The Moral Landscape

[LDShouler]

Science can be a means of testing aspects of our moral judgement, rather than a moral code in itself. Social studies can help us to analyse the effects of societal moral decisions.

[Steve James]

Social studies can help us to analyse the effects of societal moral decisions.

I guess it depends on what a societal moral decision is and what the outcomes are expected to be. Personally, I think what you describe are "mores" (i.e., social norms and conventions), not morals (which, imo, are not socially determined). For example, "polygamy" is a more that was a social norm in the old days in some societies and today in some. Its "morality", however, can not have changed. Otoh, murdering a friend for his money was immoral in the old days and is immoral today (afaik). Ok, take the Spartans; every male had to commit a murder (of a Helot) before he could become a man. That was a convention, a tradition, but it was immoral. Now, it did have a profound effect on the history of Greek society. After all, the Spartans biggest enemy was Athens, not Persia. For their own reasons, the Greeks banded together against a common enemy. Spartan culture and tradition obviously had a tremendous effect on the outcome of that conflict. That doesn't affect the morality of Spartan mores.

[Steve James]

Hmm, perhaps another way this has been put is "the ends do not justify the means."

[The K Prodigy]

Haven't we been over all of this before. Morals are completely a product of the human mind and, therefore, subjective.

[Steve James]

Morals are completely a product of the human mind and, therefore, subjective.

Well, ok, but their existence are not the issue; their subjectivity "may" be. However, when it comes down to deciding who to kill and why, people should think about it (imo). Often they do, and come up with reasons to do so. The process of deciding what is "right" is the point. You agree, or else you don't care whether you're cheated, lied to, robbed, etc.. Not only have we gone over these things before; they are among the only questions that we've always asked ... and tried to answer. And, as soon as we meet creatures in space (or they meet us here), these questions will come up.

[The K Prodigy]

Morals are completely a product of the human mind and, therefore, subjective.

Well, ok, but their existence are not the issue; their subjectivity "may" be. However, when it comes down to deciding who to kill and why, people should think about it (imo). Often they do, and come up with reasons to do so. The process of deciding what is "right" is the point. You agree, or else you don't care whether you're cheated, lied to, robbed, etc.. Not only have we gone over these things before; they are among the only questions that we've always asked ... and tried to answer. And, as soon as we meet creatures in space (or they meet us here), these questions will come up.

Subjective thoughts have no objective value. Things with no objective value might as well not exist. Being mostly an empiricist and rationalist, I don't care about what is wrong and what is right, these are human fantasies. What is right(just) and what is right(maximum benefit) are two separate concepts. No, I care about whether I am cheated or lied to or assaulted because these are not beneficial to me, not because they are right or wrong. These questions have no answer, subjective questions have no "correct" answers, they are entertaining thoughts and no more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

[Steve James]

My point was that people have had and will have to grapple with the issues, regardless of the terminology. You first addressed the question of morals (versus mores, which is what I commented on). It's tangential to that to bring up your belief in "right or wrong" as human fantasies. But, ok, being a moral relativist is fine --if you're arguing then that there are some things called morals to be relative. If there are no such things as right and wrong, only personal or social (but not universal?) "goods" (i.e., things of max benefit to an individual or a society, that's cool. However, you are actually raising a debate, not settling one. It might be, under your terms, be settled for "you" subjectively, which is also cool. Don't expect anyone to abide by that, though --as it's not universal. True, they are entertaining thoughts for some; thus, it's hard to see the point in depriving them of that pleasure.

[affa]

(inter)Subjecti've thoughts have t1 objective no1-value(s).

and... fixed!

Being mostly an empiricist and/(or) rationalist

so which is it?