I don't believe in ethics or morality.

[Stevil]

Interesting.  I'd consider "subjective" to be a useless modifier, since my belief is that morality is subjective in nature.

There are many people whom think morality is objective, and for the purposes of this thread it became apparent for me to expose my understanding of subjective morality.

[Firebird]

There is no such thing as objective morality. Most Atheists would agree with this.

I don't think there is any such thing as subjective morality.

Morality is a human made concept.

Think of it like this.
1. If a male kills another male so that he can take his female partner for his own sexual endevours would this be immoral?
2. If a male kills a female's offspring so that she will become free for him to procreate with would this be immoral?
3. If a female kills her lover and eats him, would this be immoral?

As you have probably guessed by now, the above are examples of common behaviours of various non human animals. Why if other animals can take actions and simply be acting in a way that is natural to them, to their species then why do we not classify them as immoral where-as we would classify humans as being immoral?

I'd like to go back to this statement so I can further understand what you're trying to say. You say that you don't believe in the idea of objective or subjective morality or ethics. I'm not sure if I agree with you, but I can see why you might believe it. However, are you saying society would be better off without an attempt at subjective morality, such as outlawing the behavior you listed above? It sounded like that, but I'd like to be sure before commenting further.

[Stevil]

I don't think it's worthless just because we make it up.  Mathematics and art are abstractions but still useful.  Ecurb illustrated how ethics within the legal profession is useful, if there'd been a bit more in the financial industry it could have saved us much strife.  People feel things are wrong and they find agreement and share an idea of what's just.  There are problems, oppression by the majority, inflexible ancient religious laws, prejudice or bastardry (malicious or cruel behaviour, this may not be a word used in international English).  It's a messy business, application of one principle conflicts with another but it's the only system we have.  Just as a bad law doesn't justify giving up on all law morality is indispensable, well I don't want it dispensed with anyway.  Guidelines help to prevent conflict, conflict bad.

I'm not saying that it is worthless because of its conceptual nature but worthless because as an oxymoron it cancels itself out.

If you cast away your ideas of morality you will be much better off and so will society.

Morality is inherently objective
When you vocalise that something is moral or immoral you are implying that morality is objective.
e.g. To state "It was wrong of him to cheat on his girlfriend", if you spoke this statement out loud, you are assuming that this is an objective wrong and hence you are justified in publicly judging this person.
If someone asks you why it was wrong and you state because it is immoral then you would not have added any clarity to your position given that immoral and wrong mean exactly the same thing. Hence a public claim to something being immoral is a public claim to knowledge of an objective moral standard.

If you think morality is subjective and yet you publicly claim that something is immoral e.g. "It was immoral of him to cheat on his girlfriend" then your message is confusing to your audience. Your audience will assume you have made an objective moral claim whereas you were simply expressing your own opinion. With regards to subjective morality you could state "cheating on girlfriends is against my personal moral standard". This is OK to say, but does seem contradictory to what morality actually means. A better way to phrase it would be "cheating on girlfriends is against my personal values". IMHO this is a step in the right direction, and is a quick way to describe something to someone whom you don't want to bore with the details.

Personal values
Personal values are important, they are a guide to help you make decisions quickly without having to delve into heavily into the details. personal values are personal, they are a guide. What they are not is a static stance on what is right or wrong, they are not a basis from which to judge other people. Therefore personal values are not morals.

Law
Law is a way to encourage people to behave in certain ways, it is effectively a way of taking away people's decisions. It is also a way to justify dispensing consequences onto those that make decisions contrary to the law.
Law should never be based on subjective morality.
Whose morality are we to base it on? Just because person A thinks something is wrong does that mean it is wrong for all of us?
Of course law ought to be put in place to ensure a functioning and stable society, but beyond that, members of society should not have their ability to make decisions infringed upon.

Ethics
Ethics are based on morality.
"Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior"
"a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture"
Ethics assumes morality to be objective hence it is capable of defining rights and wrongs.
In my opinion when you have business ethics, medical ethics, legal ethics these are simply rules based on a person or persons opinion of what is right and wrong. They have come to the conclusion that they would like to push their own ideas of right and wrong onto other people. Just because they have chosen to call their defined rights and wrongs ethics, it doesn't mean that they are ethics.
In my opinion ethics are impossible, morality is impossible, there is no objective set of morals, no moral law maker. Existence and our universe is amoral, there is no cosmic justice for our actions, humans have simply dreamed up the concept of morality and most people have taken it on board and chose to use it as a vehicle for judging others, for dishing out consequences, for creating law and controlling other people.

We are much better off without morality and ethics, people ought to be taught to be more understanding, more accommodating of differences and less judgmental. We need to learn the place of government and law and ensure it is focused on a stable and functioning society rather than a controlled and oppressed society.

[Stevil]

I'd like to go back to this statement so I can further understand what you're trying to say. You say that you don't believe in the idea of objective or subjective morality or ethics. I'm not sure if I agree with you, but I can see why you might believe it. However, are you saying society would be better off without an attempt at subjective morality, such as outlawing the behavior you listed above? It sounded like that, but I'd like to be sure before commenting further.

It is about the reasoning behind laws.
Not for the goal of a moral society, but for the goal of a stable and functioning society.
If a law is unecessary for a stable and functioning society then that law should be removed.
e.g. Society functions and is stable with prostitution therefore we should not have a law against prostitution.
Society functions and is stable with abortions.
I have no doubt that society would be stable and would function with euthanasia... etc

[statichaos]

I don't think it's worthless just because we make it up.  Mathematics and art are abstractions but still useful.  Ecurb illustrated how ethics within the legal profession is useful, if there'd been a bit more in the financial industry it could have saved us much strife.  People feel things are wrong and they find agreement and share an idea of what's just.  There are problems, oppression by the majority, inflexible ancient religious laws, prejudice or bastardry (malicious or cruel behaviour, this may not be a word used in international English).  It's a messy business, application of one principle conflicts with another but it's the only system we have.  Just as a bad law doesn't justify giving up on all law morality is indispensable, well I don't want it dispensed with anyway.  Guidelines help to prevent conflict, conflict bad.

I'm not saying that it is worthless because of its conceptual nature but worthless because as an oxymoron it cancels itself out.

If you cast away your ideas of morality you will be much better off and so will society.

Morality is inherently objective
When you vocalise that something is moral or immoral you are implying that morality is objective.
e.g. To state "It was wrong of him to cheat on his girlfriend", if you spoke this statement out loud, you are assuming that this is an objective wrong and hence you are justified in publicly judging this person.
If someone asks you why it was wrong and you state because it is immoral then you would not have added any clarity to your position given that immoral and wrong mean exactly the same thing. Hence a public claim to something being immoral is a public claim to knowledge of an objective moral standard.

If you think morality is subjective and yet you publicly claim that something is immoral e.g. "It was immoral of him to cheat on his girlfriend" then your message is confusing to your audience. Your audience will assume you have made an objective moral claim whereas you were simply expressing your own opinion. With regards to subjective morality you could state "cheating on girlfriends is against my personal moral standard". This is OK to say, but does seem contradictory to what morality actually means. A better way to phrase it would be "cheating on girlfriends is against my personal values". IMHO this is a step in the right direction, and is a quick way to describe something to someone whom you don't want to bore with the details.

Personal values
Personal values are important, they are a guide to help you make decisions quickly without having to delve into heavily into the details. personal values are personal, they are a guide. What they are not is a static stance on what is right or wrong, they are not a basis from which to judge other people. Therefore personal values are not morals.

Law
Law is a way to encourage people to behave in certain ways, it is effectively a way of taking away people's decisions. It is also a way to justify dispensing consequences onto those that make decisions contrary to the law.
Law should never be based on subjective morality.
Whose morality are we to base it on? Just because person A thinks something is wrong does that mean it is wrong for all of us?
Of course law ought to be put in place to ensure a functioning and stable society, but beyond that, members of society should not have their ability to make decisions infringed upon.

Ethics
Ethics are based on morality.
"Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior"
"a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture"
Ethics assumes morality to be objective hence it is capable of defining rights and wrongs.
In my opinion when you have business ethics, medical ethics, legal ethics these are simply rules based on a person or persons opinion of what is right and wrong. They have come to the conclusion that they would like to push their own ideas of right and wrong onto other people. Just because they have chosen to call their defined rights and wrongs ethics, it doesn't mean that they are ethics.
In my opinion ethics are impossible, morality is impossible, there is no objective set of morals, no moral law maker. Existence and our universe is amoral, there is no cosmic justice for our actions, humans have simply dreamed up the concept of morality and most people have taken it on board and chose to use it as a vehicle for judging others, for dishing out consequences, for creating law and controlling other people.

We are much better off without morality and ethics, people ought to be taught to be more understanding, more accommodating of differences and less judgmental. We need to learn the place of government and law and ensure it is focused on a stable and functioning society rather than a controlled and oppressed society.

I disagree with your definition of morals as necessarily being imposed from outside (I find it to be ovelry narrow), but it's largely a semantic disagreement, and not worth debating.

[Stevil]

I disagree with your definition of morals as necessarily being imposed from outside (I find it to be ovelry narrow), but it's largely a semantic disagreement, and not worth debating.

It is much more than a semantic disagreement. The very core of debating morals is to keep them out of the law making process.

If you believe in subjective morality, then what makes you feel your morals are better than other peoples?
What makes you feel that law should be based on a person or a group's set of morals and hence be used to stop other people making their own subjective moral decisions as it relates to their own lives?

I have made a statement that I do not believe in morals, that I don't think they (what people perceive as morals) are useful for judging others or for law, that I think they are dangerous and lead to oppression and conflict.

These are my key points, rather than simply the difference between personal values and subjective morals. What you internally call something is somewhat beside the point, but how you externally use these becomes important

[statichaos]

It is much more than a semantic disagreement. The very core of debating morals is to keep them out of the law making process.

If you believe in subjective morality, then what makes you feel your morals are better than other peoples?

I'll assume that this is more than a rhetorical question, so I'll answer it:  I don't know for sure.  I do know that I find them workable.

What makes you feel that law should be based on a person or a group's set of morals and hence be used to stop other people making their own subjective moral decisions as it relates to their own lives?

I don't.

I have made a statement that I do not believe in morals, that I don't think they (what people perceive as morals) are useful for judging others or for law, that I think they are dangerous and lead to oppression and conflict.

Okay.

These are my key points, rather than simply the difference between personal values and subjective morals. What you internally call something is somewhat beside the point, but how you externally use these becomes important

I agree with that.

[Firebird]

Existence and our universe is amoral, there is no cosmic justice for our actions, humans have simply dreamed up the concept of morality and most people have taken it on board and chose to use it as a vehicle for judging others, for dishing out consequences, for creating law and controlling other people.

We are much better off without morality and ethics, people ought to be taught to be more understanding, more accommodating of differences and less judgmental. We need to learn the place of government and law and ensure it is focused on a stable and functioning society rather than a controlled and oppressed society.

Not saying I agree, but let's say hypothetically that you're right that there is no "cosmic justice for our actions". Hell, one reason I've decided that I'm an atheist is that I realized that were are a completely insignificant speck in the vast universe we occupy. So what? How does that conclusion lead to the premise that we're better off without the morals and ethics we have developed in our relatively short time in this universe? I would argue that since the nature of the universe is chaotic and naturally leads to entropy, we need to resist that urge if we are to function and thrive as a society. How can we do that if we do not agree on some form of shared values and responsibilities to each other, ie a system of ethics and morals?
My sense is that you resent how the idea of "morals" has been hijacked by people, and perhaps organized religion, to impose their views on other people. And you would be correct there. However, this does not mean we need to throw the idea of ethics and morality out the window. It does mean we need to continue to develop as a species and learn from our past mistakes, and further develop our sense of ethics and morality. That includes not imposing someone's religion on another person. To me, that is ethical.

The other problem I have is that there's no clear line between laws ensuring a "stable and functioning society" without some form of ethics. For example, laws against corruption in the business or political sphere, such as bribing politicians or kickbacks, are based on the idea of ethics. But they're also necessary for a stable and functioning society, for if people lose faith in their government and the business environment, it leads to instability.

The point is that we are attempting to advance as a species, which includes forming societies, and there is a need for ethics to further advance said society and species. Whether it's artificial or not is besides the point; it is necessary if we are to survive and thrive. Going against the natural order of the universe is a necessity.

[Stevil]

Not saying I agree, but let's say hypothetically that you're right that there is no "cosmic justice for our actions". Hell, one reason I've decided that I'm an atheist is that I realized that were are a completely insignificant speck in the vast universe we occupy. So what? How does that conclusion lead to the premise that we're better off without the morals and ethics we have developed in our relatively short time in this universe?

I am not saying that we are better off without morals because the universe is amoral. One does not lead to the other.

I am just stating that morals are a human made concept, they don't actually exist. Somehow in the development of the human mind we have invented this concept and most people believe in them. There is no proof of them, no evidence, but people are so used to the concept that they simply believe and the thought that they don't exist seem ridiculous to them.

I feel there is certainly a strong analogy with regards to belief in god. Another similarity is that people think belief in god or morals makes you a better person than if you don't believe in god or morals, which is an incorrect assumption. It is not god or morals that makes you behave socially well. You can cast aside both these beliefs and still be an exceptionally kind and compassionate person. There are christians who would tell some atheists that they are very christian like. I am sure a moral person could tell an amoral person that they are very ethical. Outwardly it is hard to tell the difference.

I feel if you replace morals with reason then you are doing yourself and society a favour. Belief in morals certainly causes oppression and conflict. It is because of morals that people feel they can judge others, they create a standard by which they feel others should live up to. The intolerance that this moral standard grows affects how people behave towards each other, in their judgmental ways they oppress each other and from this comes conflict.

I certainly feel that in order to be tolerant you must throw away your idea's of morality. Yeah, you might say to yourself that it is moral to be tolerant, but it is likely that you would conflict with your own morals when a person acts immorally, how can you be tolerant and yet be thinking that the other person is immoral at the same time? In someways it is like a christian saying they have no problem with gay people and yet stating that gay people are immoral sinners. Can you see that labeling someone as immoral is casting judgement and lacking tolerance?

It does mean we need to continue to develop as a species and learn from our past mistakes, and further develop our sense of ethics and morality. That includes not imposing someone's religion on another person. To me, that is ethical.

This makes me somewhat sad. I feel we ought to learn from our past mistakes and get rid of our belief in ethics and morality. This includes not judging people as good or bad, not judging actions as good or bad. To me, this is tolerance and freedom of choice. Diversity is a great thing and should be encouraged, not constraint by adherence to a perceived morality.

The other problem I have is that there's no clear line between laws ensuring a "stable and functioning society" without some form of ethics. For example, laws against corruption in the business or political sphere, such as bribing politicians or kickbacks, are based on the idea of ethics. But they're also necessary for a stable and functioning society.

So I presume that you would have no problems basing law on what is required for a stable and functioning society then. We could keep the laws against corruption in the business or political sphere because they bring us towards that goal.
But if we only focus on stable and functional society then you would find we would remove the laws against prostitution, against gay marriage, against polygomy, law would be consistent when it does not prosecute a person for cheating on their spouse, or for having sex outside of marriage. People of all religions could optionally choose to constrain themselves based on their own religious "morality" but would not desire to constrain others.
Society would be stable and functional and people would have the freedom to make their own decisions on matters that do not make society unstable or dysfunctional.

[Amicale]

This makes me somewhat sad. I feel we ought to learn from our past mistakes and get rid of our belief in ethics and morality. This includes not judging people as good or bad, not judging actions as good or bad. To me, this is tolerance and freedom of choice. Diversity is a great thing and should be encouraged, not constraint by adherence to a perceived morality.

I haven't commented on this thread yet because I guess I'm still trying to wrap my head around your arguments, but hey, I'm trying. What you said here is something I can at least ask more about, though. I agree on the not judging people as good or bad, because no one person is 100% everything. Where I get lost is when you say 'not judging actions as good or bad'. If certain actions which are detrimental to society for various reasons occur, what are we to judge them as? 'Detrimental' is just another way of saying 'unwanted' or 'bad for', really. I'm NOT willing to judge a rapist, murderer, child molestor, animal abuser etc as simply expressing their 'freedom of choice' and celebrating their 'diversity'. For me, the line I draw in the sand is "does what you're doing take advantage of another being while harming them physically, emotionally, or mentally". If so, I'd classify that as bad. I see it as wrong, 100% of the time, to harm a child in any way, shape, or form. If we just say 'well, we should be tolerant of someone's choice to do that', we've got a huge problem.

Also, as an aside, the values of tolerance and freedom of choice boil down to them being moral arguments. When you say 'tolerance, freedom of choice, and diversity are great things and should be encouraged' -- why should they? If ethics and morality don't exist, why are these particular values better than any others, and what gives them the right to trump other values -- say, selfishness?

Stevil, just so you know, I'm not trying to pick on you as a person or anything. Just trying to wrap my head around your arguments, and see if I can even try and see it from your perspective. Maybe we're talking past one another, I dunno.  ???

[Stevil]

I haven't commented on this thread yet because I guess I'm still trying to wrap my head around your arguments, but hey, I'm trying. What you said here is something I can at least ask more about, though. I agree on the not judging people as good or bad, because no one person is 100% everything. Where I get lost is when you say 'not judging actions as good or bad'.

Thanks for pointing this out, I need to know where I am losing you. I seem to be losing everybody and am struggling to find a connect where people can actually understand what I am saying here.

If certain actions which are detrimental to society for various reasons occur, what are we to judge them as?

Judge them as being dangerous for society. We need to protect ourselves and hence our society. We need laws to protect ourselves and our society.

'Detrimental' is just another way of saying 'unwanted' or 'bad for', really.

The word "bad" is ambiguous. In what context is something bad? What justification goes behind this label? What justification do you have for instigating a law taking this choice away from people?

What I would like to see is clear and specific justification, I would also like to see it focused on stable and functional society. If it is focused on your personal moral system then why would I be expected to buy into that? Why would I feel happy being forced to comply to your personal moral system?

I'm NOT willing to judge a rapist, murderer, child molestor, animal abuser etc as simply expressing their 'freedom of choice' and celebrating their 'diversity'.
For me, the line I draw in the sand is "does what you're doing take advantage of another being while harming them physically, emotionally, or mentally". If so, I'd classify that as bad. I see it as wrong, 100% of the time, to harm a child in any way, shape, or form. If we just say 'well, we should be tolerant of someone's choice to do that', we've got a huge problem.

That is fine that you see these things as wrong, but why should I also see these things as wrong? Why should I support a representative government imposing law on me based on what Amicale sees as wrong?

In the examples that you have provided, we could easily tie these acts into being a threat to a stable and functional society. If people are allowed to rape then people in society are not safe. Violence will prevail, violent attacks, violent defense, violent retaliation, this is not a stable and functional society. We need laws against rape and murder in order to have a stable and functional society. Even I and my amoral ways would agree with that.

Also, as an aside, the values of tolerance and freedom of choice boil down to them being moral arguments.
When you say 'tolerance, freedom of choice, and diversity are great things and should be encouraged' -- why should they? If ethics and morality don't exist, why are these particular values better than any others, and what gives them the right to trump other values -- say, selfishness?

Tolerance and freedom of choice removes oppression. Oppression causes conflict which results in an unstable and dysfunctional society.
BTW selfishness is what drives us, it is a great thing. But with lots of forethought a selfish person would not appear to be selfish.
An intelligent person can see that acting in a way that benefits society is in their own best interests. Acting immeadiately selfishly will likely be detrimental to the self in the long term.

Stevil, just so you know, I'm not trying to pick on you as a person or anything. Just trying to wrap my head around your arguments, and see if I can even try and see it from your perspective. Maybe we're talking past one another, I dunno.  ???

I can see that you are trying to understand what I am saying. It seems to be a difficult concept for most people on this site to understand. Most likely a failing in my own ability to articulate this idea.

[The Magic Pudding]

Tolerance and freedom of choice removes oppression. Oppression causes conflict which results in an unstable and dysfunctional society.
BTW selfishness is what drives us, it is a great thing. But with lots of forethought a selfish person would not appear to be selfish.
An intelligent person can see that acting in a way that benefits society is in their own best interests. Acting immeadiately selfishly will likely be detrimental to the self in the long term.

Societies based on slavery and oppression have been stable in the past.  Our experiments with liberal democracy are far from being able to claim greater stability than Roman, Egyptian or Chinese civilisations.  If your oppression is causing instability perhaps your're not doing it right, show me your whip technique.  Are your publicly disembowelling the disobedient and sticking their heads on spikes?  Having a large sub class serving a comfortable middle class and a lofty upper one would almost seem the natural state.  Keep slaves ignorant and scared, education is only for the elite.

Does that all sound unpleasant?  I think I could be all right with it if I found myself in an upper class.  Otherwise I'm going to be looking for shared values of fairness good, cruelty bad.

[Stevil]

Societies based on slavery and oppression have been stable in the past.

The obvious problem with slavery and oppression is that the slaves and the oppressed need to be continually ruled by force. They are certainly motivated themselves to be violent against their oppressors.

Another problem with slaves is that they are people. When people get to know other people (even slaves) they sometimes build friendships or romantic relations. Slaves in society will become part of society. Some non slave society members will start to stick up for the slaves. It all snowballs from there, the government gets overrun, with many people in society dead.

A more stable society is one that is governed by a group who represent society rather than rule society. But beware, effort must be made to take care of the poor. If too many people become poor then they will effectively be oppressed and you will have conflict in society. So even a minimalist tolerant and representative government can get into strife if they don't counter economic issues.

[Sweetdeath]

Really like both your posts MP and Stevil.
I really think dealing with the lower classes is all about education.
The education to make an infirmed decision about you life.
"Am I both financially and emotionally stable enough to have a child?"
" How does this law affect me?"

( gah it's 1Am)   I make no sense

[NatsuTerran]

I kind of disagree with your whole "what is stable for society" thing. I think morals are primarily a construct made by individuals, but argued on a macro scale for the benefit of society. But your choice of examples seemed short-sighted to me. For example, you can say prostitution doesn't cause instability. Or, hard drugs don't cause instability. Or, no speed limits doesn't cause instability, etc etc. You can keep singling out a bunch of little things that, while true they may not cause mass pandemonium if implemented, many of those things interacting with each other will create entirely novel problems. Life is so heavily interconnected that I think we should really think more critically than just looking at how good or bad individual things are at a time. Macro perspective! Big picture!