Transgressions In An Anarchist Community/Society

[Harkat]

If it's subjective, why does it directly reflect the material needs of the world? Maybe because morality is based off what we need, which boils down to a steady stream of endorphins. It's a construct in some sense. But it's not a bunch of arbitrary rules that we agree on to agree on something. If that was the case there wouldn't be a need for them to change with time.

It's based off our fundamental needs. For example: The introduction of contraceptions meant there was not such a heavy consequence to sexual promiscuity, so the strict morals that you shouldn't fuck around are now doing more harm than good, and are in the process of being dropped. Of course, you can still convince the population to follow useless moral rules that aren't based off avoiding any real danger. Like the whole idea of "God will send you to hell if you do that and that", or you shouldn't watch violent movies because it makes you violent etc.

[SCope13]

privatized law

what could possibly go wrong

[kay]

If it's subjective, why does it directly reflect the material needs of the world? Maybe because morality is based off what we need, which boils down to a steady stream of endorphins. It's a construct in some sense. But it's not a bunch of arbitrary rules that we agree on to agree on something. If that was the case there wouldn't be a need for them to change with time.

Errr...it's precisely because they change with time that they are subjective. That's the definition of subjective, ie something that is not related to real, concrete things. It is indeed a bunch of completely arbitrary rules that is totally dependent on the society/culture you live in. It only does not appear to be arbitrary because the part of the world we live in is fairly homogenised in terms of culture. But yet there are still variations in morality.

Take homosexuality for example. Most people in western Europe would not even consider homosexuality to be a moral issue nowadays. Yet there remains a significant proportion of people here who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong for a whole range of reasons. Go to the Middle East or look back in history just 30 years ago and the relative proportions of both stances are reversed completely. Therefore, morality is completely subjective to a person's viewpoint.

[Genevieve]

It's subjective and not real in the absolute sense, but so is the entire world, and still you don't live your life like it's all "fake".

People experience satisfaction and pleasure, and they experience dissatisfaction and displeasure. "Morals" are society's guidelines that try to keep everyone satisfied in the long run. So people think it's bad to rob/kill someone, cus they think the benefit the killer/robber might get isn't worth the displeasure others have to suffer for it.

More people used to think doing drugs and not being in committed, child-rearing relationships was immoral/bad, cus it stopped you from working in the fields and raising kids to work in the fields (all in service of a long-run plan of people being happier).

Now (we think at least) we've moved on to "better" morals, cus being strict with what people did with their day and warning them all the time about hell didn't make anyone happy. Now we value individual happiness and freedom more, although of course not usually at the expense of others. Also, people's opinions on whats moral differs. And people don't exclusively act with morality in mind, a lot of the time people don't give a fuck. Like maybe people A think it's OK to buy nike shoes, and people B think it's immoral because you're supporting a state of things where little kids have to work in shit conditions. Then maybe people A think people B are being pricks who are ruining other people's happiness by nagging about it, and maybe they think boycotting nike won't help the sweatshop kids anyway.

I think the fact that concepts of morality change with society (as you've mentioned a number of times) suggest that morality is definitely a subjective concept. Morality is simply a subjective construct that, ultimately, allows humans to live with one another.

Yep.

privatized law

what could possibly go wrong

Like in the examples I linked, it could be destroyed by an invasive government which will then replace it with public law.

Private police forces are a lot better than the state alternative too. This one even working on a charitable basis.

[Genevieve]

If it's subjective, why does it directly reflect the material needs of the world? Maybe because morality is based off what we need, which boils down to a steady stream of endorphins. It's a construct in some sense. But it's not a bunch of arbitrary rules that we agree on to agree on something. If that was the case there wouldn't be a need for them to change with time.

It's based off our fundamental needs. For example: The introduction of contraceptions meant there was not such a heavy consequence to sexual promiscuity, so the strict morals that you shouldn't fuck around are now doing more harm than good, and are in the process of being dropped. Of course, you can still convince the population to follow useless moral rules that aren't based off avoiding any real danger. Like the whole idea of "God will send you to hell if you do that and that", or you shouldn't watch violent movies because it makes you violent etc.

Arbitrary isn't the same as subjective.

[Harkat]

All of you are missing the point

Read my shit again and think harder

[Genevieve]

All of you are missing the point

Read my shit again and think harder

Make your point better or make a better point.

You're posting presuppositions after presuppositions. Yes, morals are based on things happening in the empirically observable world. That doesn't make them any less subjective.

[Harkat]

Ok, so you agree that they are a ultimately a response to physical, real world circumstances.

In my opinion, they are a response to those circumstances, aimed at making life better for society, as in people living with more satisfaction and prosperity. Hence, you can have "wrong morals" in that they fail at making life better.

What you guys are saying, like homosexuality being accepted here and not there etc is due to combinations of societal misunderstanding of what makes humans prosper and differences in physical circumstances, and cultural baggage that doesn't go away immediately as these two factors change.

[m8son666]

What if a 'wrong moral', stealing off someone for example, improves your quality of life. Surely that succeeds in making life better. Is it really a 'wrong moral' in that case, who is to decide?

[ezza]

my view on stealing is its morally okay to steal if u need it and they super dont need it imo

not like stealing off someone well off - thats still a dick move, but i have nothing against stealing off big companies. If im hungry i think its morally right for me to have the triple breakfast sandwich, NOT tesco

i aslo realise that its hard to distinguish between them and that why there are blanket rules, but i hate it when ppl get weird if u steal shit and its like im willing to accept the punishment if i get caught and its not like im actually hurting anyone