it is all subjective opinions, EXACTLY LIKE "I LIKE ICE CREAM". Prove me wrong on this.

**********************************************************************

Suppose you give one dollar to a person and that person gives you some goods. If we are to determine whether you bought something or exchanged gifts with someone, then do we need to know what the parties involved in the transaction think? Also, are the details of the physical transaction important? For example, must we distinguish between giving someone four quarters and giving someone a one dollar bill?

Giving a person a dollar is a fact. They give you something; another fact. Everything else is definitional and thus subjective. Now we can band together as groups (societies) and say that it was two gifts, or a transaction. similarly, we can say as a society that abortion or the death penalty or suicide or mercy killings are "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "bad"; this is nothing more than the majority (or those in power) imposing their subjective tastes in morality on the rest of society. There is no "good", "bad", "right", "wrong", or "evil". These are all simply individuals emoting their preferences on matters of fact.

[Strong Atheist]

60. Inifinite categories:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=43767&mesg_id=58104

[Boojatta]

10. Is the list of three categories a complete list of all categories?

Perhaps I misunderstood earlier. It now occurs to me that you were reasoning as follows:

Assumption #1: Any given statement falls into one of three possible categories: 1 fact; 2 thought/concept/idea; 3 emotion/opinion.

Assumption #2: No moral statement falls into category one.

Assumption #3: No moral statement falls into category two.

Conclusion: All moral statements fall into category three.

Is that a satisfactory description of your reasoning or is that a misrepresentation of it?

[Strong Atheist]

11. I will answer both of your posts this weekend.

Sorry for the delay, it has been a tough week for me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4539758&mesg_id=4539758

... among other things going wrong in my life. Give me a breather, and I will answer on Saturday.

[Strong Atheist]

13. You got it!

:-) :toast: :thumbsup:

[Boojatta]

18. Questions about category two and category three

Category three consists of statements that are emotions/opinions. Did you assume that statements of moral judgment fall into category three and then conclude that statements of moral judgment are subjective? What is the connection between emotions and subjectivity?

One person may have a positive emotional response to a particular movie and another person may have a negative emotional response to the same movie. However, does that show that there is something inherently subjective about emotions? True or false: a person's experience of watching a movie is more complicated than most experiences that an animal would have in the same amount of time.

The description of category two is: thought/concept/idea. Isn't it true that a single word might be enough to express a given concept? For example, there is a concept of money and a concept of density (mass over volume).

Isn't it true that several statements might be required to express a given idea? For example, someone may have an idea for how to achieve some goal or an idea for a movie.

Would it be possible to describe category two so that it would be clear that what is in category two is a single statement rather than a part of a statement or a collection of statements?

[Strong Atheist]

28. Reply.

What is the connection between emotions and subjectivity?

Emotions are inherently subjective. Just as i do not think your thoughts, only my own, I do not feel your emotions, only my own. None of us have ESP, we do not read minds; therefore thoughts and emotions are restricted to our own skulls, and are inherently subjective.

[Boojatta]

19. Statements and Policies

Claim #1: "To classify some action as unethical is to make a subjective classification."

Suppose you believe that Claim #1 is true. You could keep that belief secret and make an effort to persuade people that Claim #1 is false. What motivates you to tell people that you believe that Claim #1 is true?

[Strong Atheist]

52. Policy:

Terms and conditions apply. Your mileage may vary. Not good after 1/1/1980. This station is not responsible for ANY of its content. Do not stick in mouth. Flammable/inflammable. In the event of fire, flood, meteor strike, good days, bad days, rain, sunshine, snow, sleet, hail, winds, tornado's, hurricanes, tsunamis, typhoons, fog, or rivers of blood this warranty is completely VOID. Moving parts not suitable for children under 130 years of age. If the user is taking heart medicine, pregnant, taking alcohol, taking vitamins, taking aspirin, breathing, not breathing, in poor health, in good health; this product might cause DEATH.

[Boojatta]

23. Why did you use the title "Lets cut to the chase, shall we"?

This thread begins with quotes of some of your reasoning. Here are some questions (from the other thread) about that reasoning:

Strong Atheist wrote:
"I am not saying that you are comparing #1 and #2. I am saying that the comparison inside of #2 is not a good comparison."

If we consider a particular comparison inside of a particular statement, might it be an objective truth that the comparison is not good?

Alternatively, if we are considering the distinction between a comparison that is said to be good and a comparison that is said to be not good, then are we considering something that is a matter of subjective judgment?

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
"My experiences show me that the distinction between comparisons that are good and comparisons that are not good is learned and absorbed from our cultures, parents, schools, and other surroundings."

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
"I do not see the distinction between comparisons that are objectively good and comparisons that are objectively not good floating around out there."

Instead of answering those questions, you put forward some new reasoning intended to support your conclusion. Why would you describe that as cutting to the chase?

[Strong Atheist]

30. Why did I cut to the chase? Because in that previous thread, and

again in this one, your posts seem to be not quite attacking my main points, but seem to be an unending series of "where does this specific scenario fall in your scheme of things" posts.

Back in the day, when I was young and a philosophy student in college, this type of thing was fine, but as I have gotten older and a little wiser, I have learned that these types of SPECIFIC examples asking for categorization can be unending, and I frankly do not have the patience to keep telling someone where in my schema a scenario falls. I have given in clear terms my three broad (big picture) areas of how things/ideas/subjectives fit into the observable universe.

If, on the other hand, you do not think my categories are good, you need to attack them more directly. Say what is wrong, giving examples and proof to back up your reasoning. Also, give your own schema to define the way the universe works.

To reiterate my system and where ethics falls on it:

#1. There are physical things (and energy, interacting through time and space. This constitutes "facts" that can in theory be observed and tested in reproducible or verifiable ways, even if they can not in practice (example: there may or may not be a green striped purple spotted dragon named "Bob" in a cave on Pluto. We can not determine the truth or falsehood of this, but it either IS the case, or IS NOT the case, and thus falls under the physical facts/not facts category.)

#2. Ideas/concepts. These are mental, and are directly connected to whether a set of facts exists or not. I have an IDEA of Bob the striped spotted dragon. If such a thing exists in a cave on pluto, then my idea is a true (ie: factually based) idea, whether or not I can prove it. If there is IN FACT no such creature at such a spot, then my idea is FALSE (not based on fact).

#3. Emotions, likes/dislikes/ethics. These things are all subjective preferences that are not directly connected to whether or not something is a fact. You can love Bob and I can hate him, whether or not he exists.

Ethics falls in this category because thousands of years of human history have shown me through empirical evidence that ethics are subjective like whether or not I like ice cream; people can agree on facts, but not on subjective likes and dislikes. People can not agree on ethical questions because ethical questions are not questions of fact, but questions of taste.

Now, if you want a discussion on these clearly stated categories, you should directly attack them and present your own ideas, rather than coming up with an endless series of "where does this example fall in your categories" posts, for I am tiring of figuring that out for you. You are a big boy; you can figure that out for yourself.

[Boojatta]

35. "thousands of years ... have shown me through empirical evidence..."

Ethics falls in this category because thousands of years of human history have shown me through empirical evidence that ethics are subjective...

What is the "empirical evidence" that has shown you this?

Consider the question of whether or not any person who had been dead for several days was ever brought back to life. Do thousands of years of disagreement on this question provide evidence that the matter is subjective?

If you were to observe universal agreement on some particular question, then would you conclude that that particular question should not be classified as being within the realm of ethics?

Is your definition of the realm of ethics clear enough to ensure that you will not have wiggle room to maintain the claim "all questions of ethics are subjective" by reclassifying statements that appear to be counter-examples to the claim?

[Strong Atheist]

48. If rocks could sing,

would cars taste good?

[Boojatta]

24. Given some performances by various athletes, is the statement that one

of the performances was worthy of a gold medal an objective statement, a semi-objective statement, or a subjective statement?

If someone wins a gold medal in the Olympics and says "my performance deserved a gold medal", then is that just as subjective as the statement "my performance deserved a gold medal" made by someone who did not win any kind of medal?

Suppose some evidence is presented during a criminal trial. How do you determine whether or not "the evidence establishes that the accused is guilty" is a true statement, a false statement, or a subjective impression of reality? Is such a statement always a subjective impression of reality?

Suppose there was a long, dull, civil trial over a hundred years ago that focused on some complicated contractual agreement between two companies. Suppose the evidence from the trial has been preserved in excellent condition. Given that you might have trouble staying awake while studying the evidence, would you classify the statement "given the law of contracts at the time of the trial and the evidence that was presented at trial, the judge's verdict is right" in the emotion/opinion category?

[Strong Atheist]

49. Given that 3+2 = blue, if fish were furry, what would the sun smell

like?

[Boojatta]

14. I am told that I understood what it was. I have some questions about it.

Question 1(a): Can you provide samples of reasoning that rely upon the assumption that was labeled as "Assumption #1" above?

Question 1(b): If "Assumption #1" is actually reliable, then wouldn't you expect it to have been relied upon and used to obtain a variety of conclusions?

Question 1(c): Are there are least some fairly careful attempts to apply "Assumption #1" that ended in failure when subtle flaws were found in the arguments that were based on "Assumption #1"?

Intro to Question 2: It is believed that the languages and writing systems associated with Egyptian hieroglyphics, demotic characters, and Greek are such that the three sections of inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone all have the same meaning.

Question 2: Which of the three categories does the statement "the three sections of inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone all have the same meaning" fall into?

Note: In defining/describing category 1 ("facts"), Strong Atheist wrote:

There are facts, which are relationships among objects/energy and other objects/energy based on their spacial and temporal relationships. Meaning, how objects interact with each other in time and space. This is independent of what we think of those facts.

Source:
A post in the original thread

[Strong Atheist]

53. I have some answers:

blue

the sun

mongols

bigfoot

Edsel

George Washington

The war of the Roses

3.14159265

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Hoo-Boy-- Ethics is a...

complete field of study in itself. If you haven't heard of terms like deontological or teleological, you just haven't been trying all that hard. Dig into a good book, or even an encyclopedia article and start with normative, descriptive, and meta- ethics. Then, it gets complicated.

Ultimately, ethics is subjective simply because each religion or philosphical system has developed its own system of ethics. Since most people aren't properly schooled in all of the fine points of their systems (or don't really have a "system"-- just what they've picked up from their environment) individual ethics are a real crapshoot and necessarily as subjective as it can get.

It would be nice if it wasn't that way, but if Dewey, Schopenhauer and Aquinas can't see eye-to-eye, there's not much hope for the rest of us.

As far as a "universal" ethic, perhaps from a higher power, is concerned-- good luck finding one. It might be out there, but no one's agreed on it yet. Probably because no one's seen it, although many think they have.

[Boojatta]

17. Some Questions

If you haven't heard of terms like deontological or teleological, you just haven't been trying all that hard.

If you have something to say and you find it necessary or convenient to use words such as "deontological" or "teleological" to express your meaning, then people reading this thread will have reason to become familiar with those terms.

Ultimately, ethics is subjective simply because each religion or philosphical system has developed its own system of ethics.

Suppose that a single system of ethics were used as a basis for a variety of different systems of law. Would you conclude that law is subjective?

If you assume that ethics has an arbitrary basis, then can you claim that you have not yet taken a stand on the question of whether or not ethics is subjective?

If you read a variety of conflicting accounts of history, then do you conclude that past events are inherently subjective?

if Dewey, Schopenhauer and Aquinas can't see eye-to-eye, there's not much hope for the rest of us.

Schopenhauer wrote:

women "are directly fitted for acting as the nurses and teachers of our early childhood by the fact that they are themselves childish, frivolous and short-sighted; in a word, they are big children all their life long."

If I am not mistaken, Dewey had a different view of women. It would follow that Dewey and Schopenhauer couldn't (or simply didn't) see eye-to-eye. So?

[varkam]

20. Absolutism vs. Relativism

I think that there might be a happy medium between absolutism and relativism. I don't think that relativism is 100% accurate, because if so then we would never be able to judge the actions of anyone else, to say whether they are moral or immoral. If that were the case, then our whole legal / penal system would seem completely farcical. "Who is to say whether or not John shouldn't of gone into that McDonald's and shot to death 13 strangers? It was the right action for him!"

In addition to that, the notion of relativism relies heavily on the notion of a "conscience". But this is something that operates differently for different individuals. For one person, washing a car is a moral dilemma, while another person has no problem using other people like property to his or her own benefit.

However, as others have thoughtfully pointed out, contextual information does weigh heavily. Most of us agree taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong, but as was pointed out earlier, is stealing something like medicine for your dying child that you can't afford wrong? It gets a bit more mucky there.

But who is to say that there are not absolute "rules" for morality (not an absolute morality, per se)? As an analogy, we have derived the various rules and operations of mathematics and numerical properties - is it not possible that perhaps the same thing exists for morality? It's kind of unlikely, I know (being that people have been studying ethics since philosophy was an earnest discipline), but perhaps we just need a few more years.

The last thing I'd like to mention is that ethics is not completely subjective. Take Utilitarianism for example (it has some problems facing it, and I'm not presenting it as a superior theory - only as an example), it holds that what is good for the whole is the moral thing to do. And what are some things that are good for the whole? Lower unemployment rates, lower poverty rates, lower homicide rates, etc. Actual *quantifiable* things, and actions undertaken to achieve those ends would be considered moral under Utilitarianism. So at least, in that respect, there are some aspects of ethics which are not subjective.

[sutz12]

44. Except that...

the absolutist will never admit to the possibility of the existance of a 'relative' solution to the question.

I believe that is the problem. It isn't that there are two sides to the discussion, it is that one side of the debate does not allow that the other side even has a position. 'Moral relativism' has been painted as a primal evil by the extreme right wing bacause it undermines their moral position by making it less firm than they want to believe it is.

[Boojatta]

21. Subjective Ethics versus Misrepresented Ethics

True or false: people rarely identify an agreed upon system of ethics before they interact with each other?

Suppose two or more people have been interacting with each other and a specific situation has arisen. What prevents a person from claiming to have reached a particular conclusion about the ethics of the situation? What prevents a person from making demands based on such a conclusion?

Is it possible for a person to demand that others accept conclusions about the ethics of a particular situation when the conclusions have benefits for that person?

Is it possible for a person to accept conclusions about the ethics of a particular situation when the conclusions have very low costs for that person?

Is it possible for a person to refuse to accept conclusions about the ethics of a particular situation when the conclusions have high costs for that person?

[Boojatta]

22. Identifying an agreed upon system of ethics before interacting

What is the significance of agreement? For agreement to have significance, do we need to presuppose that the people who are agreeing already accept a system of ethics according to which there is a duty to obey rules that one has agreed to obey?

We could be talking about a social agreement or a legal contract.
Even in the case of properly executed legal contracts, there might be an expectation of some voluntary cooperation rather than reliance on a series of enforcement actions.

Can you think of some possible attitudes towards an agreed upon system of ethics? It occurs to me that the following might be some possible attitudes:

#1. Lack of interest combined with an assumption that the issues covered by the agreement are "very unlikely" to actually occur.

#2. Desire to fully understand the agreement. For example, one might consider various hypothetical situations and try to get a binding answer regarding how the rules apply to those situations.

#3. Lack of interest combined with an intention to not be bound by the rules. There might even be a hope for lack of clearness in the rules if a lack of clearness could be used as an excuse for not obeying the rules.

Regarding the words "very unlikely" in #1, consider this experiment. Suppose that a company (such as a newspaper or cable company or internet service provider) announces with much fanfare that new subscribers must agree that if they win a lottery jackpot then they will give seventy-five percent of the money to the service provider. Would the number of new customers increase more slowly than it had increased before the announcement?

One might expect that company managers would want potential customers to have the attitude in #2. After all, those who are disposed to honor agreements can be expected to take an interest in carefully studying proposed agreements before they enter into them. However, in practice it seems more common for company managers to prefer potential customers to take no interest in fine print and to submissively accept the company's interpretation of the fine print.

[Strong Atheist]

58. Identifying an agreed upon language before interacting:

We have both agreed on non-sequitors.

[Strong Atheist]

57. True or false?

I am lying when I tell you that I am lying.

[Strong Atheist]

29. Simply put, in answer to ALL your questions, which in the

previous thread and this thread seem to be just finding more examples to say "but what about this case? And what about this case? And this one? And this one?"

All of your cases fall into one of my three categories. How did I come up with my categories? By observing the world around me, and looking at thousands of years of recorded history across the world.

Category #1: Facts, or things-in-themselves, as we in philosophy like to say (I did not get into that before to avoid confusing the issue). There are facts that we can all agree on, except the insane and terminally stupid. Why? Because they can be seen by all to be the case (true) external to ourselves (ie: The sun appears to rise in the east, grass is green, the world is more or less spherical). Similarly with falsehoods about facts; it can be seen by all that grass is not red, the sun does not rise in the south, and the earth is not flat. If you say otherwise, you are an idiot. Facts speak for themselves, and all recognize it.

Category #2: Ideas. Ideas/concepts. In the head, but they either accurately reflect reality (facts), or they don't.

Category #3: Opinions/emotions/morality. This may or may not have anything to do with the facts, and is completely subjective ("I like ice cream"). This is shown by thousands of years of history. People can not even agree on simple things like whether abortion is wrong/murder, and whether the death penalty is wrong/murder. Things like that (and THOUSANDS of other easily shown examples) show conclusively using thousands of years of empirical evidence that people can not agree on ethics, whereas they can on whether the sun is yellow or not. The reason is because ethics is subjective (Saying abortion is "wrong" is like saying "I like ice cream; completely subjective).

Thousands of years of history and continuing disagreements on ethical issues prove that it is subjective; prove me wrong by showing where we all agree on things just as my green grass/spherical earth/sun in the east arguments show where we all agree on FACTS.

You can't, because we DON'T agree on ethics; because it is subjective.

Prove me wrong.

[Boojatta]

33. This might be more amusing than serious. Have fun with it.

Suppose some methodology includes rules.

Example #1: Some manufacturing process may call for something to be heated to a temperature within some specified range of temperatures and kept within that range for some specified length of time.

Example #2: A company may require its employees to be tested for drug use.

Example #3: The law in some jurisdiction may specify a maximum amount of alcohol in the blood of someone who is operating a motor vehicle.

What category do rules fall into? Does it depend on whether or not the rules are about the treatment of people?

------------

Suppose that a particular serial killer sends letters to the police and that each of those letters consists of three parts.

Part #1: A statement that says that if a particular news anchor does not wear a chef's hat while reading the news on a particular date, then the serial killer will kill someone within thirteen weeks of that date.
Part #2: A statement that says that if a particular news anchor wears a chef's hat while reading the news on a particular date, then the serial killer will not kill anyone during the thirteen week period after that date.
Part #3: A statement that says that the serial killer knows that what the serial killer is doing is absolutely immoral.

If all evidence indicates that Part #1 and Part #2 are, in every case, true statements, then would you say that Part #1 and Part #2 are acceptable statements, but that Part #3 is unacceptable?

[Strong Atheist]

59. This might be more serious than amusing:

Global warming is gonna kill us all....

[TechBear_Seattle]

31. Case study: Theft

Is it wrong to steal bread?

Is it wrong to steal bread, then throw it in a dumpster because you had your fun?

Is it wrong to steal bread, then distribute it to several homeless people?

Is it wrong to steal bread, sell it, then use the money to buy drugs?

Is it wrong to steal bread, sell it, then use the money to buy drugs that will ease the pain of your terminally ill grandmother?

Is it wrong to steal bread and eat it because you were feeling peckish?

Is it wrong to steal bread and eat it because the only job you have been able to find in three years is one that barely covers rent and heat, and you hadn't eaten in two days?

Is it wrong to steal bread and give it to your children because the only job you have been able to find in three years is one that barely covers rent and heat, and they hadn't eaten in two days?

I assert that the ethics of the theft are relative to the situation. Without any objective means to determine right or wrong, the ethics are therefore subjective.

[Strong Atheist]

32. Agreed. BTW, the whole "theft" issue is based on the whole

"ownership" issue, which has it's own pitfalls (see fights throughout history about who "owns" land, resources, etc.).

[Boojatta]

40. What is the connection between your eight questions and your statements?

Would you say that at least one of the eight questions cannot be answered? Would you say that you do not know whether or not the eight questions can be answered?

[TechBear_Seattle]

41. The issue is: Are ethics subjective?

My point was not to provide questions that cannot be answered; my point was to provide a single situation -- theft of a loaf of bread -- under different circumstances and let the Reader determine whether or not the ethics of stealing the bread is relative or absolute.

If ethics are absolute, then stealing the bread in all of the situations is equally wrong. If ethics are relative, then the amount of wrong done depends on the situation. While I did provide my own conclusion at the the end of my post, I was more looking to spark debate.

Excercises like this are pretty common in philosophy, logic and ethics classes. You can even get workbooks that present various scenarios for discussion, each with a list of questions to consider. We used one in a college rhetoric class, where we were given 10 minutes at the beginning of class to read one of the scenarios and pick a side (sometimes only two, sometimes more.) The class then moved to different sides of the room to discuss in caucus what our position would be as a group, with people free to relocate after discussing it a bit with the others in the caucus. Then the remaining half of the class was spent discussing the matter as a class. There were no right or wrong positions, just lots and lots of often heated conversation. The scenarios I gave were very simple. Now, the man who killed his terminally ill mother... THAT was a discussion!

[Boojatta]

43. Some questions

my point was to provide a single situation -- theft of a loaf of bread -- under different circumstances

Are you using the words "situation" and "circumstance" in some specialized technical sense? How can we confirm you did not describe a variety of situations that are all examples of a single kind of situation?

If ethics are absolute, then stealing the bread in all of the situations is equally wrong.

The words "ethics are absolute" don't mean anything to me, so I have no basis for either agreeing or disagreeing with a claim of the form "if ethics are absolute then such-and such." However, I observe a pattern in what you wrote. You emphasized the state of mind of the thief.

Suppose the directors of some institution control and guide the research of the institution's scientific research employees. If the institution has rules that distinguish between a researcher accidentally providing false data and a researcher intentionally providing false data, then would you say that there is something "non-absolute" or "relative" about the institution's rules?

[Strong Atheist]

51. Some answers:

China

1492

the moon

purple

[Strong Atheist]

47. What is the conection between one hand clapping underwater

and Jupiter's fifth moon?

[Boojatta]

34. Some Questions for Strong Atheist

There are facts that we can all agree on, except the insane and terminally stupid.

If we are willing to say that we agree with statements that we do not actually agree with, then will we be able to all say that we agree? What prevents us from saying that we agree with statements that we do not actually agree with? Are we prevented by some kind of subjective system of ethics?

Why does it matter whether a given statement is true or false? Do your efforts to determine whether a given statement is true or false have something to do with a preference for true statements? Is a preference for true statements an objectively correct preference or is it one aspect of some particular system of subjective preferences?

[Strong Atheist]

50. Some answers:

42






Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing.
He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

[varkam]

36. Certainly ethics are subjective.

Morality, however, is not (at least in my opinion. Ethics is a reification of morality, or an attempt to control it / understand it. Ethics is a human construct, and so is by nature subjective.

[Boojatta]

37. Two issues: thread topic and category #2

If, on the other hand, you do not think my categories are good, you need to attack them more directly. Say what is wrong, giving examples and proof to back up your reasoning. Also, give your own schema to define the way the universe works.

This thread is for people to discuss the reasoning that you put forward. Why would you expect me to post messages in this thread that "define the way the universe works"?

#2. Ideas/concepts. These are mental, and are directly connected to whether a set of facts exists or not. I have an IDEA of Bob the striped spotted dragon. If such a thing exists in a cave on pluto, then my idea is a true (ie: factually based) idea, whether or not I can prove it. If there is IN FACT no such creature at such a spot, then my idea is FALSE (not based on fact).

Given an actual drawing of a circle, do you agree that it is possible to measure the circumference and diameter precisely enough to confirm that the circumference is more than twice the diameter and less than four times the diameter?

Suppose a person says, "If we had a drawing of a perfect circle and if we could measure the circumference and diameter precisely enough to calculate the value of the 1,699,930th digit in the decimal expansion of the ratio of the circumference to the diameter, then we would obtain the digit zero."

Is that person talking about a purely fictional scenario? If it is purely fictional, then could the 1,699,930th digit just as easily be said to have a value of four or six?

[Boojatta]

38. A simpler question

#2. Ideas/concepts. These are mental, and are directly connected to whether a set of facts exists or not. I have an IDEA of Bob the striped spotted dragon. If such a thing exists in a cave on pluto, then my idea is a true (ie: factually based) idea, whether or not I can prove it. If there is IN FACT no such creature at such a spot, then my idea is FALSE (not based on fact).

Suppose we had a drawing, on a perfectly flat surface, of a perfect triangle two sides of which are a horizontal line segment exactly one unit long and a vertical line segment exactly four thirds of a unit long. Suppose we could measure the length of the hypotenuse precisely enough to obtain 78,003 correct digits past the decimal point. Then we would find that the 78,000th digit past the decimal point is a six.

Is that a purely fictional scenario? If it is purely fictional, then could the 78,000th digit just as easily be said to be zero or nine?

[Strong Atheist]

55. A simpler answer:

sasquatch.

[Strong Atheist]

54. One issue:

If the sun was blue, would I still have to shave?!!?!?!??!??!??

[Boojatta]

39. A confusing discussion?

Simply put, in answer to ALL your questions, which in the previous thread and this thread seem to be just finding more examples to say "but what about this case? And what about this case? And this one? And this one?"

All of your cases fall into one of my three categories. ...

Category #1: Facts, or things-in-themselves, as we in philosophy like to say (I did not get into that before to avoid confusing the issue).

Did you deliberately present an oversimplified version of your reasoning in the hopes of avoiding the confusion that could be provoked by an accurate version of your reasoning? I can see that you would not wish to bother answering questions about an oversimplified version of your reasoning.

However, you wrote "Simply put, in answer to ALL your questions...", indicating that you are providing an answer to my questions.

Then you repeated the reasoning that provoked the questions.

However, you didn't repeat it exactly. You hinted that some changes should be made. "Facts" should be revised to "facts or things-in-themselves."

Do you intend to explain exactly what you mean by the term "things-in-themselves"?

Do you wish to maintain your original reasoning or revise it? If you wish to revise it, then will you simply hint at revisions that should be made or will you actually present your complete argument?

[Strong Atheist]

56. Confusing answer:

The square root of negative infinity.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

42. Whole flipping universe is subjective.

Spiritual truth is subjective. Either we can't know all, and so you cannot say that your belief is right while mine is wrong, or you CAN know, and then what becomes of this whole "holy mysteries" business? It's foolish to think that one belief system in right and others are wrong.

Life = subjective ambiguity.

[Boojatta]

45. What reason is there to believe that post 29 answers post 18?

From post 18: (slightly edited)

The description of category two is: thought/concept/idea. Might a single word be enough to express a given concept? For example, is money a concept? Is density (mass over volume) a concept?

Might several statements be required to express a given idea? For example, if someone has an idea for how to achieve some goal or an idea for a movie then is it possible that several statements might be required to describe the idea?

Would it be possible to describe category two so that it would be clear that what is in category two is a single statement rather than a part of a statement or a collection of many statements?

From post 29:

Simply put, in answer to ALL your questions, which in the previous thread and this thread seem to be just finding more examples to say "but what about this case? And what about this case? And this one? And this one?"

All of your cases fall into one of my three categories. (...)

Category #2: Ideas. Ideas/concepts. In the head, but they either accurately reflect reality (facts), or they don't.

What reason is there to believe that no moral statement falls into category two?

Introduction to some questions:

Suppose some organization runs periodic competitions involving some particular sport or game. Suppose coaches do not work for the organization that runs the competition. During a given competition, a coach works for a single competitor. The coach will work for other competitors in future. The coach's agreement with the customer/competitor is that a win by the customer/competitor will increase the coach's earnings. Also, a win will be documented and the coach's status as coach of a winner will be documented, so a win will help the coach get customers in future.

Suppose a coach notices the coach's customer deliberately violating some rule of the competition. During the next intermission, the coach has a private discussion with the customer/competitor and tells the customer/competitor that the coach noticed the violation. The coach tells the customer/competitor that it is unethical for the customer/competitor to do that.

Question: which of the following are possible ways for the coach to continue the discussion?

(1) Tell the customer that it is nevertheless likely to help the customer win. Advise the customer to continue to violate the rules.
(2) Teach the customer some slightly different way of violating the rules, a way that is less likely to be detected than what the customer was doing.
(3) Tell the customer that the coach is terminating the coaching agreement with the customer.
(4) Tell the customer that the coach will report to the organization the next violation that the coach notices.

If to assert that the customer/competitor did something unethical is to express an emotion, then what is the emotion that is expressed?

Now, suppose the coach notices the coach's customer using a strategy or tactic that is completely within the rules, but that the coach thinks will prevent the customer/competitor from winning.

If all coaches express disapproval when they observe what seems to them to be an ineffective strategy or tactic of a customer, then can we conclude that "ineffective tactic or strategy" is not an idea or concept (category #2), but is actually an emotion (category #3)?

[Strong Atheist]

46. What reason is there to believe

that if pigs could fly, and trees could talk, the price of tea in china would change, huh? Ever think about THAT?

[Boojatta]

61. What would Kafka think?

If rocks could sing, would cars taste good?

If rocks could sing, then someone who lives near the sea might pick up a rock from the beach and use it as an alternative to a car radio. If the rock had sea salt on it, then someone licking the inside of the car might taste the saltiness of the rock. Someone who is suffering from a salt deficiency might consider the taste to be good.

[Boojatta]

62. Does anyone have any comments to contribute to this thread? e.o.m.

[PabloLego]

66. definition of ethics needed...

but I'm too late for this discussion :-( It's a good'n!

"The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior."

I've found that while many here provide examples of behaviour they find objectionable as an example of why ehtics are or are not subjetive, I found no agreed upon definition of 'ethics' so I supplied one above from the Internet Dictionary of Philosophy. The sticky bit is of course the last part about right and wrong, which relativists cannot except as an absolute guiding principle. Situation ethics is of course as 'valid' a system of ethics as any other, but is it good? Many people here have made the value judgement that Situation Ethics is better than say the Christian moral philosophy...okay but why? WHY is that better and what is your basis for making that judgement? It does allows a large degree of behavioural freedom, but I think as a society-wide system would degenerate into the practice of might makes right very quickly.

[Boojatta]

67. Attention people who have not previously participated in this thread!

This might be more amusing than serious. Have fun with it.
Suppose some methodology includes rules.

Example #1: Some manufacturing process may call for something to be heated to a temperature within some specified range of temperatures and kept within that range for some specified length of time.

Example #2: A company may require its employees to be tested for drug use.

Example #3: The law in some jurisdiction may specify a maximum amount of alcohol in the blood of someone who is operating a motor vehicle.

What category do rules fall into? Does it depend on whether or not the rules are about the treatment of people?

These questions seem (to me) to be worth repeating. The questions are for those who accept the assumption that there are three categories:

Category one: facts. Category two: thoughts/concepts/ideas. Category three: emotions/opinions.

[Crunchy Frog]

68. I found a really excellent essay that deals with exactly this issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/crisis/05/039_ep.html

A defense of moral relativism, it argues that, while there is a genuine basis to morality, all morality is by necessity relative and situational, and that moral absolutism is a functional impossibility. I can't find a thing in this essay that I disagree with.

I'm posting a few snippets from it, and hope someone will bother to read them and comment.

The moral relativism that I will present affirms and defends ethical standards and moral conduct. It does not, as the Pope accuses, " oneself be tossed and swept along by every wind of teaching." And it most emphatically does not assert that "there's no right or wrong." The relativism that I will defend denies that there are simple, inviolable, absolute rules of conduct.

<snip>

And so on, with the other Commandments. The variety of particular morally significant circumstances that all believers will encounter in the course of their lives is virtually infinite, while each of these Ten Commandment is brief, singular and abstract. When do these Commandments "command," and when are they inapplicable? It depends. In other words, morality – the particular application of abstract rules - is "situational," "contextual," "a function of the state of the system." Which is to say, relative.

<snip>

Empathy and benevolence give rise to an acknowledgment that others have rights and duties equal to one's own, and thus are entitled to equal respect. This acknowledgment provides the basis of "the Golden Rule" – a moral precept found in all the great world religions. When we see ourselves as equals in a community of equals, with basic rights no greater or less than those of the others, we are able to assume the perspective of a benevolent but unbiased observer of that community – what philosophers call "the moral point of view." From this perspective, moral quandaries may be readily resolved – the same quandaries that are insoluble from the egocentric point of view preferred by regressives and celebrated by Ayn Rand and her disciples.

<snip>

To sum up: the Good Lord has not given us clear, simple, unambiguous and absolute rules to live by. Instead, we are called upon to develop both the moral stamina to choose good over evil, and the moral intelligence to choose wisely when confronted with competing goods, or with competing unavoidable evils. This is an enterprise that requires virtues that are more ennobling than simple, blind obedience - virtues such as courage, wisdom, and benevolence. Following the teaching and example of Jesus of Nazareth, and in our time, of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, this concept of morality supplants the ancient legalisms of the Old Testament with an ethic of love, available and appealing to men and women of good will everywhere, of whatever religious tradition - or of no religious tradition.

I've been meaning for a long time to post a link to it in this thread, but then I keep forgetting about it and it keeps disappearing off the page. Thanks for kicking it up again.:D

[Boojatta]

70. Comments based on my first impression

The moral relativism that I will present affirms and defends ethical standards and moral conduct. It does not, as the Pope accuses, " oneself be tossed and swept along by every wind of teaching." And it most emphatically does not assert that "there's no right or wrong." The relativism that I will defend denies that there are simple, inviolable, absolute rules of conduct.

Emphasis on the word "simple" was added by me. Do you agree that anyone who believes that there have been and will be no miracles will agree that there are inviolable, absolute rules of physics? Many people would deny that the actual laws of nature are simple. Even those who claim that the actual laws of nature are simple (and in some sense they are right), will likely acknowledge that those simple laws are in fact unknown and that a great deal of study is required to acquire a solid grasp of the mathematical apparatus needed to formulate today's best approximation of those simple laws.

Now, a comment on the style of the article. The article ends with these words that Crunchy Frog quoted:

To sum up: the Good Lord has not given us clear, simple, unambiguous and absolute rules to live by. Instead, we are called upon to develop both the moral stamina to choose good over evil, and the moral intelligence to choose wisely when confronted with competing goods, or with competing unavoidable evils. This is an enterprise that requires virtues that are more ennobling than simple, blind obedience - virtues such as courage, wisdom, and benevolence. Following the teaching and example of Jesus of Nazareth, and in our time, of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, this concept of morality supplants the ancient legalisms of the Old Testament with an ethic of love, available and appealing to men and women of good will everywhere, of whatever religious tradition - or of no religious tradition.

However, the article begins with this:

Shortly before he was elected Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger gave a homily at mass, in which he warned against Marxism, liberalism, atheism, agnosticism and relativism. "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism," he said, "whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along by every wind of teachings, looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards."

The Pope's condemnation of relativism strikes a responsive note among the conservative Protestants of the religious right. For example, Jerry Falwell writes:

"Our nation's schools have replaced God with moral relativism and situational ethics... (Our) children learn that there are no absolute truths, no moral authorities, no governing principles to guide their behavior."

Ryan Dobson puts it much more directly. "Moral relativism," he writes, is "the notion that there's no right or wrong."

If you enter the words "moral relativism" and "religious right" in Google, you will get almost 29,000 hits. Having examined a few dozen articles so listed, I can report that there is one sentiment that clearly unites all religious right opinions of moral relativism that I encountered: they are against it. But while the religious right is quick to apply moral relativism as an epithet to all kinds of evils of modernism, secularism, and liberalism, the right is apparently reluctant to define it.

Someone who knows nothing about the religions of the world today might conclude that the Pope and conservative Protestants of the religious right rely on the Old Testament as their main source of moral guidance.

[cosmik debris]

69. It is far to simple;

My ethics are different from other people's ethics.

Therefore ethics are subjective.

If ethics were objective, there could be no differences in ethics.

[Boojatta]

72. If an inherently tricky problem is assigned to some people...

then different people might arrive at different solutions. However, can you conclude that there must necessarily be more than one correct solution to the problem?

(Clarification: Some problems are tricky only because of the way the problems have been put into words. Those problems are not "inherently tricky.")

[cosmik debris]

73. Nothing tricky about it.

Mutually exclusive ethical values cannot both be objectively right.

For example, Vegans say it is bad to eat animals. I say it is good to eat animals.

You can't show that one of us is wrong because good and bad are value judgments not absolute values.

Can you state one ethical value that is absolutely objective?

[Boojatta]

74. There do exist tricky problems. There's nothing tricky about what?

For example, Vegans say it is bad to eat animals.

Do you believe that is true by definition of the word "vegan"? Isn't it possible for a given vegan to suspect that it might be wrong to eat animals and to act on that suspicion?

I say it is good to eat animals.

Do you intend to say that it is actually good rather than merely "not wrong"? For example, is someone who eats a lot of animals comparable to a heroic crime-fighter? Do you place any restrictions on the kind of animal? Is it good to eat chimpanzees and dolphins? If some people deliberately inflicted as much pain as possible on the animals during the process of killing them, then would it be good to decide to eat the meat, knowing that you or someone else would have to pay those people for it?

You can't show that one of us is wrong because good and bad are value judgments not absolute values.

You can't show that Goldbach's conjecture is true and you can't show that Goldbach's conjecture is false. Are you sure that the known axioms of mathematics are sufficient to either prove it or disprove it? Would you claim that Goldbach's conjecture is neither true nor false, but meaningless?

Can you state one ethical value that is absolutely objective?

I'm not sure what you mean. I could try to state a true principle of ethics. Of course I would have to formulate it carefully to make it water-tight, so to speak. That could require some preliminary stipulation of how ambiguous words are to be interpreted. Would it be worth the trouble?

[cosmik debris]

75. You answer questions with questions

But you essentially enforced my point that there can be no objective standard of ethics.

[Boojatta]

76. If you really think that, then at least one of us has misunderstood my post.

But you essentially enforced my point that there can be no objective standard of ethics.

The simplicity of that statement suggests that the title of this thread should be rewritten. It seems rather obvious that there can be an objective system of ethics. The question is whether or not a given objective system of ethics is actually correct. However, from the point of view of those who deny that it means anything to say that a given system of ethics is correct or incorrect, there doesn't seem to be a danger of being wrong. From their point of view, what is the danger? Is it the danger of wasting time studying what might turn out to be merely a completely arbitrary human fabrication?

I presume that you in fact have some notions of ethics and that you do not deliberately do things that you consider to be unethical. So it would be possible to attempt to clarify your own notions of ethics. I suppose you could protest on the grounds that you might be wrong, but you can't protest on these grounds if you deny that there is any right or wrong to the matter. Perhaps you could protest that some person might think that you are wrong. However, it seems that you have already decided that such a person is naive and mistaken in thinking that it is possible to be wrong about such a thing.

[cosmik debris]

78. I asked you to state an objective ethical standard

You vacillated and implied that it would depend on subjective definitions of ambiguous words--and that it was not worth the effort.

From that I conclude two things.

1) Your ethical standard is not objective and,

2) This thread is not worth the effort.

[Boojatta]

79. You have misinterpreted my words.

Here's what you actually asked:

Can you state one ethical value that is absolutely objective?

Here's what you most recently claimed:

I asked you to state an objective ethical standard

Are those equivalent? I don't have a clear enough idea of what either of them means to definitely assert that they aren't equivalent, but I also would not normally assume that they are equivalent.

You vacillated and implied that it would depend on subjective definitions of ambiguous words--and that it was not worth the effort.

Here's what I actually wrote (labels added now):

#1: I'm not sure what you mean. #2: I could try to state a true principle of ethics. #3: Of course I would have to formulate it carefully to make it water-tight, so to speak. That could require some preliminary stipulation of how ambiguous words are to be interpreted. #4: Would it be worth the trouble?

#1. Indicates that it might be a good idea for you to clarify what you want before I put a lot of effort into trying to provide it for you.

#2. Indicates what I might try to do for you. Perhaps you think it's no different from what you requested. Perhaps you think that it might not be what you want, but perhaps it's not clear enough for you to make that determination. Perhaps you are confident that it's not what you want.

#3. Whatever it is that you have been requesting, you want it to be written in the English language, right? In contexts where it's important to be careful, ordinary words are often used in carefully delimited senses. I'm not going to write something and then later pull the rug out from under you by telling you that the words have special meanings and that I can't tell you exactly what those meanings are. I would begin by introducing the words that are needed and by introducing stipulative definitions for those words. Do you think that specialized dictionaries for law, medicine, mathematics, etc. are merely part of a scheme to sell things that people have no use for?

#4. The question labelled #4 is not a rhetorical question. Any statement that anyone makes can be easily contradicted. For example, if I say that there are infinitely many prime numbers, you can say "No, there are only finitely many prime numbers." If I present a proof that there are infinitely many prime numbers, then you can simply deny that the axioms are true. If you won't accept the axioms, then I can't persuade you that the theorem is true. Now, you can yourself put forward a few short sentences to justify your claim. You can say that for metaphysical reasons, there can be only finitely many existents. (If you want more, go look it up. There's a philosophical position called "strict finitism.") You won't persuade serious students of number theory. Nor will Young Earth Creationists persuade serious geologists, astronomers, paleontologists, etc. However, you and they will be free to maintain whatever claims you wish to maintain.

[cosmik debris]

80. We seem to agree on one thing

It is not worth the effort.

[Boojatta]

81. "Mutually exclusive ethical values cannot both be objectively right."

Do you agree that different ratings of the quality of a particular move in a game of chess cannot both be objectively right?

Develop a scale for rating the quality of a chess move, say from zero to ten. If two chess experts watch a game of chess and rate all of the moves, will their ratings of all the moves be identical? If the ratings aren't identical, then can you conclude that the quality of moves in chess is subjective? If you reach that conclusion, then what do you think determines whether the game is a win for white, a win for black, or a draw?

Here's a link to a message that goes into more detail on this kind of thought experiment:

A thought experiment

[cosmik debris]

82. No Thank you

You seem intent on dissecting every word of every phrase of every sentence and then changing the subject and talking about something else.

Dissect this: I have never seen an objective ethical standard articulated in concrete terms.

If you wish to articulate such a standard, please do. If not, we have nothing more to discuss.

[Boojatta]

83. Please note the thread title.

There is reasoning that is intended to support the conclusion "ethics is subjective." You can yourself put forward such reasoning. (I believe that you have already done so.) You can find such reasoning that others have put forward. The purpose of this thread is to discuss such reasoning.

and then changing the subject and talking about something else.

I was examining your reasoning. Perhaps I assumed that you were applying very general principles. Perhaps you were applying principles that aren't very general. There's no way to know until you present your arguments with more clarity.

Dissect this: I have never seen an objective ethical standard articulated in concrete terms.

You also haven't seen inventions that haven't yet been invented. That doesn't imply that everything that can be invented has already been invented.

[Brentos]

84. I'll try! :-)

For fun, (I'm enjoying the thinking this is causing me here)

I would posit that stealing the bread is universally objectively unethical.

The response I've seen discusses the situational issues around starving, homeless, etc.

But, what if pure greed (the kind that creates a society where some go hungry) itself is unethical, then that can force someone into the unethical position of stealing the bread because they are starving. It doesn't make the act of stealing correct (it is still unethical), but explains it and makes many people understand why they stole their bread (Javert from Les Ms. representing the pure ethical force and what happens when understanding and leniency and forgiveness are ignored).

So my thinking here is that ethics can be universal, but layers of unethical issues can force unethical states that could be forgiven situationally if other in the society can agree that this unethical act was the result of unethical acts outside of this persons control.

Thoughts?

[Meshuga]

85. But then we get into the...

...problem of justifying a wrong with another wrong. Steling someone's bread because "I am starving" might be something I do to feed my starving family but it is not ethical to starve the other guys family.

[cosmik debris]

86. Fair enough

You contend that stealing bread is ALWAYS ethically wrong; that no circumstance could ever exist in which stealing bread is ethically right.

I disagree. I contend that stealing bread from Hitler (an absurd example for effect only) could be ethically justifiable.

So we have two conflicting ethical positions. They are mutually exclusive. Neither of us can hold both positions, but either of us can hold either position. The basis for the position we hold is our own opinion of right and wrong. It is not an immutable law that is fixed in the human consciousness.

If you contend that ethics are objective, you must cite the universal source of the objective rule. If the objective rule is is not UNIVERSALLY accepted, then the resulting ethical standard is not universally objective.

The fact that there are two (or more) opinions proves that ethics are subjective. Those opinions of ethics that appear objective to you, appear subjective to those with different opinions.

[Boojatta]

87. There you go again.

The fact that there are two (or more) opinions proves that ethics are subjective.

Suppose two chess experts watch a game of chess and rate each move as follows: inadequate, satisfactory, good, or excellent. Suppose that a given move gets rated as inadequate by some chess experts and good by other chess experts. Alternatively, suppose that a given move gets rated as satisfactory by some chess experts and excellent by other chess experts. Would you be able to conclude that the quality of moves in chess is subjective? If you reach that conclusion, then what do you think determines whether the game is a win for white, a win for black, or a draw?

[cosmik debris]

88. I don't mean to be unkind

but I find it impossible to have a rational coherent conversation with you.

[Boojatta]

101. Do you have an opinion about the following post?

Chess

For example, do you think it is rational? Do you think it is coherent? For what it's worth, I consider it to be both rational and coherent, but I don't think that it brings the conversation to an end.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Boojatta]

103. This thread (see title) is for discussing reasoning.

Posted by cosmik debris:

The fact that there are two (or more) opinions proves that ethics are subjective.

Assumption: "there are two (or more) opinions"

Conclusion: "ethics are subjective"

Are there any other assumptions that are relied upon?

Are you simply asserting that you believe (but cannot explain why you believe) that the particular conclusion stated above follows from the particular assumption stated above?

Do you recall someone showing you some step-by-step reasoning that used the assumption to arrive at the conclusion, but have you forgetten what the reasoning consisted of?

[cosmik debris]

104. You don't get to dictate what I discuss.

Nor does your thread title limit my discussion. If that bothers you, you may ignore me.

I define ethics as opinions about what is right and wrong. Therefore ethics are, by definition, subjective just as all opinions are subjective.

If you offer another definition of ethics, (without obtuse analogies, conditional clauses and complex questions) then perhaps we can find something to discuss.

[Boojatta]

112. I don't have an ideological commitment to a particular definition.

However, I am willing to consider the following definition of ethics: the study of good and evil.

cosmik debris wrote:

I define ethics as opinions about what is right and wrong. Therefore ethics are, by definition, subjective just as all opinions are subjective.

What prevents you from defining physics as opinions about matter, energy, and so forth? With such a definition, you could conclude that physics is subjective. Perhaps you don't like that conclusion and your desire to avoid that conclusion affects your choice of definition? Do you wish to contrast the state of development of ethics at this moment in history with the state of development of physics at this moment in history?

[cosmik debris]

114. I don't mean to be unkind

but I find it impossible to have a rational coherent conversation with you.

[Boojatta]

105. Regarding what is allegedly not relevant.

If you have some reasoning to support a claim that something is not relevant, then I encourage you to present it.

In a discussion about reasoning and ethics, I may discuss chess. I may also use complex sentences and non-declarative sentences. I may use as many or as few analogies as I wish. I may ask questions. If that bothers you, you may ignore me.

[cosmik debris]

106. It is up to you to make yourself understood.

Since you fail so consistently, you might consider taking the advice of those who are successful.

[Boojatta]

107. There are worse things than not being understood.

Medieval heretics were punished because they were understood.

In any case, you have demonstrated neither that there is a significant number of people who do not understand me, nor that there is a better way for me to express the thoughts that I wish to express.

[cosmik debris]

108. I don't mean to be unkind

but I find it impossible to have a rational coherent conversation with you.

[Boojatta]

109. Nevertheless, you are motivated to keep trying.

It is praiseworthy for you to persist in pursuing praiseworthy goals.

[cosmik debris]

110. I thought I would give courtesy one more try

But obviously it was a waste of my time. So I'll go back to laughing at your threads and you go back to your stoner/addled writing style and we can both be happy.

[Boojatta]

111. It's good to hear that you value courtesy.

[Brentos]

90. What if...

You make a good point, but I would still say stealing from Hitler was wrong, but could be forgiven in lieu of circumstances.

If we go 'round and 'round enough, we will discover (unless you believe in a supreme being) that there is no objective anything.

So, ignoring the supreme being issue,

what if objectivity is subjective? Sort of a mass consciousness, what the majority believes is right is right, is where we end up, I think. And, this may be true, but then we get into the idea that slavery was ethically okay in this country for a while, and sacrificing your enemies to your god was morally right for a time. I'm not sure I buy that. The people of the time, at least the majority, probably bought the line of thinking, but I "feel" there is something bigger then all that. But, in lieu of a consensus on what the spaghetti monster writes with his alphabetty-spaghetti in stone being objective truth, where does this leave us morally? Do we go with mass rule? Do we stand up for what we each individually believe? What is ethical?

Great conversation!

[cosmik debris]

91. Whether you place value on intended outcome or actual outcome

The value of an action (stealing bread from Hitler) is based entirely on what you believe about that action.

I could never accept an absolute objective standard of ethical behavior without a clearly acknowledged source for that standard. Since I don't buy into supreme being stuff, and since I know of no other objective source, I conclude that all evaluations of ethical standards are subjective, personal, and variable dependent on circumstances.

[Boojatta]

93. Some Questions

I could never accept an absolute objective standard of ethical behavior without a clearly acknowledged source for that standard. Since I don't buy into supreme being stuff, and since I know of no other objective source, I conclude that all evaluations of ethical standards are subjective, personal, and variable dependent on circumstances.

Your conclusion seems to rely on your beliefs about the concepts "objective standard", "ethics", and "supreme being." What are you assuming about those concepts to justify your conclusion?

In the past, copper conducted electricity better than iron. Do you believe that copper will conduct electricity better than iron in the future?

If you believe that underlying rules and patterns that described the behavior of the universe in the past will also describe the behavior of the universe in the future, then what is the source of your belief? Is it based on your past experience? What makes you think that your past experience is a guide to the future?

Is the following any more bizarre than what you wrote? If we assume that there are underlying rules and patterns to our universe that are unchanging, then we can conclude that if butterflies were sufficiently perceptive, then butterflies would know deep down that they don't belong in our universe.

[Boojatta]

94. Attempt to understand and analyze an argument

I could never accept an absolute objective standard of ethical behavior without a clearly acknowledged source for that standard.

It's not clear what you mean by "source." When you are trying to decide whether or not to accept something, when do you require a "source"?

Since I don't buy into supreme being stuff (...)

Is this just about you? Alternatively, are you putting forward an argument that depends on the assumption that there is no supreme being? How likely is it that you would carefully read a thread in this forum that began with the words "assume that there is a supreme being"?

and since I know of no other objective source (...)

If you don't know of something, then are you entitled to conclude that it doesn't exist? How do you know that there isn't some kind of a source for objective ethics that is not a hypothetical supreme being? Also, is a hypothetical supreme being the only source of objective things? Are you suggesting that not only is ethics not objective, but absolutely nothing whatsoever is objective?

I conclude that all evaluations of ethical standards are subjective, personal, and variable dependent on circumstances.

Okay, that's your conclusion. This thread is about various arguments that people put forward in a serious attempt to support that conclusion. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the arguments.

Regarding the alleged need for a "source", consider this:

For a long time it was an open problem to find an elementary proof of the prime number theorem (“elementary” meaning “not involving complex analysis”). Finally Erdős and Selberg found such a proof.

From:
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/PrimeNumberTheorem.html

Perhaps you use a credit card and assume that, when you use it, your credit card information is transmitted securely. Many encryption methods depend upon number theory. So this topic is potentially relevant to your life. Is number theory that is generally accepted by experts something that should actually be accepted?

The above quotation mentions complex analysis. What's the benefit of a proof that doesn't depend on complex analysis? Is complex analysis a controversial branch of mathematics that might be discovered to be fatally flawed? Perhaps complex analysis simply depends upon some assumptions that so-called "elementary" proofs do not depend upon. Do you accept the assumptions that "elementary proofs" rely upon? Do you accept complex analysis? Do you need a source for the assumptions?

[Az]

71. It is largely subjective but with a pull to objective

We are a social species. That is we are wired to cooperate with one another. Literally speaking if we didn't our species would die. Our brains simply put are designed to notice other humans and be concerned for them. We even have specific neurons dedicated to this task.

Its not that we are psychic or anything like that. Its simply that we internalize what we see happening to others or what others are doing. Mirror Neurons operate such that anything we see we imagine ourself doing. This is why when you see someone hit in the head or kicked down below you wince in pain as well. Its because your nervous system has reacted as if it really happened to you.

Due to this combination of factors (social critters and internalized sense of others) we are empathetic to what happens to others. As we would not want certain things to happen to us we project this onto others and assume they would not want it either. This is an evolutionarily initiated basis of morality. It is the base. The objective standard. From here we use our capacity to learn and understand to create subjective and socially derrived notions of morality.

The vast bulk of our moral and ethical codes are based on this higher order learned understanding of social interaction. But the foundation. The place where it all starts from is truly objective in that it is derrived by our biological natures.

[nannah]

89. and is that biological based element

expressed through our "instinct for survival"?


which i believe, is disrupted by cultural imperaitives toward greed, competition, and magical thinking at the cost of cultural imperatives toward observation, cooperation, and interdepence of which you speak.

[Az]

92. No, not at all

Survival may be the impetus that evolution utilized to leverage it in. But the biological aspect is our learning nature. We learn. We learn from each other. The means by which we learn is the wiring within our brain that connects us to one another. It is this that forms the basis of our social structure.

This is experienced as a sense of connection between individuals. We suffer when those we associate with ourselves suffer.

[Boojatta]

95. One aspect of the "three categories" argument

From post 30 of this thread:

To reiterate my system and where ethics falls on it:

#1. There are physical things (and energy, interacting through time and space. This constitutes "facts" that can in theory be observed and tested in reproducible or verifiable ways, even if they can not in practice (example: there may or may not be a green striped purple spotted dragon named "Bob" in a cave on Pluto. We can not determine the truth or falsehood of this, but it either IS the case, or IS NOT the case, and thus falls under the physical facts/not facts category.)

#2. Ideas/concepts. These are mental, and are directly connected to whether a set of facts exists or not. I have an IDEA of Bob the striped spotted dragon. If such a thing exists in a cave on pluto, then my idea is a true (ie: factually based) idea, whether or not I can prove it. If there is IN FACT no such creature at such a spot, then my idea is FALSE (not based on fact).

#3. Emotions, likes/dislikes/ethics. These things are all subjective preferences that are not directly connected to whether or not something is a fact.

The bolding was added by me to emphasize some clues that support my suspicion that theoretical constructs of physical science are being placed in the category "fact" and all other things, whether or not they might actually be facts, are being excluded.

For example, we see light. Light is a form of energy. However, there are forms of energy that we can detect only if specialized equipment is used. How do we know that a particular piece of equipment is not occasionally giving information that is either very inaccurate or in fact completely incorrect? We rely on a number of assumptions. We need to assume that nothing is interfering with the device. (For a trivial example, consider what happens if we don't realize that our compass is near something that happens to be magnetic.) We need to know about the materials the device is made from. We need to understand how the device functions: it's overall structure, the main components, how the components interact with each other, etc. We also need to rely upon some scientific theory. For example, we cannot assume that a thermometer gives accurate temperature measurements at all the temperatures within a specified range of temperatures unless we know that, within that range, a substance expands and contracts in a way that depends in a simple linear way upon the temperature.

Now, if post 30 of this thread means what any ordinary reader thinks it means, then there are a variety of facts that can be stated that have nothing to do with physics, chemistry, etc. For example, we can identify a particular occurrence of a particular word in that post and identify the part of speech. For example, in the sentence "I have an IDEA of Bob the striped spotted dragon", "I" is a pronoun, "have" is a verb, and "spotted" is an adjective. If I were to say that I spotted a typographical error, then I would be using "spotted" as a verb. These are facts, not mere preferences and not mere emotions.

Alternatively, post 30 might actually be based on a secret code. The intended meaning might be completely different from what an ordinary reader would think it means.

It would be possible for a member of a criminal organization to send, to another member, a message that looks like this: "Joe swam for 15 minutes. Jane walked for 30 minutes. Roger studied for 5 minutes." Each name of a person might actually be a code for an activity and each verb might actually be a code for a particular person.

[Boojatta]

96. Testable "in theory." Historical events. Details and their significance.

From post 30 of this thread:

To reiterate my system and where ethics falls on it:

#1. There are physical things (and energy, interacting through time and space. This constitutes "facts" that can in theory be observed and tested in reproducible or verifiable ways, even if they cannot in practice (...)

How far does the phrase "in theory" allow us to extrapolate beyond what is actually testable? Suppose you catch a glimpse of a meteorite falling from the sky and you find it, still hot, somewhere not far from where you were when you first saw it. Is that a reproducible fact? If people don't believe your story and they think that you simply bought the meteorite from someone, then is there any way that your story can be "in theory" verified?

Now suppose someone suspects that it would be possible for him or her to start a grocery store. There are various factors that might contribute to the success or failure of the enterprise. For example, surely the location matters. The following might also be important: what specifically will be offered for sale, the prices, advertising, store layout, how well store employees do their jobs, etc.

If a grocery store begins operations and it initially falls short of the owner's expectations, then is there a reproducible or verifiable way, in theory, to determine what are the main reasons that it has fallen short of the owner's expectations?

Suppose we show some multi-page flyer to a potential business partner or potential investor. Is it okay for that person to say that the flyer contains interesting and amusing stories related to the products sold, visually appealing illustrations, etc? Alternatively, is that person entering the "nonfact" realm by making that kind of statement? To remain in the realm of fact, should people discuss details, but never discuss the significance of those details? What is the purpose of identifying and articulating a collection of factual details?

Let's suppose that an employee has been engaging in unethical conduct. Is that a meaningless supposition? It seems, on the contrary, to be a meaningful supposition. It would be possible to monitor the locations and motions of an employee's face, hands, arms, and legs. If these locations and motions were described as long sequences of numbers, then we would have meaningless information unless we knew the meaning of those numbers.

Did the employee pick up a can of soup and put it where it belongs after it had been inadvertently knocked off the bottom shelf by a careless customer? Or did the employee open the cash register, look around to see whether anyone was watching, and then slip some money into his or her pocket? The exact trajectories of the employee's hands and arms probably don't matter. It doesn't matter whether the hand holding a can of soup goes no higher than two inches above the shelf or whether it goes three inches above the shelf. The important point is that the can of soup, by some path, goes where it belongs.

[Boojatta]

97. Kick for reference purposes. e.o.m.

[Random_Australian]

98. Given reality is subjective as far as any of us know it, and that ethics are part of that reality,

of course.

[Odin2005]

99. Ethics must be objective or else you are left with meaningless relativism and nihilism.

I myself am a rule consequentialist.

[Random_Australian]

100. Not so. There is a difference between "views are subjective" and "views are equal"

[Exiled in America]

113. Not "subjective" - context sensitive. (explanation)

Right up front I'll say that this may end up really just be a different way to say the same thing. But for me, I find it helpful to distinguish how "subjective" is usually meant and what I think "context sensitive" should mean.

Every moral question is subjective by its very nature, insofar that it is abstract. It's not like asking, "what is the chemical composition of table salt?" That question has a concrete answer, based on imprical data.

But the problem is most people in casual philosophical discussion equate "subjective" with the onxy-moronic-ally named "Absolute Relativism." AR being the notion that their is absolutely no objective truth of any kind, period.

So this creates a bunch of problems. There are pretty compelling logical arguments against AR. But then you face the opposite side of the coin if you will. People often tend to assume that if your not going to embrace pure relativism, then you be default except the idea of at least some inflexible moral absolutes that can never, ever change under any circumstance.

I do believe this polarization of the subject is a problem. I feel like there is a fairly simple way to approach ethics, by means of what I call (and I am not implying I'm the first person to use this term) "Contextual Absolutes."

The idea is this - if we try reasonable people are potentially likely to be able to believe in at least a handful of fundamental underlying principles governing ethical decision making. By principle I mean a heuristic. I casually define "Heuristic" as a good rule of thumb that is usually, but potentially not always true. Its so regularly true however, that it becomes more problematic not to accept the principle as principle.

Sometimes there are some basic principles that really do seem to be absolute. For example, I have yet to think of a scenario in which rape could be considered morally right (which is not the same thing as morally "excusable" - thus eliminating the relevance of a counter-argument involving some little known undeveloped isolated culture where people regularly rape other people as part of their rich cultural heritage. A little sarcasm there, because I've had to deal with that counter-argument before.)

However - even in the fact of principles that certainly appear to be "always true" it is still perfectly fine to concede that "but perhaps there is some context or variable that I am unfamiliar with." The principle still works. It's still a valid foundation for ethical decision making. Under this approach, a principle does not need to be "absolute" - it just needs to be sound.

Ethical principles are likely based in several things. So if you have as an ethical principle that you shouldn't rape people, and someone asks "why shouldn't we rape people?" one part of the answer would stem from an incredibly complicated discussion about human happiness, mental, physical and emotional health, and general well-being. But the short (and frankly totally defensible) answer is: because raping people works against human hapiness and health.

Now, if you seriously want to get so solipsistic as to ask "why should happiness be a goal?" then PM me. For me, it is tedious to spend hours on something so silly. I'm perfectly fine accepting THAT as an assumed premise and moving forward and building an ethical system based on that assumed premise.

SO -- you have these underlying governing principles, a series of sound heuristics, and then you face concrete situations that create ethical dillemas. Should I or shouldn't I do x thing? The answer ought to be, I should do whatever thing will best honor these understood ethical principles. What if two or more principles are in conflict? Then there should be a prioritization, which really isn't that difficult to do and to defend, but its too long to do here. A lesser principle should be sacrified for a greater one.

But here's the issue. ALL of this is relative to context. So that way that a person acts in best keeping with underlying ethical principles is RELATIVE depending on the concrete particulars of any given situation. The specific context and all of its variables may potentially make a "good choice" in that context completely different from a "good" choice in another context. So for example, we could imagine two scenarios wherein stealing was the right choice in the first and the wrong choice in the second, relative to their indvidual contexts, our understanding of underlying ethical principles, and rooted in our basic understanding of that which promotes human health and wellbeing.

However, having said that, contextual absolutism argues that when face with an ethical dillema, WITHIN the framework of a specific context, there *IS* and absolute right and wrong ethical choice.

It's an interesting structure in which one can still have some concrete capacity to think about "right" and "wrong" choices while at the same time accepting a reality in which a slew of variables makes any broader application of the concept of "absolutes" meaningless.