How to argue with subjective moralists

[warpspeedpetey]

What, don’t you care for governmental overseeing? I happen to very much enjoy civilized society, and the liberties accompanying it.

ok. so which liberties are those?

 

[gearhead]

first i would have to be arguing there is an objective morality, no?

youre reading things that arent there, this isnt an argument for objective morals, its about dealing with people promoting a subjectivist view.

Ah… so you’re advocating “crushing” of yourself? It seems to me to be an odd stance to take, but whatever floats your boat.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ah… so you’re advocating “crushing” of yourself? It seems to me to be an odd stance to take, but whatever floats your boat.

as im not a subjectivist. not really.

 

[hatsoff]

ok. so which liberties are those?

Oh, come on. Surely you already know.

If not, then you should educate yourself. Here’s a good starting point: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty

 

[Oreoracle]

if there are no objective morals, there simply are no morals at all.

That’s like saying, “If there are no objective emotions, there are no emotions at all.” Personally, I don’t think moral sentiments being sentiments makes them any less valuable, but this objection is beside the point in the first place. A truth having inconvenient implications doesn’t make it any less true.

every proposed moral system is nothing but their opinion.

So what’s the problem?

its simply an attempt to make a universal or “objective” moral system that fits what they think should be the standard. (funny how it always looks like Christain morality, minus the ones that restrict fornication and homosexuality. i wonder why?)

Well no, they don’t always look like Christian morality and they aren’t always presented as objective. Again, utilitarianism is a prime example.

if they list any system, utilitarianism, the golden rule, etc. point out that such a system is little more than an attempt to make a universal or “objective” moral system and is therefore self defeating.

No, it’s just an attempt to make the world the place one feels it should be. There’s nothing self-defeating about this course of action.

(Nice jab at me, by the way. Pity it didn’t hurt.)

when that is dealt with make the point that if there is no moral authority that is objective, then each man is his own moral authority, ergo, why should we worry about other people at all?

Why should we live? Why should we care for family? Why should we seek entertainment, like bickering with contrarians on public forums? Why should we choose a favorite color? Why should we aspire to great things? Why should we devise our own idea of “greatness?” Why should we feel cheated when our legal rights are ignored?

These questions are all personal with subjective answers. Despite this, no one dismisses these considerations as unimportant as you attempt to do with ethics. Your argument is demonstrably absurd.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Oh, come on. Surely you already know.

If not, then you should educate yourself. Here’s a good starting point: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty

and how does this have anything to do with the subject?

 

[AntiTheist]

if there is no moral authority that is objective, then each man is his own moral authority, ergo, why should we worry about other people at all? why not just an anarchy where everyone can do as he pleases, regardless of its effects on others?

Because it’s in our best interest to set up a cooperative society. That’s what has worked.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That’s like saying, “If there are no objective emotions, there are no emotions at all.” Personally, I don’t think moral sentiments being sentiments makes them any less valuable, but this objection is beside the point in the first place. A truth having inconvenient implications doesn’t make it any less true.

So what’s the problem?

Well no, they don’t always look like Christian morality and they aren’t always presented as objective. Again, utilitarianism is a prime example.

No, it’s just an attempt to make the world the place one feels it should be. There’s nothing self-defeating about this course of action.

(Nice jab at me, by the way. Pity it didn’t hurt.)

Why should we live? Why should we care for family? Why should we seek entertainment, like bickering with contrarians on public forums? Why should we choose a favorite color? Why should we aspire to great things? Why should we devise our own idea of “greatness?” Why should we feel cheated when our legal rights are ignored?

These questions are all personal with subjective answers. Despite this, no one dismisses these considerations as unimportant as you attempt to do with ethics. Your argument is demonstrably absurd.

i read this to reply, and then realized you arent really saying anything but nuh huh!. make actual arguements.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Because it’s in our best interest to set up a cooperative society. That’s what has worked.

so then there are objective morals?

 

[AntiTheist]

so then there are objective morals?

No.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No.

Because it’s in our best interest to set up a cooperative society. That’s what has worked.

this looks suspiciously like an objective moral that we should all follow. how is it not one?

 

[HelenaMT]

… If the creator had a choice, then the moral law is arbitrary: “Thou shalt not eat butter on a Wednesday.” If the creator had no choice then there is a higher authority than the creator, and moral law does not originate with the creator.

So objective morality is only truly objective if that morality originated outside of any one mind,including God’s (otherwise it would be subjective). It’s sort of like the same argument Christians use when arguing that God can do anything other than violate His nature, which is supposed to be ultimate good.

To me, this always seemed to be a limit that God didn’t choose, else He would be able to violate it. If He can’t go against His own programming, what does that say about the sort of free will God has? It makes it seem that He is as limited by His “mental” boundaries as we are. But if He can choose to violate that morality (even if He doesn’t), then it seems His morality is subjective. It may still be the best way to attain happiness and get to Heaven, but it’s subjective nonetheless. This version makes it impossible to explain moral behavior to anyone who doesn’t believe in God (or believe that he’s good).

So to Buddhists, it’s the universe itself that holds the moral code ? Do you believe the universe itself is a mind, of sorts? I know very little about Buddhism.

 

[hatsoff]

and how does this have anything to do with the subject?

You mean the OP? Nothing. I was answering your follow-up questions, namely this one:

ok. so which liberties are those?

 

[hatsoff]

this looks suspiciously like an objective moral that we should all follow. how is it not one?

I for one reject that it “looks suspiciously like an objective moral.” As far as I’m concerned, objective morality is an incoherent concept to begin with.

 

[NowAgnostic]

if there are no objective morals, there simply are no morals at all. every proposed moral system is nothing but their opinion. its simply an attempt to make a universal or “objective” moral system that fits what they think should be the standard. (funny how it always looks like Christain morality, minus the ones that restrict fornication and homosexuality. i wonder why?)

So if there are no objective morals, there are no objective moral systems. OK, no disagreement there.

if they list any system, utilitarianism, the golden rule, etc. point out that such a system is little more than an attempt to make a universal or “objective” moral system and is therefore self defeating.

If they believe in utilitarianism or the golden rule as objective moral standards then they believe in objective morals. No argument there either.

when that is dealt with make the point that if there is no moral authority that is objective, then each man is his own moral authority, ergo, why should we worry about other people at all? why not just an anarchy where everyone can do as he pleases, regardless of its effects on others? the golden rule and its variations only benefit those who are weakest. complete anarchy benefits and therefore contributes to the happiness of the strong. why then should we care about others rights?

This is the fallacy of the argument to consequences. If objective morality doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t exist, whether we like the implications or not.

Furthermore, it’s in people’s self interest to make mutual compacts regarding their behavior towards each other where they recognize rights; so it’s in people’s self interest not to have anarchy - we worry about others because we want them to worry about us.

in the end, moral authority can only stem from that legitimate authority of the Creator, over His Creations,

A non sequitur. If you want to argue that objective morality can only exist with a Creator, go ahead, but you haven’t done it; moreover, you switch from morality in general to moral “authority”. But your statement should be problematic anyway for a Catholic steeped in the natural law tradition - the prime obligations of the natural law do not derive from the authority of the Creator, but from the nature of man - God could not command something against the natural law.

…and if there be no Creator, there are no morals at all. anything else, any other basis for authority requires an artificial assignation of authority to a third party, be that another individual, or to society as a whole.

You’re assuming morality owes its basis to the commands of some “authority”. This is not necessary to have an objective morality. For instance, morality can be objective because violating it violates some tenet of reason.

 

[Touchstone]

Thank you. This also answers my question on Buddhist morality.

As to various dilemmas, humans attach to God, I believe that the real problem is that we look at God as a being bound by our boundaries. As the Creator, God is not bound by the principles or laws or rules of His creation.

As Rossum I think later pointed out, and which I think bears emphasizing, that this is subjective morality – not objective morality. It may be “legitimate” authority in issuing decrees, but the “rightness” and “wrongness” obtain from the will of a mind – a single will. That’s not an objective standard, as by ‘objective’ we mean the very opposite of that; independent of mind or will.

That’s what makes it a bit humorous to hear folks like William Lane Craig (no Catholic, I know, but a top Christian apologist here in the US, nevertheless) give his Argument form Objective Morality, wherein “objective morality” can only obtain as a purely subjective construct, from the mind of God.

If moral values are objective (which I think is basically a non-starter conceptually, in terms of universals), then God’s bound by them just as much as anyone, else they aren’t objective universals. Which is just to say that the language and presentation of arguments like we find in the OP are muddled. I think it would be OK to argue that there are “moral universals” or “moral absolutes” in a reality where God is extant and sovereign, but that seems to lack the rhetorical “punch” that “objective morality” has. Craig, for his part, is sticking with the muddle, and making it work in his favor.

-TS

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I for one reject that it “looks suspiciously like an objective moral.” As far as I’m concerned, objective morality is an incoherent concept to begin with.

so why is it not an objective moral, what makes the idea incoherent?

 

[HelenaMT]

Can you name a single moral precept that’s true in all circumstances?

Maybe to be as unselfish as possible in all things, if you can call that a precept.

It seems to me that selfishness is behind most immoral acts, especially the sexual ones. Most people who have casual sex, for instance, are not looking to do anything other than please themselves, either physically(for the guy) or emotionally (for the girl). It’s almost never (or maybe it is never) about the other person’s enrichment (or even enjoyment) over their own. The wrong seems to lie in the unhappiness these sorts of encounters tend to bring, rather than in breaking some arbitrary rule set up by God.

Lying is usually done to avoid negative consequences, puff up your image undeservedly, or manipulate another person in some way. Lying has the potential to bring harm to others due to the consequences of the dishonesty. It’s not wrong because God said so(even if you think He did), but because it can harm others. Since we can’t control what happens after we lie, we take a risk every time at making an outcome worse for another person.

Then again, it is good to lie if a person would be devastated by honesty, and if no practical good can come of it.

And stealing to feed a starving child, at the risk of being arrested, can be good because the motivation is unselfish and the goal is the child’s well-being.

It seems like a lot, if not all, enduring morality has at it’s root a call to be unselfish, to put one’s own desires behind those of others. If this is somehow written into our DNA, which I think I’ve heard some atheists argue, maybe that is as close to understanding objective morality as we can get.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So if there are no objective morals, there are no objective moral systems. OK, no disagreement there.

thats not what i said. if there are no objective moral systems, there are no morals at all. i.e. morals just become peoples opinions.

This is the fallacy of the argument to consequences. If objective morality doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t exist, whether we like the implications or not.

if it doesnt exist then none do. they are just so much opinion.

Furthermore, it’s in people’s self interest to make mutual compacts regarding their behavior towards each other where they recognize rights; so it’s in people’s self interest not to have anarchy - we worry about others because we want them to worry about us.

so then mutual self interest is an objective moral?

You’re assuming morality owes its basis to the commands of some “authority”. This is not necessary to have an objective morality. For instance, morality can be objective because violating it violates some tenet of reason.

in that case it is just someones opinion, not objective. its an interesting idea, maybe you have an example?

 

[AntiTheist]

this looks suspiciously like an objective moral that we should all follow. how is it not one?

You were asking why people should worry about other people at all, and I replied by noting that people have reasons to care about other people. I wasn’t asserting any kind of objective moral precept – I wasn’t declaring that all people should, nay must, care about each other – I was just pointing out that people do care about one another and that we don’t need an objective moral code to have reasons to want to be part of a cooperative society.