Morals and Ethics are a subjective matter

When you think of the word “good”, what comes to mind? Where does this idea come from? How did you learn it? Keep these questions in mind through the rest of this debate. I will provide some brief responses to his constructive and go on to make my case. I agree that knowledge is subjective. There are basics of knowledge that we are taught; be it from rote memory, punishment/reward or from discourse and experiential learning. Concepts like “ownership”, in the example of taking a cookie are taught in this manner and are not ideas that we know prima facia as individuals. However, I would point out that the reactions to such concepts are matters of respect and submission, not purely an instilling of internal morality. In the example of hitting his metaphorical sister, my opponent would defer to the position of his parents and submit to the concept that hitting his sister is wrong. However, the only reason that such submission occurs is the consequences that would be enforced upon him are disadvantageous, e. g. being annoyed by parents or being hit with a lead pipe (joking or not, this is analogous to other forms of consequences that are enforced upon us). Developmental MoralsDevelopmental psychologists argue that there are several types of morality that have the potential to evolve to the next form. [1] The most basic of which is “Obedience and Punishment”, which I would argue in the individual is not morality – it is pure risk aversion of punishment. It is not morality because the decisions to do or not do an action are external and enforced upon us; independent of such a system we would not keep ourselves to the same “moral” standard, meaning that such morality is not internalized. The key division here that I am attempting to make is that morality, in order to be subjective, is an internal function. By and large, individuals do not have an internal morality, only a risk aversion to what consequences their society puts on them. In “The Republic” by Plato, the character of Socrates grapples with the implications of when an individual is not subjected to a system of justice. Posed in the question of (I am paraphrasing here) if a man had a ring that granted him invisibility, would he go about his day as normal or would he commit crimes and fulfill his desires? Ultimately, Plato fails to substantially prove that an individual would keep to the moral standard society puts upon them – meaning that the external morality, the morality we “learn”, can never be internalized. While this is a theoretical situation, the implications are that without such monitoring we shirk morality and act according to our desires. When we are not subject to a system of submission, we become immoral actors. The philosopher Immanuel Kant argues that morality is deontological, that “actions are morally right in virtue of their motives, which must derive more from duty than from inclination. ” [2] The “duty” that Kant refers to is legalistic law, rules that we must always act in accordance to or in the faith of in order to be moral actors; I would argue that this extends to and is a product of societal morality as when we consider the genesis of such laws they are defined and promoted by whatever the society ruled by those laws believe. Societal Morality So then comes the necessary question: where does this societal morality come from? While I could be tangential and examine cultural & religious history, lets keep it simple and consider the constructs of morality in our societies. As referred to earlier, there are various stages of morality and I would reiterate that the vast majority of individuals remain at the first and second stages of morality which are both based in reaction to external moralities. However, there are some that are able to evolve to the higher levels of morality, namely the socioeconomic and spiritual elites. These elites use their position in society to determine what is and what is not right, usually to maintain their own status, but have a working concept of the “social contract” in which to evaluate and restructure society with “morals” and laws by which we should abide, should submit to. But how do they hold this position which determines our own morality? Wandering into metaphysics again, Karl Marx refers to such moralities as “ideals” that are socially constructed by those with economic and governmental control. In his Material Dialectic, he proposes that society can be conceptualized as two different structures, the Social Structure (wherin there are state and non-state actors) and the Material Structure (where economics and production are main determinates). The relationship, which others have added upon, is like a two-way road where both influence the other. A key part of this influence is those of leaders within the Material Structure upon leaders within the Social Structure who in turn use state actors (e. g. the IRS, the Public School System, the Judicial Courts, Police Departments, etc. ) and non-state actors (e. g. the Roman Catholic Church, Toms Shoes, the Tea Party Movement, etc. ) to influence the vast majority of the People with what is right and wrong, both legalistically and heuristically. Summary In short, this influence produces submission to another morality through the actors that we are taught what right and wrong are. The social ideas that set the standard, or “duty” of morality as Kant would say, are not our own, they are external. They are objective. While I would concede it is possible to internalize and reevaluate these moralities, there are two problems: Our sense of morality is defined prima facia before internalizing and reevaluating morals (e. g. "Freedom" is always good in the opinion of Americans). State and non-state actors constantly retrain us into the accepted social morality, the accepted objective morality. Therefore there is no escape from the externality of morality. Morality always will be objective as we do not have the power to defy the moralities enforced upon us. To adopt Warabe's use of the syllogistic formula: P1) We submit to moralities of Right and Wrong P2) Right and Wrong are socially defined by elitesC) Morality is external, therefore objectiveSources:[1] . http://psychology.about.com...[2] . http://www.philosophypages.com...