How to argue with subjective moralists

[rossum]

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.

The universe is not a mind, the universe is a large number of changing processes interacting through cause and effect. One of those processes is the moral law - karma. Actions have consequences. There is no need to have a mind running things behind the scenes any more than there is a need to have a mind running the law of gravity. If you throw the rock up you will receive a rock on your head. If you act against moral law you will receive the consequences of your action.

rossum

 

[rossum]

if G-d said “Thou shalt not eat butter on a Wednesday.” then its wrong to eat butter on a wednesday. He is G-d, after all.

Then morality is not objective but is a subjective decision by God. He could have said “Thou shalt not eat butter on a Thursday” or “Thou shalt not eat Vegemite on a Wednesday” instead. There is no objective basis for morality, merely God’s subjective decision.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

So if I say that it is a moral (loss of life for disobeying) to;

"Stay alert to possible critical threats to ones life."

Is that objective or subjective?

It could be both depending on usage. However, “Stay alert to possible critical threats to ones life.” is very good advice which is akin to a mother’s advice about wearing clean underwear.

 

[grannymh]

Then morality is not objective but is a subjective decision by God. He could have said “Thou shalt not eat butter on a Thursday” or “Thou shalt not eat Vegemite on a Wednesday” instead. There is no objective basis for morality, merely God’s subjective decision.

rossum

A human decision can be based on our feelings and on own individual mental ideas which then would become a subjective decision.

A human decision can also be based on objective evidence which exists independently from our existence. For example, the objective evidence of poison doing damage to one’s physical body existed before we were born and will continue to exist after we die.

Given that God is a different nature than ours, i.e., totally spiritual or immaterial, He would not be influenced by feelings, etc., which are part of His created world. He is beyond the created, not part of it.

Rather, His decisions would be based on the objective evidence of what would do damage to the human physical body. More important, His decisions would also be based on what would damage human’s spiritual, immaterial, eternal souls.

 

[grannymh]

The universe is not a mind, the universe is a large number of changing processes interacting through cause and effect. One of those processes is the moral law - karma. Actions have consequences. There is no need to have a mind running things behind the scenes any more than there is a need to have a mind running the law of gravity. If you throw the rock up you will receive a rock on your head. If you act against moral law you will receive the consequences of your action.

rossum

I am totally unsure of this idea, but that has never stopped me from expressing my thoughts.

It sounds like karma is similar to what is called natural laws. The problem is that there is little agreement as to what natural laws are. In my humble opinion, a natural law would be based on the universal precept that human life is sacred including one’s own. Thus two applications would be not to throw a rock straight up above one’s head and not to throw a rock directly at someone else’s head.

 

[hatsoff]

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

Antitheist’s statement was not descriptive, so it cannot be a moral of any kind, since morals are prescriptive.

Moreover, if by “objective moral” you mean a statute handed down by some divine autocrat, then no prescriptive statement is an objective moral as long as no such autocrat exists. If you mean something else by “objective moral,” then I invite you to provide a definition.

 

[grannymh]

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.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

so you dont have a problem if that is not some peoples choice and they lay about with random slaughter and robery, because thats not immoral?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Then morality is not objective but is a subjective decision by God. He could have said “Thou shalt not eat butter on a Thursday” or “Thou shalt not eat Vegemite on a Wednesday” instead. There is no objective basis for morality, merely God’s subjective decision.

rossum

i know. im not promoting objective morality. i think you might make a case that it is objective for us and subjective for Him, if that even makes sense, but it doesnt matter either way, because G-ds authority is the basis for morality. we dont know good or bad aside from Him.

 

[hatsoff]

so you dont have a problem if that is not some peoples choice and they lay about with random slaughter and robery, because thats not immoral?

How can you ask such a thing? Of course we’d all have serious problems with folks who robbed and murdered. It makes no difference whether God lays down a divine moral code. We’re going to care deeply about some things, regardless.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Antitheist’s statement was not descriptive, so it cannot be a moral of any kind, since morals are prescriptive.

im pretty sure that one can describe a moral.

Moreover, if by “objective moral” you mean a statute handed down by some divine autocrat, then no prescriptive statement is an objective moral as long as no such autocrat exists. If you mean something else by “objective moral,” then I invite you to provide a definition.

im pointing out that if morals are subjective, being based only on opinion there is no such thing as morals. they are just self serving ideas. ergo, there is no reason then not to behave in any manner it pleases a person to act.

the entire objective/subjective idea is a false start.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How can you ask such a thing? Of course we’d all have serious problems with folks who robbed and murdered. It makes no difference whether God lays down a divine moral code. We’re going to care deeply about some things, regardless.

so then then there is an objective moral? in this case. dont kill and rob just because you want too?

and if its not an objective moral, then why should a person not do it?

 

[gearhead]

im pointing out that if morals are subjective, being based only on opinion there is no such thing as morals.

“Subjective” is not the same thing as “arbitrary” or “based only on opinion”.

they are just self serving ideas. ergo, there is no reason then not to behave in any manner it pleases a person to act.

This seems to me to imply that you feel without a God telling you right from wrong, you’d have no problem committing any action at all. IMO, this is psychopathic.

I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that you aren’t actually a psychopath and in reality, you just haven’t thought through your position.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

“Subjective” is not the same thing as “arbitrary” or “based only on opinion”.

sure it is, can you tell me a subjective moral that isnt based on an opinion?

This seems to me to imply that you feel without a God telling you right from wrong, you’d have no problem committing any action at all. IMO, this is psychopathic

.

then why shouldnt a person perform any act that they want?

 

[DanB]

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

Homosexuality is a single moral principal that’s true in all circumstances, is not natural, regardless if there is a creator or not. The existence of the human race requires sperm and egg, not sperm and sperm, not egg and egg, therefore those who object to the natural law for the gratification of self imply a disregard and destruction of the race, which is objectively immoral.

 

[gearhead]

sure it is, can you tell me a subjective moral that isnt based on an opinion?

Morals are opinions. You originally said “only”, which you conveniently removed.

Take the idea “stealing is wrong”: at the individual level, it’s based on empathy, which isn’t opinion in the sense that we can decide to think something differently; empathy is ingrained in us.

At the societal level, it’s based on benefit: if we work together, each of us will be able to acheive and get more of what we value. If we steal from each other, then we would ruin the mutual trust that allows our society to function, and as a consequence, we would lose the benefits of society.

then why shouldnt a person perform any act that they want?

Because we have individual senses of right and wrong.

Because we have to work within societies that, for practical reasons, must have shared codes of behaviour. This doesn’t mean that these codes are set in stone, but it means that we have to take them into account if we want to be members of society.

Homosexuality is a single moral principal that’s true in all circumstances, is not natural, regardless if there is a creator or not.

The fact that homosexuality occurs naturally would seem to contradict your assertion.

Also, I’m not sure how whether something occurring naturally or not factors into morality. If something’s unnatural, then it’s just impossible. I don’t see how that implies immorality. I mean, it wouldn’t be “natural” for me to fly by flapping my arms, but if I managed to figure out a way to do it, would I be acting immorally? I don’t think so.

The existence of the human race requires sperm and egg, not sperm and sperm, not egg and egg, therefore those who object to the natural law for the gratification of self imply a disregard and destruction of the race, which is objectively immoral.

If failure to have offspring onesself is immoral, then bees are the reprobates of the animal kingdom.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Take the idea “stealing is wrong”: at the individual level, it’s based on empathy, which isn’t opinion in the sense that we can decide to think something differently; empathy is ingrained in us.

At the societal level, it’s based on benefit: if we work together, each of us will be able to acheive and get more of what we value. If we steal from each other, then we would ruin the mutual trust that allows our society to function, and as a consequence, we would lose the benefits of society.

Because we have individual senses of right and wrong.

Because we have to work within societies that, for practical reasons, must have shared codes of behaviour. This doesn’t mean that these codes are set in stone, but it means that we have to take them into account if we want to be members of society.

here your calling the golden rule “empathy”, is this “empathy” then an objective moral?

also it seems the “benefits of society” is another objective moral? what if someone doesnt care about the benefits of society? outlaws and such? are their actions wrong? and if “benefits of society isnt an objective moral” then why are their actions wrong?

 

[gearhead]

here your calling the golden rule “empathy”, is this “empathy” then an objective moral?

The fact that I have empathy doesn’t mean that everyone has empathy.

Edit: and I’m not really calling the golden rule “empathy”. I’m calling our innate sense that enables us to be pained by the pain of others “empathy”. You might argue that the golden rule flows from this, but I’m not going that far at the moment.

also it seems the “benefits of society” is another objective moral?

If you can find me a society that exists everywhere and for all time, maybe. Until then, probably not.

what if someone doesnt care about the benefits of society? outlaws and such? are their actions wrong?

If they do something that I consider wrong, then I’d call their actions wrong. What other people consider wrong is up to them, but in my experience, most people have similar ideas about right and wrong, at least on the major issues.

and if “benefits of society isnt an objective moral” then why are their actions wrong?

Think more “allowed” and “prohibited”. Shared codes of behaviour don’t necessarily have to be moral in nature. For example, at the individual level, it might not be immoral to drive on either side of the road, but if a society can’t agree on one choice and have everyone stick to it, problems will occur.

 

[AntiTheist]

so you dont have a problem if that is not some peoples choice and they lay about with random slaughter and robery, because thats not immoral?

People seem to have a hard time grasping this, so I’ll explain it as carefully as I can:

I agree that there is no such thing as “morality” – there are no objective, cosmic rules that all people “should” follow. However, the fact that there are no morals doesn’t mean that we don’t have values. Values are subjective decisions to place importance on various things, and they are derived from a number of sources: biology, empathy, reason, tradition, experience, etc.

My values are such that I value living in a society where theft and murder are outlawed. In fact, ever since people decided to live in a community, they have valued outlawing those things – after all, the very idea of living in a community is designed as a protection against theft and murder.

If someone chose to “lay about with random slaughter and robery,” my values would lead me to oppose that – and the values of most people in society would oppose that too. That’s why we’d lock this murdering individual up pretty quickly, I imagine. But not because he was oh-so naughty in the eyes of some magical rules that were written before time, but because punishing dangerous people like that is something the rest of us value.

You write:

there is no reason then not to behave in any manner it pleases a person to act.

That’s right. If it does please you to murder, then try it and see what happens. I’m guessing that you’ll learn pretty quickly that the rest of us won’t like it, and we’ll do something bad to you. Knowing this in advance, you see, might affect your desire to do it…

 

[gearhead]

Bonus question for all the objective moralists out there:

How can you tell the difference between a universe where only subjective morality exists and one where objective morality exists, but can only be understood by any individual through their own subjective interpretation of it?