How to argue with subjective moralists

[hatsoff]

im pretty sure that one can describe a moral.

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.

Cf. Antitheist’s comments. Sans some minor semantic disagreements, he and I are apparently on the same page with this issue, and there’s no sense in two people taking the time to explain the same thing.

 

[Betterave]

He was a real fountain of nonsense. Rational does not mean moral. A rational person can do the mathematics that he knows. Rationality is simply that kind of competence, there isn’t anything more to it.

There are many very calculating people who are corrupt.

Are you sure Kant wrote that? If he did he is the idiot that has ruined education.

No, Kant certainly didn’t write that - I did! But I was summarizing Kant’s view. Kant isn’t stupid, he just has a different conception of reason from yours. Don’t you think moral competence is possible? I certainly can point to instances of greater and lesser moral competence. Kant held that there was a particular kind of reason, practical reason, which necessarily coincided with a basic reverence for moral law. This meant that as practically reasonable people we could see that making an exception of myself was immoral, e.g., I can lie but you can’t. I can’t want you to lie to me, unless I am irrational and prefer falsity to truth; therefore I can’t justify lying to you, even if I want to in particular circumstances, again because I am rational and I see that reason requires me to treat rational beings (myself and others) with due respect for what they really are, i.e., rational.

One might call this view of morality objective or subjective - but the point is that morality has to be both, and this is so even if God is the authority grounding morality. In crude divine command theory the subject still has to subjectively recognize God’s authority, commands have to be promulgated to subjects as objective, and morality is still objective insofar as it has a transcendent grounding in God’s command. Kant also believed that postulates of practical reason necessary for sustaining our moral efforts were immortality, God, and freedom.

 

[grannymh]

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?

Sorry, but I have never seen an universe where only subjective morality exists. By the way, individuals are talented enough to do two kinds of interpretation, one subjective and one objective.

 

[grannymh]

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.

Just curious. What is your opinion about human beings? Do you think that human life is sacred?

 

[Betterave]

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.

That’s cute - a contract theory realist! (Social contract theories are generally supposed to understood metaphorically.)

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: 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…

To summarize: “My values to not slaughter are no better than ancient Mongol values to slaughter. Don’t mess with my values though, or me and mine will do nasty things to you. It’s about power, you see? We have the power in this society, that’s all there is to it. Therefore, naturally, we impose our values. That’s the prerogative of power!”

(Anything to add?)

 

[gearhead]

Sorry, but I have never seen an universe where only subjective morality exists.

How do you know?

Anyhow, it’s a hypothetical. For argument’s sake, pretend.

By the way, individuals are talented enough to do two kinds of interpretation, one subjective and one objective.

Any interpretation that you might do is through your own viewpoint, which is by definition subjective.

 

[gearhead]

To summarize: “My values to not slaughter are no better than ancient Mongol values to slaughter. Don’t mess with my values though, or me and mine will do nasty things to you. It’s about power, you see? We have the power in this society, that’s all there is to it. Therefore, naturally, we impose our values. That’s the prerogative of power!”

How is this different from the rationale for God being the creator of morality?

 

[Betterave]

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?

Prior question, before answering the bonus question:

What is “subjective morality” that is not in relation to “objective morality”? Anything moral at all? Or are Antitheist and Petey right about this: no God, no morality?

 

[Betterave]

How is this different from the rationale for God being the creator of morality?

God is subsistent goodness confused: - hope that doesn’t blow your mind too much). Antitheist is not. I am not. Our society is not. (I.e., big difference!)

 

[gearhead]

Prior question, before answering the bonus question:

What is “subjective morality” that is not in relation to “objective morality”? Anything moral at all?

I’m not sure I get your meaning. Everyone has some subjective sense of what is right and what is wrong. Objective morality would give us one way (but not the only way, IMO) of evaluating whether this sense of right and wrong is “correct” or “incorrect”.

 

[gearhead]

God is subsistent goodness confused: - hope that doesn’t blow your mind too much).

Why do you say that God is “subsistent goodness”?

Are you one of the “divine command theory” set who says that morality is whatever God says it is?

 

[AntiTheist]

Just curious. What is your opinion about human beings? Do you think that human life is sacred?

That’s a good question.

Obviously, I don’t think human life is “sacred” in some magical, “objective” sense. Human life is life, the same as any other kind of life. But, as I’ve been noting, we value things, and one of the things that we tend to value – unsurprisingly – is human life.

Certainly, you’ll get the odd person here and there who doesn’t value human life – and these are the kinds of the people that the rest of us probably want to keep out of power – but by far and by large, most people value human life and have a vested interest in its existence. That’s part of the reason that we outlaw actions that threaten human life; it’s why we punish someone who takes a human life but reward someone who takes an animal’s life in a hunting competition.

Betterave:

“My values to not slaughter are no better than ancient Mongol values to slaughter. Don’t mess with my values though, or me and mine will do nasty things to you. It’s about power, you see? We have the power in this society, that’s all there is to it. Therefore, naturally, we impose our values. That’s the prerogative of power!”

That’s essentially it, except that I would add that values aren’t necessarily written in stone – they’re informed by circumstances, traditions, relations with others; they’re developing, and never developing in a vacuum.

Or are Antitheist and Petey right about this: no God, no morality?

There is a semantic problem going on in this thread. I tend to shy away from the word “morality” – and its attendant words “good” and “evil” – because it confuses the issue. I always assume that the word “morality” means a set of rules that all people in all times in all circumstances are expected to obey. I don’t think there’s any such thing.

Others seem to be using the word “morality” to mean essentially what I mean by “values.” That is, the subjective placing of importance upon things, as determined by a wide variety of factors (empathy, biology, reason, tradition, society, etc.). I realize that “morality” (and certainly “evil”) is a word with a stronger rhetorical ring to it, but unless you actually mean a universal code of behavior, I’d prefer that you not use the word “morality.”

 

[gearhead]

Others seem to be using the word “morality” to mean essentially what I mean by “values.” That is, the subjective placing of importance upon things, as determined by a wide variety of factors (empathy, biology, reason, tradition, society, etc.). I realize that “morality” (and certainly “evil”) is a word with a stronger rhetorical ring to it, but unless you actually mean a universal code of behavior, I’d prefer that you not use the word “morality.”

I think that illustrates the folly in “objective morality”: if we think of morality as the code of behaviour that flows from our values, it implies that our values (or what our values should be on some objective scale) should never vary.

And this implies all sorts of silly things. For instance, it would be foolish to value a bottle of water just as much when you’re wandering parched through the desert as you would when you’re at home on the couch, a short walk from a faucet.

 

[grannymh]

How do you know?

Anyhow, it’s a hypothetical. For argument’s sake, pretend.

Any interpretation that you might do is through your own viewpoint, which is by definition subjective.

I got in trouble for pretending to be a chilly chimp. So no thank you to the pretending idea.

Check out the definitions for objective/subjective. I believe I got the original info from Wikipedia etc. Own viewpoint? One has two choices. One can base an interpretation based on one’s feelings, etc. (subjective).

Or as my dictionary points out, one can be “uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.” (objective) In other words, community laws regarding punishment for thief exist on the books before one is born and will exist after one dies. (objective) If one decides not to steal his friend’s convertible because of the community law, this is objective reasoning. If one decides not to steal his friend’s convertible because it is winter and one is afraid the top won’t go up; however, one is ready to steal the car in the summer because one feels this is a better time of year, the reasoning is subjective.

In real life, a lot of subjective feelings do come into play regarding decisions. The difficulty with owning a convertible is that my feelings about values regarding ownership may be entirely different from my neighbor’s who places a great value in joy riding. The community law regarding car thief exists objectively regardless of who feels what.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

“empathy”, “shared codes of behavior”, “societies benefits”, and like language seem to be the “Golden Rule”. an attempt at an objective moral standard.

if that is not the case. then why should it be wrong to kill and rob if a person chooses to do so. as there are no objective morals?

 

[Betterave]

How is this different from the rationale for God being the creator of morality?

Maybe I should add: big similarity too. It seems that Antitheist has poached a concept from traditional law-based morality and tried to incorporate it into a convention-based morality by using new labels. But he’s being honest about it, so maybe that’s not fair.

 

[hatsoff]

“empathy”, “shared codes of behavior”, “societies benefits”, and like language seem to be the “Golden Rule”. an attempt at an objective moral standard.

if that is not the case. then why should it be wrong to kill and rob if a person chooses to do so. as there are no objective morals?

“Should” is a value judgment. If you have different values then I do, fine. I doubt we will come into conflict over them. However, you appear to mistake my (and Antitheist’s and gearhead’s) statements of fact with prescriptive commands or subjective value judgments. For example, when I observe an agreement to outlaw murder, I am not placing a value on the agreement. I am merely noting that an agreement has been made.

Hopefully this alert is sufficient to prevent you from misinterpreting me (and others) in this way, in the future.

 

[Betterave]

Why do you say that God is “subsistent goodness”?

Are you one of the “divine command theory” set who says that morality is whatever God says it is?

That’s just part of the background theory of God that you’re supposed to assume: God is subsistent goodness. I don’t know if I’m part of a set, but your formulation of DCT is too crude and subject to misinterpretation. The issue in DCT is what comes first: the command or the goodness of the command. On Antitheist’s view, the command comes first: whatever society values/commands is therefore good/valuable. This has usually (historically) been regarded as an absurd position, for which reason crude DCT is rightly rejected. Properly understood DCT obviously avoids the chicken/egg problem: neither comes first, God is subsistent goodness. Therefore His commands must be good. But this does not mean they are ‘made’ good by his commanding - if God says, “no cheese on Tuesdays,” then it is good to eat no cheese on Tuesdays; but it is only good as an act of obedience to God (which is absolutely good), not because cheese-abstinence is good in itself or good absolutely. Just like if a loved one asked you to pick up some milk from the store; you do it because it is the right thing to do (at least that’s a possible reason), but it is only the right thing to do because you are honoring a request, not because of the act itself of picking up the milk. Capisci?

 

[Betterave]

First of all, what’s a chilly chimp??? (other than sth that made me laugh)

Others seem to be using the word “morality” to mean essentially what I mean by “values.” That is, the subjective placing of importance upon things, as determined by a wide variety of factors (empathy, biology, reason, tradition, society, etc.). I realize that “morality” (and certainly “evil”) is a word with a stronger rhetorical ring to it, but unless you actually mean a universal code of behavior, I’d prefer that you not use the word “morality.”

I think your restriction of morality to a universal code is quite sensible; to a code of behavior is more subject to misinterpretation, as in the following (I assume you see what is wrong with gearhead’s argument here?):

I think that illustrates the folly in “objective morality”: if we think of morality as the code of behaviour that flows from our values, it implies that our values (or what our values should be on some objective scale) should never vary.

And this implies all sorts of silly things. For instance, it would be foolish to value a bottle of water just as much when you’re wandering parched through the desert as you would when you’re at home on the couch, a short walk from a faucet.

Hatsoff:

…you appear to mistake my (and Antitheist’s and gearhead’s) statements of fact with prescriptive commands or subjective value judgments. For example, when I observe an agreement to outlaw murder, I am not placing a value on the agreement. I am merely noting that an agreement has been made.

hmmm… I read Antitheist quite differently. I’m quite sure he said that he does place value on such agreements.

 

[AntiTheist]

“empathy”, “shared codes of behavior”, “societies benefits”, and like language seem to be the “Golden Rule”. an attempt at an objective moral standard.

if that is not the case. then why should it be wrong to kill and rob if a person chooses to do so. as there are no objective morals?

It’s not “wrong” and it’s not “right” – it’s an action. There are those of us who deeply detest the idea of people killing and robbing at will – partially because of empathy and partially because most of us have successfully interiorized the social rules against doing such things and probably partially for other reasons – and we punish people who do them.

Betterave:

hmmm… I read Antitheist quite differently. I’m quite sure he said that he does place value on such agreements.

I believe I said that my values are such that I want to live in a society where certain things are outlawed. I imagine that most other people feel the same way.

EDIT: For clarity’s sake, a “should” statement makes perfect sense when prefaced by a conditional. If you want to live in this society, then you should avoid killing people. Obviously – and it is from our values that we derive that conditional.

But the point is that there’s no absolute moral command here that makes it “objectively wrong” to do anything or that one “should” do a particular action.