Does morality exist?

[warpspeedpetey]

*which is exactly why the idea of subjective morality isnt taken seriously by anyone without a philosophical axe to grind. *

How true!

The homosexual wants subjective ethics to legalize homosexual marriage.

The pedophile wants subjective ethics to legalize sex between adults and children (NAMBLA).

The abortionist wants subjective ethics to cast doubt on the humanity (and the rights) of the child in the womb, and to legalize his murder of the unborn.

Etc., etc.

thats the exact group that i refer to as a “philosophical axe to grind”. a relative of mine. who i almost never see or talk to, is a “brights” and very active in his local atheist community. he has been working on subjectivist morality for the last decade. this summer he told me that the entire purpose of the subjectivist morality that is being argued for now is to have essentially the same morality that we have now. but to change the sexual aspects that we normally have.

thats all its about. its not about the rational truth, its just about sexual guilt.

why dont they just go to Confession?

 

[Betterave]

I’m sure AntiTheist can give reasons for his moral beliefs but I think we all agree that that doesn’t make them objectively correct.

And why is that? Because his reasons are not good reasons, as I have pointed out. They are based on a failure to understand the basic concepts involved in reasoning (such as “grounding” - see above).

The fact that those preferences are being made from a collection of objective realities doesn’t change the fact that the preferences are not objectively real.

Huh? The subjectivist position is not that “preferences are not objectively real”; it’s that preferences are brute facts which immediately, simply *qua *preferences, *constitute *value - and the subjectivist means *simply *value, i.e., not just a prima facie *claim *to value which is inherently subject to criticism by the reflective mediation of public reason-giving. Were you aware of all that?

I think AntiTheist’s position is imminently rational. The bully who takes a classmates lunch money is acting rationally: if he does X (threatening smaller kids) he gets rewarded. If the definition of being moral is to act rationally, then his action is moral.
You haven’t demonstrated that morality objectively exists. Let’s start there.

So you’re proposing a certain model of rationality here, I guess it goes like this:

Act X is ‘rational’ for A if (if and only if?) A receives immediate gratification from performance of X.

This *seems *to be the view you’re expressing - is it?

 

[AntiTheist]

I think AntiTheist’s position is imminently rational. The bully who takes a classmates lunch money is acting rationally: if he does X (threatening smaller kids) he gets rewarded. If the definition of being moral is to act rationally, then his action is moral.

Well, first of all, I don’t think that “moral” means “to act rationally.”

Let’s take a step back here. The word “morality” indicates a universal code of behavior that applies to all people, regardless of their personal opinions. I contend that morality does not exist; ergo, I am arguing that no actions are “moral” and no actions are “immoral.” The words do not refer to anything outside of people’s value judgments.

A bully taking someone’s lunch money isn’t good or bad, and it isn’t moral or immoral. It’s a kid taking someone’s money. Is it “rational”? It depends. If the bully values acquiring money more than he acquires making friends with these kids and more than he values the possibility of getting into trouble for his actions, then it would indeed be rational to beat up as many kids as possible and steal their lunch money.

However, if the bully values making friends or staying out of trouble more than he values simply acquiring money, then it would be irrational for him to beat up as many kids as possible.

Meanwhile, school administrators – who value having a safe and peaceful learning environment – might decide to make rules to prevents kids from making decisions like our bully. In other words, their setting up rules with harsh punishments might make a bully choose to value not being punished more than beating up other kids for their money.

“Morality” doesn’t enter the picture, here. It’s all a question of values, preferences, urges, and options. It’s the weighing of them that determines action.

[Note: It doesn’t change my argument in the least to say that values are arbitrary personal opinions, though I think there’s a semantic argument to be made about the connotation of these words and precision about what’s actually going on when people act]

Charlemagne II:

Suppose there was a law that said “Needless violence against anyone is forbidden.”

You have said there is no moral standard that applies to everyone. So to whom would you say this law would not apply?

You’re confusing two things that I have kept quite separate in my posts: morality and laws that humans invent. I’m claiming that morality doesn’t exist. Laws that humans invent obviously exist. Societies actually do have laws against assault, murder, and other such acts.

Luckily for all of us, few people walk around filled with the urge to beat other people up. Those few people who do have to measure that urge against the value they place on not being caught and imprisoned for violating a law that humans have created.

All of that is unrelated to the question of whether there exists some “objective morality” that makes it “objectively wrong” to beat someone up. Whether or not morality actually exists, there would still be human laws and there would still be people weighing their desires against the cost of violating the human laws.

warpspeedpetey:

thats all its about. its not about the rational truth, its just about sexual guilt.

Certainly, there are few things more bizarre than the idea that using natural functions of the body could somehow be “moral” or “immoral.”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Values and opinions can certainly have force (they can even be true/truly valuable, or justified and true!). You speak as if it’s ‘absolute force’ or ‘no force’.

i guess it depends on what you mean by moral force. i mean that others opinions or values give me no reason to moderate my behavior to any particular standard. whatever i can get away with is ok. no matter what it is.

Also, the subjectivist argument emphasizes the importance of different perspectives; this crucial element gets ignored in your account.

how are different perspectives important? arent they just a restatment of personal opinion? if not what is the difference between “different perspectives” and “personal opinions” or “values”?

I believe the subjectivist argument is clearly wrong, as I’m trying to argue, but what you’ve written isn’t helpful since it’s clearly a straw man.

then what part of subjectivism am i misrepresenting? whats the straw man?

 

[Ender]

If that has been your point, then it’s based on a very simplistic misunderstanding. …
2. A tree is *grounded *in soil; therefore a tree *is *soil.

A tree is soil??? I guess my understanding of philosophy doesn’t extend that far (neither does my understanding of biology and chemistry.) For example, if a tomato grown in soil is soil wouldn’t that mean that a tomato grown in water is water and that they should somehow be different?

Ender

 

[warpspeedpetey]

[Note: It doesn’t change my argument in the least to say that values are arbitrary personal opinions, though I think there’s a semantic argument to be made about the connotation of these words and precision about what’s actually going on when people act]

no, it doesnt change the subjectivist argument, it does expose it as permissive of absolutely any act that one can get away with.

there is no difference in subjectivism between hitler and Mother Theresa. its just personal opinions.

warpspeedpetey: Certainly, there are few things more bizarre than the idea that using natural functions of the body could somehow be “moral” or “immoral.”

there is nothing bizarre about it at all, every single known culture has had restrictions on the morality of sexual activities. its even encoded into law. its quite normal.

the only standard that matters is G-ds. no one elses. see below

1. there is no such thing as morality. there is only opinion.

1. G-d is the only being with the legitimate authority to impose a morality.

1. G-ds legitimate authority stems from the rights of an inventor, Creator, owner. rights we commonly recognize in our legal systems.

1. thus, the only opinion that counts is G-ds.

ergo, while there are no glowing platonic forms in the sky, demanding a certain morality from us. there is a de facto “objective morality”

there is Right and Wrong, Good and Evil. the standard then is based on G-ds legitimate authority to impose a de facto objective morality on His creations.

so yes there is a legitimate standard of right and wrong behavior. that standard is laid out in the Scriptures, and the legitimate interpreter of the Scriptures is the Church that Christ founded. the Roman Catholic Church.

see, only one opinion matters. that is our de facto “objective morals”

 

[AntiTheist]

no, it doesnt change the subjectivist argument, it does expose it as permissive of absolutely any act that one can get away with.

Putting aside for a moment the fact that “permissive” has no meaning in this context, I would not dispute the fact that someone who does something that you don’t like and is never caught by you “gets away with it.” What of it?

there is no difference in subjectivism between hitler and Mother Theresa.

It seems like there’s a huge difference between them. All I’m saying is that labeling one “good” and the other “bad” is an expression of your values, not an objective statement about the universe.

there is nothing bizarre about it at all, every single known culture has had restrictions on the morality of sexual activities.

Again, we’re not talking about human-invented laws and taboos, we’re talking about whether something natural can be objectively “good” or “bad.”

the only standard that matters is G-ds.

This seems like a reasonable statement of the moralist position – as I said, if you are going to claim that morality is objectively real (outside of human value judgments), then you need a standard outside of human value judgments. You’re forced into appealing to magical claims, like accepting the value judgments of a supernatural being for which there is no evidence.

[Incidentally, what’s up with your weird use a dash to replace the o in “god”? I know it’s a Jewish practice related to the tetragrammaton and/or the fact that there are no written vowels in Hebrew, but what exactly is the point of doing it? Sorry for the off-topic question]

 

[Ender]

The subjectivist position is not that “preferences are not objectively real”; it’s that preferences are brute facts which immediately, simply *qua *preferences, *constitute *value - and the subjectivist means *simply *value, i.e., not just a prima facie *claim *to value which is inherently subject to criticism by the reflective mediation of public reason-giving. Were you aware of all that?

I understand your point except for the “criticism by the reflective mediation of public reason-giving” part. I don’t know where you’re going with that. As to whether your description of the subjectivist position is accurate I cannot say. I am not a subjectivist and will leave it to them to define what their position is.

So you’re proposing a certain model of rationality here, I guess it goes like this:

Act X is ‘rational’ for A if (if and only if?) A receives immediate gratification from performance of X.

This *seems *to be the view you’re expressing - is it?

Nope. That would be (in the phrase you used) “based on a very simplistic misunderstanding.” For this example I would say that an action is rational if the reasons for doing it outweigh the reasons for not doing it. It’s a risk/reward calculation. It would not be rational, for example, to try to get money by taking it away from a bigger kid. What do you mean by it?

Ender

 

[Betterave]

A tree is soil??? I guess my understanding of philosophy doesn’t extend that far (neither does my understanding of biology and chemistry.) For example, if a tomato grown in soil is soil wouldn’t that mean that a tomato grown in water is water and that they should somehow be different?

Ender

Okay, I guess I need to be very explicit with you about the points I make. The point above is that the grounding relation is *not *a relation of identity. None of the inferences I listed are valid and you were supposed to notice this and draw the appropriate conclusion: “being grounded in X” is *not *the same as “being X.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

You’re confusing two things that I have kept quite separate in my posts: morality and laws that humans invent. I’m claiming that morality doesn’t exist. Laws that humans invent obviously exist. Societies actually do have laws against assault, murder, and other such acts.

I don’t follow this. You want to separate morality from laws, but how can laws be based on anything but morality? We don’t make laws in a vacuum. Laws are established to advance good or deter evil. Can you name me a law that doesn’t do one or the other? Since they are inseparable, if laws exists, so must morality. If morality exists, so must laws. A society without both morality and laws exists only in the imagination, not in reality. Such a society would be narcissistic and anarchistic in the extreme, and would not be tolerated even if someone tried to create it.

 

[Betterave]

i guess it depends on what you mean by moral force. i mean that others opinions or values give me no reason to moderate my behavior to any particular standard. whatever i can get away with is ok. no matter what it is.

But **that’s **not necessarily true and will usually be false. Just ask Anti.

And whatever you can get away with is not ‘ok’ (i.e., ‘moral’) on Anti’s account; if it conflicts with *your *values, which in many cases will be roughly the same as everyone else’s, it’s *not *okay.

how are different perspectives important? arent they just a restatment of personal opinion? if not what is the difference between “different perspectives” and “personal opinions” or “values”?

Everyone has a perspective on morality, whether morality is objective or not. The subjectivist just wants to declare that the individual perspective is juridically autonomous. In other words, it affirms the individual as having a juridical right to “the final word” (similar to the Catholic teaching on the primacy of conscience) - which is *not *to say the *only *word. It’s just that its individual decisions are not inherently subject to external critique (its evaluative fiats are not *essentially *related to public reason-giving, though they *are *accidentally).

 

[Betterave]

The subjectivist position is not that “preferences are not objectively real”; it’s that preferences are brute facts which immediately, simply qua preferences, constitute value - and the subjectivist means simply value, i.e., not just a prima facie claim to value which is inherently subject to criticism by the reflective mediation of public reason-giving. Were you aware of all that?

I understand your point except for the “criticism by the reflective mediation of public reason-giving” part. I don’t know where you’re going with that.

You need to understand that part. If you don’t, you don’t understand any of it. To *affirm *that preferences are the immediate source of value is to *deny *that the mediation of preferences by reflexion is an intrinsic characteristic (part of the essential definition) of moral being. That clear enough?

Nope. That would be (in the phrase you used) “based on a very simplistic misunderstanding.” For this example I would say that an action is rational if the reasons for doing it outweigh the reasons for not doing it. It’s a risk/reward calculation. It would not be rational, for example, to try to get money by taking it away from a bigger kid. What do you mean by it?

Riiight… So what has changed? Where is my “simplistic misunderstanding”? (I asked you a question, remember.) Is this what you mean then?:

Act A is ‘rational’ for P if (if and only if??) P estimates (calculates? reasons?) that he will receive immediate gratification from performance of A.

 

[AntiTheist]

I don’t follow this. You want to separate morality from laws, but how can laws be based on anything but morality? We don’t make laws in a vacuum. Laws are established to advance good or deter evil.

Well, there’s the source of your confusion right there. I’m going to explain this as clearly as I can. Please try to stay with me until the end:

I’m saying that there are no moral laws in the universe. So what are there? Obviously, human value judgments. Human beings have certain values. For example, one of the most basic is the value that people place on survival (for obvious, biological reasons). A related value (or, rather, the same value seen from a different perspective) is the value that most people place on not being murdered.

If there are no moral laws in the universe, it doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of people don’t want to be murdered, don’t want to die, and don’t have a desire to murder others. In fact, thanks to thousands of years of civilization in which people have been relatively sheltered from violence (or, at least, the serious violence of the state of nature), the vast majority of people intensely dislike the idea of murder.

You don’t need moral laws for any of the above to be true. Are you with me so far?

I’m saying that groups of people who share common values – like the values I outlined above – can come together and agree to set up a civilization that has rules that promote the values that they favor. That’s how you can have human laws that are based completely on what people value or desire, rather than on objective moral laws.

Now, the people who create these laws might actually claim that they are basing the laws on objective moral laws, but I’m saying that they’re wrong (mistaking their own subjective values for objective moral laws). I’m trying to explain what’s actually going on, rather than what these people think is going on.

Is that clearer?

 

[AntiTheist]

It’s a risk/reward calculation. It would not be rational, for example, to try to get money by taking it away from a bigger kid.

Let me just suggest, again, that values have to be taken into account.

If you’re a person who values demonstrating courage and acting tough – and you value that more than you value the possibility of being beaten up and more than the possibility of being punished for fighting – then it would be perfectly rational to pick a fight with a bigger kid.

Of course, most people, when they comprehend that picking a fight with a bigger kid would result in them getting seriously hurt and/or punished, would no longer decide to pick a fight with him (because most people value not getting hurt and not getting punished much more than they value acting tough).

But if you had someone who didn’t realize what the consequences might be – or who actually didn’t value the consequences as much as he did his display of bravado – then it would be perfectly rational for that person to pick the fight.

 

[Betterave]

I’m saying that there are no moral laws in the universe.

Of course you are, you’re *insisting *on it in fact. But *if *there are moral beings in the universe who do grasp moral laws (or perhaps, more broadly, moral reality, moral exigencies), *then *you are wrong; I affirm the antecedent and conclude: you are wrong - there are moral laws in the universe (although of course if there weren’t any moral beings in the universe (if we were talking about a counter-factual universe), then there would not be moral laws in the universe).

So what are there? Obviously, human value judgments. Human beings have certain values. For example, one of the most basic is the value that people place on survival (for obvious, biological reasons). A related value (or, rather, the same value seen from a different perspective) is the value that most people place on not being murdered.

If there are no moral laws in the universe, it doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of people don’t want to be murdered, don’t want to die, and don’t have a desire to murder others. In fact, thanks to thousands of years of civilization in which people have been relatively sheltered from violence (or, at least, the serious violence of the state of nature), the vast majority of people intensely dislike the idea of murder.

You don’t need moral laws for any of the above to be true. Are you with me so far?

I’m saying that groups of people who share common values – like the values I outlined above – can come together and agree to set up a civilization that has rules that promote the values that they favor. That’s how you can have human laws that are based completely on what people value or desire, rather than on objective moral laws.

Now, the people who create these laws might actually claim that they are basing the laws on objective moral laws, but I’m saying that they’re wrong (mistaking their own subjective values for objective moral laws). I’m trying to -]explain what’s actually going on, rather than what these people think is going on/-] make the brute stipulation that these people don’t really understand what they’re thinking, although I have given no evidence of understanding that myself.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Putting aside for a moment the fact that “permissive” has no meaning in this context, I would not dispute the fact that someone who does something that you don’t like and is never caught by you “gets away with it.” What of it?

thats not the point. im saying that a person can do anything and its ok, as long as he doesnt get caught. murder, rape, mayhem. all those things are just fine under the subjectivist arguments.

It seems like there’s a huge difference between them. All I’m saying is that labeling one “good” and the other “bad” is an expression of your values, not an objective statement about the universe.

its not our values, that make something good or bad. its G-ds values that provide a basis for “good” and “bad”

Again, we’re not talking about human-invented laws and taboos, we’re talking about whether something natural can be objectively “good” or “bad.”

there is no "objective good or bad. thats not my argument, there is a a “de facto” objective standard, andd that is G-ds opinion of good and evil.

This seems like a reasonable statement of the moralist position – as I said, if you are going to claim that morality is objectively real (outside of human value judgments), then you need a standard outside of human value judgments.

that standard is G-ds standard, there is no objective morality apart from the legitimate authority of G-d, the Creator.

You’re forced into appealing to magical claims, like accepting the value judgments of a supernatural being for which there is no evidence.

what magical claims? we witnessed G-ds existence and His activities over thousands of years. a great many witness statements were provided, and collected into that compilation of books commonly known as the Bible.

unless you have a double standard of evidence for historical events you witnessed as opposed to ones that you havent, i dont see how you can call these claims any more magical than the moonlanding, or the magna carta. the mathematics of Messianic Prophecy affirm who G-d is also.

you can also find G-d quite easily through your reason. you cant find His name, but you can find His necessary existence. of course that is quite outside the scope of the thread. im just pointing out there is no magic involved.

[Incidentally, what’s up with your weird use a dash to replace the o in “god”? I know it’s a Jewish practice related to the tetragrammaton and/or the fact that there are no written vowels in Hebrew, but what exactly is the point of doing it? Sorry for the off-topic question]

actually, it has to do with not writing the name of G-d. it is too Holy to be profaned with the human mouth, too Sacred to be commited to base ink and paper, to beautiful to be commited to the mere physical highways of the internet. even the word i use, G-d, to replace His real name should be treated with that respect, because in my heart it refers to that most Holy of beings.

see, i rationally know that G-d exists. i was an atheist. i attack my faith at the same angle i attacked my disbelief. it changed everything. nothing is the same. the world moves beneath your feet and you fall to your face in terror at what you have done. you realize that you, personally, were the one who whipped Christ bloody, with no mercy. you, personally drove the nails into His Beautiful Hands. you personally, mocked and jeered Him as He Suffered and Died and you did it all while He was dying for you, Suffering for you, that you might be saved from the evil things that you have said and done, those things that keep you separate from G-d. that is Love.

so that Son of Man, is my Master, my Saviour, my very G-d. He owns me part and parcel. there is nothing that He may not demand of me, that i will not give. it is and always will be a struggle between my spirit and my flesh. i will fall time and again. these shackles that i willingly accepted, they catch me when i fall. he may have to drag me into Heaven by my chains, but better the slave in Heaven, then the king of hell.

…and that is why i write a dash when i refer to G-d.

 

[Betterave]

thats not the point. im saying that a person can do anything and its ok, as long as he doesnt get caught. murder, rape, mayhem. all those things are just fine under the subjectivist arguments.

its not our values, that make something good or bad. its G-ds values that provide a basis for “good” and “bad”

there is no "objective good or bad. thats not my argument, there is a a “de facto” objective standard, andd that is G-ds opinion of good and evil.

that standard is G-ds standard, there is no objective morality apart from the legitimate authority of G-d, the Creator.

1. you’re advancing what is sometimes viewed as a competing form of subjectivism.
2. discussion of such a view is obviously off-topic for this thread.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

I’m saying that there are no moral laws in the universe.

Exactly what does this mean? When I say we should do good and avoid evil, are you saying that this moral law does not exist in the universe (it certainly exists in my universe if not in yours)? Do you mean that all morals are values only, and never laws? By reducing morals to values, are you saying that morals exist but do not have any objective reality in the same sense that the laws of physics do?

I’m still trying to get a handle on the distinction you have drawn between values and laws.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But **that’s **

not necessarily true and will usually be false. Just ask Anti.

And whatever you can get away with is not ‘ok’ (i.e., ‘moral’) on Anti’s account; if it conflicts with *your *values,

of course people dont do what conflicts with their values. hitler, stalin, pol pot, and child molesters are all acting within their values. their entire system consisted of millions of others with the same values.

which in many cases will be roughly the same as everyone else’s, it’s *not *

 

[warpspeedpetey]

1. you’re advancing what is sometimes viewed as a competing form of subjectivism.

im advancing the actual state of the system. subjectivists are right, there is no truly objective morality. they are wrong in the idea that it changes the standard of Good and Evil. because that standard never has been anything but G-ds subjective opinion. which in our case amounts to a defacto objective standard, even though its objective only from our frame of reference.

now if youre trying to argue that there is some morality apart from G-d, then i would have to disagree with you. if there is no G-d, there is no reason for me moderate my behavior, because my only value would be what made me feel good. as would everyone elses.

1. discussion of such a view is obviously off-topic for this thread.

if you cant beat it, join it.