Grichnoch said:
Logiclul:
Let me ask you a few questions, to clarify what you are saying here.
1. At what point in life (after we become self-aware) do we start recognizing right and wrong? Is it when our parents tell us? Is it when we get disciplined for doing "wrong"? Is it when we are legally old enough to start having a responsibility to our respective government? From what you are saying, we should become aware of right and wrong when we DECIDE right and wrong, not when it is told us. Also, moral relativity dictates that since we are all different, we should be at best, reluctant, but in extreme cases absolutely refuse to obey any laws laid down by default. If we decide what is right and wrong, then it should vary from person to person, and why don't we all just say: "Heck with the government, I can drive as fast as I like."
2. At what point in history did civil governments arise and why? We know of capital punishment existing as far back as 6000 years ago. Capital punishment only exists to punish a wrong that everybody agrees is wrong. We have civil government to create a structured system of government, but why? Why should I obey the rules of the road, why should I pay taxes? Why should I not kill, or rape, or steal, or abuse? Why do people live by a standard that (if you are right, if morals are relative) we should all disagree on?
3. How did we come up with the idea that murder might be right or wrong? If morals are relative, murder shouldn't even come into the equation. We should just be able to go out and kill people helter skelter without any problem, and it should be a normal part of our life. If morals are relative, then we should even be talking about them, cause relative morals, are no morals at all. They would simply not exist. The very fact that we are talking about morals (relative or absolute) shows a natural tendancy to care, and that implies that there is a reason to care.
4. If MonkeyGH were to kill you to end this conversation, we know he would be arrested, charged, and convicted of murder, and be put on death-row, or get life (depending on where he lives). WHY? If it is morally alright to kill you, why would he be punished for it? The government would certainly disagree with you in saying it is alright. They would prosecute to the full extent, but based on what? An objective moral law.
5. Why are civil laws objective, but moral laws are subjective? A person with a high enough blood/alcohol content while driving will be arrested whether he is 4'1" and weighs 120 lbs or 7'0" and weighs 300 pounds. The authorities don't care about the individual human physiology. Their laws are objective, and absolute.
6. (This stems from #5) Why are the laws of the government absolute? The people who make the laws obviously agree that we need absolute values... but how did they get to that conclusion? Is it just random chance that created the 'urge' for our legislators to make laws and decide what is right and wrong? If that is the case, then it should not have happened. Because Rome did it, Greece did it, the Carolingians did it, England did it, America did it. Is that all random chance? NO! We looked at examples from history, to see how others did it WRONG, and then built from that!
7 (Last one) If morals are relative, why do we fight with people? If you believe that you are right, but you also believe that everyone else is right, why do you still argue and (either mentally or physically) fight with people? Don't tell me you don't, cause everybody does. But if everybody is right, why don't we all just get along? Because it is a logical fallacy. If you are right, then you think I am right too, and you also think that Muslims are right, and Hindus are right. But look at the problem there: Muslims believe that they are the only people who are right, which then excludes them from being right in your mind because that means that not everyone can be right. Well, what about hindus? They believe that you have to live a perfect life in order to advance higher into society. That makes them exclusivists and exludes them from being right in your mind. Take me, I think that there are moral absolutes... that makes me believe that you are wrong, and therefore you can't believe that I am right. All of a sudden you are the only person who can be right, cause if everyone else is, then you are automatically wrong. But think about it, if you are right again, then everyone else has to be right too, but that means that you have to exlude them for you to be right, and it starts the endless circle of a logical fallacy that can never ever work.
Interesting... so allow me to try to summarize your points:
It is not possible for morals to be based on experience because there must be a base of morals with which one learns at some point during their childhood (which obviously would throw us into a vicious circle if we believed that every human in mankind learned from their parents once we got to "the beginning").
You then decide, that if it seems no way for humans to have created morals, that society couldn't have either, and that then those laws hold no value and should not be served. So from that, all laws (which you say are objective) are meaningless.
Your final point is using a false premise, which as you might then imagine makes it flawed, so I cannot summarize it in any serious fashion. My response is as follows:
I begin by tackling your claim that it is impossible for humans to naturally come up with their own morals. It is human instinct (animal instinct, even) to protect the young. This is essential to all life, as one must protect their young in order to preserve the species, which is prime.
i: It is human instinct to protect the young, and thus doing so is of the utmost importance.
We then move from that and declare the following theorem:
p: Things which endanger and otherwise hurt the young are bad.
Now, we make set T of all things which are now bad and immoral to do. This set contains things such as murder and (later in society) drunk driving.
Set T is our basic moral principles of life. They are things which all parents possess to some degree (there are exceptions to this, however those cases are a completely different chain which we can safely ignore for now) and thus are things which every child gets exposed to and then learns.
So this is probably where you go: "Logiclul! You have just proven that there exist, at some point, morals which are objectively true!" To which I reply: "Grichnoch, no, we have done nothing of the sort! What we have done is prove that there are morals which are very likely to be subjectively true for humans."
You see, you learn of Set T, but that was an influence. There are many influences which one may have, and your reaction to those influences decide your morals (note: your REACTIONS decide your morals, thus it is in your individual hands to decide, and are thus not objectively and universally true). Many people go to church, where they teach Set T exhaustively, and have another set called C which has you adhering to the rules of the Church.
Many people will be (and have been) quick to point out that C and T are not the same Sets (only perhaps, members of the church will argue with those people). What is true, however, is that for the most part (and essentially this is exclusively true for roman times and times predating the Roman Empire) Set C was highly supportive of T. That is to say, that the canon of the church would not direct you away from the original teachings of T.
This is easy to consider, as those who founded the church, only had T to their name! But humans have independent minds, and will expand on their knowledge. This is what likely caused multiple churches (I try not to dabble in religion here. If I would, it may make my point much easier to prove, however that would be controversial and I wish for a surely agreeable decision), as people say "If T, then things which I will call C".
Now it should be easy to see that from that, people began to go "If C, then perhaps things such which I will call D". D being some form of law or idea, naturally, and as experiences began to happen, began to conflict with, perhaps, E. D and E both stem from T (making T an irrefutable point), but they seem to draw different conclusions (which is not unusual in logic).
Now to your final point. Your flawed premise is the following:
p2: If there is subjective morals, then all morals are surely conflicted by all.
Which, is not true, as it is extremely common for people to adhere to Set T, the set of all basic morals. That is because we are born with them, as proven above. This lets us restrict ourselves to the law, as we know that the law was decided by people who knew Set T, and that it is good to adhere.
That isn't to say, however, that subjective morals don't cause arguments! Look at abortion, at every medical ethics committee, murder; all of them are highly debated as there is moral friction between two sides. One which has stemmed so far from Set T to say X, and one to say Y.
There are two sides primarily on this argument, which shows that subjective morals still allow people to agree while also causing disagreements. The law is simply decided by majority. Just because the majority says some action M is moral, doesn't mean that it is. As the minority will say that M is not moral, thus making M a subjectively moral action, just like all actions.
Hopefully this has cleared up any questions you may have, but if not, feel free to let me know.
