Does morality exist?

[Ender]

The existence of morality is implied by the moral behavior of societies, Ender, not just by any such behavior.

This amounts to proving morality exists by saying that you have observed moral behavior. We have all observed people behaving in a way they believe to be moral but that says nothing whatever about whether they are correct.

The fact that they believed morality exists is good evidence for thinking that it does.

What about the fact that most people believed the sun revolved around the earth. Does that also provide good evidence that it is true?

Because rules of golf do not make mention of moral worthiness and blameworthiness in its distinctions of actions. How is this an objection? Isn’t the distinction obvious to you?

The distinction is not obvious unless you assert that morality exists - which is all you have done. I observe people behaving according to various sets of rules. What is the observable property that allows you distinguish which actions merely follow rules and which are moral?

Some laws within games are moral, some are purely pragmatic telling you how to win the game. We can clearly make distinctions. Are you saying you cannot make these distinctions?

Of course we make distinctions. What I am challenging is the basis on which those distinctions are made. You are simply claiming that morality exists because people fancy themselves behaving morally.

Here’s a rule: those claims that mention or directly imply oughts, shoulds, ought-not,, should-not , allowed, forbidden, permissible, impermissible, in their statements are indicative of moral kinds of claims. Those rules or principles that do not mention or imply these morally-binding terms, are not.

Rule 1-1* A player** must not** take any action to influence the position or the movement of a ball except in accordance with the Rules.*
Rule 5-1* The ball the player plays **must *conform to the requirements specified in Appendix III
Rule 6-2 Before starting a match in a handicap competition, the players should determine from one another their respective handicaps.

First, we can know which moral principles are true.

I would be interested in learning how we can know that a particular moral principle is true when we haven’t yet shown that morality even exists.

Ender

 

[Leela]

I agree with you; my intent was to address the arguments presented by those who disagree.
Of course some will. The issue is whether their reasons for insisting on the existence or morality are reasonable. That’s what this thread was meant to explore.
An attempt to prove the existence of God would be completely irrelevant to a discussion based on the premise that God does not exist. Attack the arguments being made, not the ones you think might show up.
The question is not whether we can find the correct solution to moral dilemmas; it is much more basic: whether morality even exists or is merely subjective to individuals or societies.
This again misses the point. Since so many of you seem so confused about what I believe I’ll spell it out.

(1) Morality (objectively) exists only if God exists. Both the theist and the atheist can behave either morally or immorally because morality exists.
(2) If God does not exist then neither the theist nor the atheist can act morally because morality no more exists for man than for any other animal.

This is a theoretical discussion; I stated back in the OP that we were all to argue the point on the assumption that God does not exist, therefore I am arguing from the perspective of (2). I am not arguing what I personally believe; I am presenting what I see as the logically strongest position given the conditions set for the discussion.

So, Leela, I am not arguing that atheists can’t behave morally. I’m actually arguing that no one can since objective morality does not exist, it is a purely subjective concept and therefore all acts are amoral.

Ender

Is this then supposed to be an attempt to prove the existence of God based on the existence of morality?

 

[Syntax]

This amounts to proving morality exists by saying that you have observed moral behavior. We have all observed people behaving in a way they believe to be moral but that says nothing whatever about whether they are correct.

It doesn’t suggest which moral claims are correct. But it does suggest morality exists.

What about the fact that most people believed the sun revolved around the earth. Does that also provide good evidence that it is true?

I continue to say that “morality exists” is a logically probabilistic claim, more plausible than its denial, not a logical demonstration! So stop construing my arguments that it is!

Which is more likely?:

Morality doesn’t exist, and everyone thinks it does.

or

Morality exists, and everyone thinks it does.

*Prima facie *and a priori, the latter is much more likely since a belief that morality exists is fundamental to all human behavior in all cultures. If morality didn’t exist, it is *very improbable *that human beings were in error in thinking to it did exist.

The distinction is not obvious unless you assert that morality exists - which is all you have done. I observe people behaving according to various sets of rules. What is the observable property that allows you distinguish which actions merely follow rules and which are moral?

Of course we make distinctions. What I am challenging is the basis on which those distinctions are made. You are simply claiming that morality exists because people fancy themselves behaving morally.

Rule 1-1* A player** must not*** take any action to influence the position or the movement of a ball except in accordance with the Rules.
Rule 5-1* The ball the player plays **must ***conform to the requirements specified in Appendix III
Rule 6-2 Before starting a match in a handicap competition, the players should determine from one another their respective handicaps.

Oh, please. You are trading on an amibiguity in your use of the terms, and you know it. The “must” and “must not” in game-rules are rules specifiying how to win a game. Moral rules specify how to behave morally. The distinction is shown by the notions contained in moral rules that are **not **contained in game rules, such as “blameworthiness, praiseworthiness, guilt, innocence.” You don’t find these notions implicit as consequence of obeying or violating game rules, Ender. Further, we don’t lock people up in jail, find them “guilty,” reprimand them, or consider them personally blameworthy when they break the rules in a game. They just lose the game…duh. There is a very clear distinction. You’re just being difficult.

 

[Syntax]

What I don’t understand is this:

Why is the burden of proof on the moral realist to show morality exists, but not on the anti-realist in showing that it does not exist?

The anti-realist is appealing to the argument from ignorance, as far as I can tell. So we can easily appeal to the same strategy, namely, “you can’t show morality *doesn’t *exist either.” It is completely inappropriate to expect moral properties to have to submit to this kind of demand for physical evidence, since moral properties are not physical kinds of properties. So the evidence, pro or con, is naturally going to be found in human practices, not in the physical world independent of human practices. Therefore, the strategy on both sides is going to consist of weighing the probability of which statement is more likely, given human practices already in place:

Morality exists, and everyone believes that it does.

and

Morality doesn’t exist, and everyone believes that it does.

Us moral realists have been offering argument for the former. Where are the arguments for the latter?? Anybody? Anybody?

 

[StrawberryJam]

All right, let’s try this again. There are two questions I would like to address based on the assumption that God does not exist:

1. Can morality objectively exist or is all morality subjective?
2. What are the implications if morality is purely subjective?

We just had the thread closed where this discussion was going on and I’m pretty sure it’s because we couldn’t stay on topic so let’s be clear: no discussion of Christianity or any other religion that teaches that God exists is relevant. As stated in the Forum rules: if you want to discuss something other than the topic of this thread, start your own thread.

I’ll include some relevant comments from the other thread to hopefully get this started. I don’t mean to take liberties with what anyone has said so if I misrepresent the views of the person I’m quoting, please correct me.

Sair: "The notion that all things are permissible in the absence of a god is false …"
*
Oreoracle: “moral claims possess no truth value.”

*AntiTheist: “*I completely agree that anything and everything is permissible in the sense that you mean it”

*My understanding of this is that AntiTheist’s answers to my questions are: morality is purely subjective, and there is no moral reason not to do anything one wants to do. I think Oreoracle is saying that morality is subjective but no conclusion can be drawn about what (to him) this implies. I can’t quantify Sair’s comments except to say that she disagrees with AntiTheist about whether all things are permissible.

Ender

Morality evolves. Particularly Christian morality.

 

[Syntax]

Morality evolves. Particularly Christian morality.

Do Christian moral principles actually change, or do the same moral principles just get more refined down through the years? Big difference.

 

[The_Exodus]

This is wildly incorrect. First, an atheist need not actually believe the existence of God is intrinsically impossible. In fact, most of them believe God just simply does not exist–but they very seldom make any **modal **claims about God’s non-existence. Second, even if God were intrinsically impossible, it does not logically follow that objective morality does not exist. So ANY atheist can still consistently maintain both that objective moral truths exist and that God does not exis

You have misunderstood (surprise) what I claimed was “intrinsically impossible.” What is instrinsically impossible is for morality to exist objectively if it is not grounded in something outside of humans.

It is truly astonishing that you cannot realize this very basic point that many atheists (as well as theists obviously) can see.

If morality is nothing more than a human construct, it cannot be objective in the sense of having meaning outside the context of human beings. This is the conclusion that necessarily follows if there is nothing outside humans which gives value to things.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Do Christian moral principles actually change, or do the same moral principles just get more refined down through the years? Big difference.

What is moral about slavery? Want me to go on?

 

[The_Exodus]

If the universe is accidental, then it certainly does not have some grand design or purpose awaiting each individual, so a person will be “left to himself to invent his own meaning,” as Nietzsche’s perspectivalism would say. But one can still believe that objective moral truths still exist in the universe such as “torturing babies is wrong.”

You can delude yourself into thinking this all you want, but if there is no objective meaning outside human beings, there is no ground in which to make the claim “torturing babies is wrong” has any more value than “torturing babies is right.”

One can, of course, choose to try to live their lives as if it were wrong to torture babies, but this does not make it true/wrong.

You’re operating out of various elements of pragmatism and existentialism, which, if not grounded in some sort of objective truth, are utterly absurd philosophies.

 

[The_Exodus]

The continuous evolution of the universe can still be accidental and objective–evolution consists of a collective series of random mutations happening to objectively existent things through time–clearly, evolution is not a “subjective” process.

I said, “if evolution was not objective with regards to a purpose”… i.e. from an objective meaning point of view, if there was no Absolute Being which directed it, it is objectively meaningless, with regards to a purpose. Now, of course, objective phenomena continue to go on, but if there is no absolute outside human beings, there is nothing outside human beings to give these phenomena value. Evolution is not subjective in the sense of being a construct of the human mind, for surely, whether or not we continue to exist, if evolution occured it would have been true long after we’re dead.

You’re the one that’s conflating terms. You are confusing the is/ought distinction.

 

[The_Exodus]

This amounts to proving morality exists by saying that you have observed moral behavior. We have all observed people behaving in a way they believe to be moral but that says nothing whatever about whether they are correct.
What about the fact that most people believed the sun revolved around the earth. Does that also provide good evidence that it is true?
The distinction is not obvious unless you assert that morality exists - which is all you have done. I observe people behaving according to various sets of rules. What is the observable property that allows you distinguish which actions merely follow rules and which are moral?
Of course we make distinctions. What I am challenging is the basis on which those distinctions are made. You are simply claiming that morality exists because people fancy themselves behaving morally.
Rule 1-1* A player** must not*** take any action to influence the position or the movement of a ball except in accordance with the Rules.
Rule 5-1* The ball the player plays **must ***conform to the requirements specified in Appendix III
Rule 6-2 Before starting a match in a handicap competition, the players should determine from one another their respective handicaps.
I would be interested in learning how we can know that a particular moral principle is true when we haven’t yet shown that morality even exists.

Ender

Applause. Excellent critique Ender.

 

[The_Exodus]

hmmm… If ‘objectivity’ is a subjective construct, then ‘objectivity’ will be found wherever subjectivity has constructed it - the ‘where is it?’ will be an a posteriori question, will it not?

If objectivity is a subjective construct it wouldn’t be objectivity. You’re simply slipping in the concept of subjectivity to start with. The fact that a mind with various inclinations and experiences which appeal to it does not exclude it from taking part in the objectivity of the universe (concerning ought or is). Thus, the idea is not “subjective leading to objective” or “objective founded on the subjective” but it is the “subjective taking part in the objective.”

 

[Syntax]

It is truly astonishing that you cannot realize this very basic point that many atheists (as well as theists obviously) can see…

On the contrary, my friend, I am surrounded by atheists as a graduate student in philosophy almost every day, and they would find your intellectual train-wreck very reprehensible and completely misinformed.

You have misunderstood (surprise) what I claimed was “intrinsically impossible.” What is instrinsically impossible is for morality to exist objectively if it is not grounded in something outside of humans.

If morality is nothing more than a human construct, it cannot be objective in the sense of having meaning outside the context of human beings. This is the conclusion that necessarily follows if there is nothing outside humans which gives value to things.

You desperately need a dictionary of philosophy. You don’t even have a firm grasp of basic philosophical terminology. The term “objective” with respect to moral claims simply means these claims are universally binding on all individuals, not that moral truths exist independent of human beings. For instance, *moral constructivism based on Rawls’ own Social Contract Theory *is a kind of moral objectivism, too, even though all moral truths are dependent on human beings.

See Rawls:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

Further, atheists can also believe morality is grounded “outside” of human being while still denying God. For instance, if the Platonic Form of the Good exists independent of human beings, one can surely still ground one’s moral claims in the Form of the Good.

Atheists are not forced to be subjectivists by their denial of God’s existence. You are relying on Dostoevsky’s assumption that most atheists will deny, namely, if God doesn’t exist, then everything is permissible. Most simply think this is false.

 

[Syntax]

You’re the one that’s conflating terms. You are confusing the is/ought distinction.

Where? You need to substantiate your accusations. And I would like a direct quote from myself, please, not what you think I am saying.

 

[Syntax]

Applause. Excellent critique Ender.

That’s just great. Now we have the blind applauding the blind for being totally lost in his territory.

 

[The_Exodus]

You desperately need a dictionary. You don’t even have a firm grasp of basic philosophical terminology. The term “objective” with respect to moral claims simply means these claims are universally binding on all individuals, not that moral truths exist independent of human beings. For instance, *moral constructivism based on Rawls’ own Social Contract Theory *is a kind of moral objectivism, too, even though all moral truths are dependent on human beings.

Thank you for explaining in all detail “basic terminology” for one so poorly unenlightened as myself.

If you want to read a textbook or dictionary that defines moral “objectivity” as something “universall binding” on individuals and not moral truths that exist independent of human beings go right ahead. Lol, as if quoting “Rawl” ends all discussion on the matter.

The fact is, my claim is still valid, whoever you want to quote as your great englightening philosopher that has so clearly articulated all the terms of morality; and besides the fact that you constantly wish to derail the discussion by redefining irrelevancies. My claim was that morality cannot exist objectively if it does not originate outside the human being.

Further, atheists can also believe morality is grounded “outside” of human being while still denying God. For instance, if the Platonic Form of the Good exists independent of human beings, one can surely still ground one’s moral claims in the Form of the Good.

Thank you for illustrating my point. Morality must be grounded in something outside human beings. Whether you want to call it “God” or the “Form of the Good” is really beside the point.

Atheists are not forced to be subjectivists by their denial of God’s existence. You are relying on Dostoevsky’s assumption that most atheists will deny, namely, if God doesn’t exist, then everything is permissible. Most simply think this is false.

…

You’re driving me crazy man. My point has nothing to do with what atheists think they can logically believe. My point is that their belief is an invalid, absurd, illogical, impossible belief.

If there is no morality outside human beings (I keep saying the “absolute” but sub in whatever you want), then there is no objective meaning, outside what the said humans “choose” to think. This choosing is arbitrary, with respect to anything outside themselves. This sounds tautological and overly expressed, but you fail to grasp the ramifications of what you’re saying.

 

[The_Exodus]

Where? You need to substantiate your accusations. And I would like a direct quote from myself, please, not what you think I am saying.

We can start over if you want.

I submit that morality cannot exist objectively if it does not originate outside the human person. It seems to follow then, that we have no reason for doing anything we deem moral besides reasons that are within our person/mind/brain/etc. Thus there is no foundation, other than what the human arbitrarily chooses to be his/her foundation. This choosing is, necessarily, arbitrary, since it can have no foundation outside itself in which to appeal to in order to validate itself.

Enter existentialism, nihilism, and absurdity.

 

[Syntax]

If you want to read a textbook or dictionary that defines moral “objectivity” as something “universall binding” on individuals and not moral truths that exist independent of human beings go right ahead. Lol, as if quoting “Rawl” ends all discussion on the matter. besides the fact that you constantly wish to derail the discussion by redefining irrelevancies.

lol. I am not making any claims irrelevant to the discussion here. I am making distinctions all practicing philosophers make, especially well-respected atheists. You’re the only one, here, coming up with your own terminology. Do you have your own private language or something?

My claim was that morality cannot exist objectively if it does not originate outside the human being.

Do you have an argument for this, or are you just stipulating your own definitions? Though I would agree with you, Rawls would not, precisely because there are distinctions between “objectivity” and “human ontological dependency.”

Thank you for illustrating my point. Morality must be grounded in something outside human beings. Whether you want to call it “God” or the “Form of the Good” is really beside the point.

But belief that the Form of the Good grounds moral claims is not a uniquely atheistic position since a theist can believe this too.

You’re driving me crazy man. My point has nothing to do with what atheists think they can logically believe. My point is that their belief is an invalid, absurd, illogical, impossible belief.

Then demonstrate how this invalidity occurs in a formally invalid argument. This will require your showing that the atheist’s conclusion does not follow from his set of premises. You are being very uncharitable to what atheists actually believe.

 

[Syntax]

I submit that morality cannot exist objectively if it does not originate outside the human person. It seems to follow then **“it follows then” means you are making an inference from the above conditional as a premise], **that we have no reason for doing anything we deem moral besides reasons that are within our person/mind/brain/etc. **[but this conclusion does not follow from the above premise.] **

Thus there is no foundation **“thus” also implies you are making a logical inference from the above, but you haven’t yet established the truth of the above inference either] **other than what the human arbitrarily chooses to be his/her foundation. This choosing is, necessarily, arbitrary, since it can have no foundation outside itself in which to appeal to in order to validate itself.

I point out the structure and error of your argument within your passage above.

If you really intend to make a strong case for the claim that

“Objective morality doesn’t exist because it doesn’t originate outside the mind,”

then you need a clear argument with premises and a conclusion, otherwise, you’re just talking yourself circles. For instance, so far your argument above is merely this:

(1) If morality does not originate outside of human beings, then morality is not objective.
(2) Therefore, we have no reason for doing anything moral “outside of brain chemicals.”

(2) does not logically follow from (1). So the argument is invalid. Nor have you provided any reasons for thinking the conditional in (1) (which most atheists deny) is true.

Even worse, (1) should be your conclusion, not your premise. So you are begging the question and nothing has been established here.

You make further inference based on (2) that…

(3) Thus, there is no foundation other than what someone chooses to be a foundation.
(4) Choosing a foundation is necessarily arbitrary.

(3) doesn’t follow from (2) since (2) hasn’t even been established yet. And (2) hasn’t been established because it doesn’t follow from (1).

(4) is simply an analytic entailment of (3). But who cares? Your argument hasn’t even got off the ground yet anyway.

 

[Ender]

Is this then supposed to be an attempt to prove the existence of God based on the existence of morality?

Perhaps people find it difficult to understand what I’m saying because they look beyond my words to find some hidden meaning.

I mean what I say, neither more nor less.

I specified in the OP that God does not exist. The reason I did that was to remove God as a topic to be discussed. This is a debate about whether morality can exist if God does not. That’s it. It is not a veiled attack on the morality of atheists. It is (supposed to be) a discussion about the foundation of morality: does one exist? What is it? Can we know what it is?

You have said that you take it as an axiom that human life is precious. Since you have devised your own basis for morality does this mean that I am allowed to do the same and create a different basis for myself or are you claiming that your axiom is the one true basis for all morality and that everyone is required to adopt it?

Ender