How to argue with subjective moralists

[hatsoff]

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

Oh, sure, I place values on them, too. I’m not claiming that value judgments haven’t been made, but rather that they are unimportant here. The point is that the agreements are made without the aid of a divine autocrat.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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: 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…

so now its values based? why are anyone elses values binding on another? you just made the argument that “might makes right”. that aside, there are all manner of people and societies that have found things like killing children, human sacrifice, theft, incest, child molestation, genocide and animal torture to have value, the maya/inca, the followers of molech, romans, greeks, nazis and on and on.

there is no good or bad to their actions? as long as they find value in it, its ok? of course not.

 

[gearhead]

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

Hmm. Your post, OTOH, seems like an attempt to shoehorn what I’m saying into the position you want to argue against instead of the position I’m actually taking.

There’s nothing necessarily objective about a shared code of behaviour. Just because one society comes up with one set of rules for its members doesn’t mean that these rules can’t change over time, or that another society can’t come up with some different set of rules.

And as for empathy… we’re a social species. If we had a mode of life like, say, an octopus (eggs are laid and abandoned by the mother, offspring grow up by themselves, learning to live and hunt alone), empathy would probably be a foreign concept to us.

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?

• because for most people it’s unpleasant, verging on unthinkable, to kill and rob a person (remember that whole “empathy” thing I mentioned before).
• because we naturally have instincts toward cooperation and mutual protection, which push us away from these sorts of actions.
• because we’re creatures of habit and we’ve been taught and conditioned from an early age to believe that behaviours like this are unacceptable.
• because we derive benefit from society, and society views these behaviours as unacceptable. Therefore, if we want to serve our own self-interest, we should probably avoid doing things like this.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

“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.

so if we agree as some have, that murder is ok, then it will be?

i dont think im misinterpreting you, i mean it does look like some other comments amount to “the golden rule”. and in that case it would seem to be a way to say “objective moral” without sayinng the actual words.

 

[gearhead]

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)

That seems to me to be a different definition of “objective” than is being used in this thread.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

so you have values? so the many cultures or groups of people who have found value in robbing and killing were ok as they plundered, raped, despoiled, and murdered their way across the landscape were just fine, their was nothing wrong with what they were doing? thats my point, if morals are subjective, there are no morals, there is just whatever happens to be convenient. the problem is that hitler, stalin and mao had the same idea. were the millions they killed all right? no, of course it wasnt.

 

[Betterave]

Oh, sure, I place values on them, too. I’m not claiming that value judgments haven’t been made, but rather that they are unimportant here. The point is that the agreements are made without the aid of a divine autocrat.

Yes, a quite undivine autocrat or group of autocrats is perfectly adequate in most cases. But I already covered this point, did I not?

 

[grannymh]

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

Chilly chimp came on the scene (in another thread) as the discussion revolved around the difference between humans and brute animals. Somehow the idea came up to look at the difference. I took that literally as pretending I had the nature of a brute animal such as a naked ape which of course is a chilly chimp. Unfortunately, this exercise fell apart before I, as chilly chimp, had a chance to determine if I were subjectively or objectively immoral.

 

[Betterave]

Chilly chimp came on the scene (in another thread) as the discussion revolved around the difference between humans and brute animals. Somehow the idea came up to look at the difference. I took that literally as pretending I had the nature of a brute animal such as a naked ape which of course is a chilly chimp. Unfortunately, this exercise fell apart before I, as chilly chimp, had a chance to determine if I were subjectively or objectively immoral.

That’s awesome, made me laugh again!
Edit: I’m still laughing!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hmm. Your post, OTOH, seems like an attempt to shoehorn what I’m saying into the position you want to argue against instead of the position I’m actually taking.

There’s nothing necessarily objective about a shared code of behaviour. Just because one society comes up with one set of rules for its members doesn’t mean that these rules can’t change over time, or that another society can’t come up with some different set of rules.

And as for empathy… we’re a social species. If we had a mode of life like, say, an octopus (eggs are laid and abandoned by the mother, offspring grow up by themselves, learning to live and hunt alone), empathy would probably be a foreign concept to us.

• because for most people it’s unpleasant, verging on unthinkable, to kill and rob a person (remember that whole “empathy” thing I mentioned before).
• because we naturally have instincts toward cooperation and mutual protection, which push us away from these sorts of actions.
• because we’re creatures of habit and we’ve been taught and conditioned from an early age to believe that behaviours like this are unacceptable.
• because we derive benefit from society, and society views these behaviours as unacceptable. Therefore, if we want to serve our own self-interest, we should probably avoid doing things like this.

a shared code of behavior is what most people call an objective set of morals. in that we have a shared set of morals now. we even write laws to enforce them, no stealing, no killing, etc. empathy is an appeal to the golden rule, dont do stuff to folks because you wouldnt want to feel that way. that said, none of your reasons not to kill really apply, there have been cultures and groups throughout history that apparently didnt have empathy, didnt have instincts to cooperaste that pushed them away from it, hadnt been taught what we were, and who either didnt care about the benefits of socity or whose society taught that these things were good, just as ours teaches it is bad. were they right in killing and robbing because of that?

 

[Betterave]

so you have values? so the many cultures or groups of people who have found value in robbing and killing were ok as they plundered, raped, despoiled, and murdered their way across the landscape were just fine, their was nothing wrong with what they were doing? thats my point, if morals are subjective, there are no morals, there is just whatever happens to be convenient.

Not convenient; conventional. It might be psychopathic either way, but at least get the details right.

the problem is that hitler, stalin and mao had the same idea. were the millions they killed all right? no, of course it wasnt.

Oh yes it was, petey, oh yes it was. Might makes right brother.

Betterave:

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

AntiTheist:

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.

You don’t need to imagine Anti - most people definitely do feel the same way.

For clarity’s sake, allow me to clarify your clarification. I believe you meant to say:
“If you want to live harmoniously in this society the way most people do, then you should avoid killing people at least in such ways that would result in your being caught and punished in ways in which you do not want to be punished.” But if you don’t care to live in harmony with society or if you’re clever enough to escape detection when you wish to disrupt the reigning conventional mode of harmony of your society, there’s nothing “wrong” with you or any individual doing any of the “nasty”, “evil” (these are just conventional labels) things that any individual might decide to do.

 

[gearhead]

a shared code of behavior is what most people call an objective set of morals. in that we have a shared set of morals now. we even write laws to enforce them, no stealing, no killing, etc.

You’re flip-flopping between definitions of “objective”.

Until 1865, in many American states, the shared code of behaviour included legalized slavery. Does this mean that slavery is objectively moral?

empathy is an appeal to the golden rule, dont do stuff to folks because you wouldnt want to feel that way. that said, none of your reasons not to kill really apply, there have been cultures and groups throughout history that apparently didnt have empathy, didnt have instincts to cooperaste that pushed them away from it, hadnt been taught what we were, and who either didnt care about the benefits of socity or whose society taught that these things were good, just as ours teaches it is bad. were they right in killing and robbing because of that?

I certainly object to their behaviour.

It seems like you’re arguing that there are no moral truths that have been constant throughout history. If that’s the case, then doesn’t this imply that objective morals don’t exist?

 

[grannymh]

That seems to me to be a different definition of “objective” than is being used in this thread.

You are right.

The philosophy of relativism, which is more widespread than one realizes, makes it difficult to deal with any real definition of objective. If everything is relative to the individual’s own feelings or own values, then the idea of a stable (objective) precept which is the basis for morality gets lost in the shuffle. As for community values, might becomes right.

A subjective moralist is one who designs his own code of morals according to his own insights on life. For him, the ten commandments are ten suggestions. While it is uncommon to refer to an objective moralist, the idea remains that he looks to the ten commandments as objective imperatives for behavior regarding human life. The ten commandments would be considered objective because they are not influenced by any individual’s personal preferences. Not only are the commandments independent but they apply to all human beings religious or not.

When one considers morality as the action or application of a basic precept such as human life is sacred, one takes into account that there are reasonable qualifications which call for informed decisions. That is why there are ethics committees in health care institutions.

God is the source of basic objective precepts regarding the sacredness of human life because He created human life. God exists universally and independent of human’s personal preference and prejudices. It doesn’t make much difference if one believes in God, a higher power, or nothing. The fact that human life is sacred remains firm.

In practice, both subjective and objective reasoning can come into play when we are faced with a decision about a specific action. Without objective precepts underlying moral actions (which apply to all) there would be confusion. Does one choose the humanist’s position or the utilitarian’s position? Fortunately, many people have not squashed their innate sense of right and wrong so society can work for the most part.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[gearhead]

A subjective moralist is one who designs his own code of morals according to his own insights on life.

And a person who lives in a society with already-agreed-upon shared values doesn’t design his own code of morals (not significantly, anyhow), but I think this wouldn’t be the “objective” morals that other posters in this thread are saying depend on God.

For him, the ten commandments are ten suggestions. While it is uncommon to refer to an objective moralist, the idea remains that he looks to the ten commandments as objective imperatives for behavior regarding human life. The ten commandments would be considered objective because they are not influenced by any individual’s personal preferences. Not only are the commandments independent but they apply to all human beings religious or not.

If Christian theology is correct, then the Ten Commandments are not examples of objective morality… if we take “objective” to mean that which is universally true.

According to the Bible, they’re instructions for humanity (or, arguably, for the nation of Israel). They don’t apply to non-sentient beings, they may or may not apply to other sentient beings (angels, etc.), and they certainly do not apply to God.

Also, it seems that God instituted them, implying that there was a time before they were instituted when they weren’t true. At the very least, this would apply to the commandment to observe the sabbath: “rest on the seventh day because God rested on the seventh day” can’t be true until God rests on the seventh day.

In practice, both subjective and objective reasoning can come into play when we are faced with a decision about a specific action. Without objective precepts underlying moral actions (which apply to all) there would be confusion. Does one choose the humanist’s position or the utilitarian’s position? Fortunately, many people have not squashed their innate sense of right and wrong so society can work for the most part.

But there is confusion, and people do choose both the humanist and the utilitarian positions. So what does this say about those objective precepts?

 

[AntiTheist]

so the many cultures or groups of people who have found value in robbing and killing were ok as they plundered, raped, despoiled, and murdered their way across the landscape were just fine, their was nothing wrong with what they were doing?

“Ok” is another way of saying “right.” I’m arguing that “right” and “wrong” are objectively meaningless.

Robbing and killing aren’t “ok” – but they aren’t “not ok” either. “Ok” and “not ok” don’t enter into the picture. Robbing and killing actions that we judge on the basis of our values – and the values of most people nowadays, in this society, would lead them not to approve of them.

thats my point, if morals are subjective, there are no morals, there is just whatever happens to be convenient. the problem is that hitler, stalin and mao had the same idea. were the millions they killed all right? no, of course it wasnt.

Well, you end by simply declaring that it was not right, which is the exact point under discussion. Argument by fiat isn’t usually convincing.

Look, I’m agreeing with you on one significant point: there are no morals.

Let’s be clear: the crimes against humanity committed by various totalitarian regimes are things that I detest and that most other people detest. You’re additionally trying to claim that these acts are in violation of some “objective” code that everyone has to obey. I don’t see any grounds for thinking that – what reason do you have for thinking that?

 

[grannymh]

And a person who lives in a society with already-agreed-upon shared values doesn’t design his own code of morals (not significantly, anyhow), but I think this wouldn’t be the “objective” morals that other posters in this thread are saying depend on God.

I agree with your first point. A society with already-agreed upon shared values describes most situations. Thus a person growing up in this society would not significantly design his own code of morals unless he becomes like the leaders of the French Revolution or a hippie type. One would have to know more about a particular society’s agreement of shared values before any evaluation regarding God could be made.

If Christian theology is correct, then the Ten Commandments are not examples of objective morality… if we take “objective” to mean that which is universally true.

According to the Bible, they’re instructions for humanity (or, arguably, for the nation of Israel). They don’t apply to non-sentient beings, they may or may not apply to other sentient beings (angels, etc.), and they certainly do not apply to God.

Since the Ten Commandments are instructions for humanity given to the nation of Israel which in a sense could be seen as a representative of humanity. (That may be a stretch.) they would be true universally for all humanity and not other types of beings, including God.

Also, it seems that God instituted them, implying that there was a time before they were instituted when they weren’t true.

The implication is that there was a time when the Ten Commandments were not written down. There is nothing to hint that they didn’t exist or that they were false.

At the very least, this would apply to the commandment to observe the sabbath: “rest on the seventh day because God rested on the seventh day” can’t be true until God rests on the seventh day.

This particular commandment is one which would be difficult to see its connection to natural law like human life is sacred. It refers to a religious ritual because this is proper to a relationship with God. It does not depend on a reference to the bible account of creation in which God “rested”.

But there is confusion, and people do choose both the humanist and the utilitarian positions. So what does this say about those objective precepts?

It simply means that people chose not to follow certain objective precepts. It has been a while since I visited the American Humanist Association web site and I only know about utilitarianism by reading it in various posts, however, as I recall, a lot of their “values” were derived from basic objective precepts but these were not acknowledged as such because their position denied the place of religion in life.

When we talk about God and moral precepts, we should realize that these precepts not only pertain to relationships between people but also to the relationship between people and God. Honesty is a basic moral precept which applies to our relationship with others. We also need to be honest before God. Technically, we can’t fool God. But often our pride gets in the way of being honest with God. Some of us even know better than God.

One of the benefits of Catholicism is that there are guidelines to morality. Yes, I recognize that there are a lot of Catholics who don’t follow guidelines but that does not change them or make them disappear. The Catholic Church offers the Sacraments as a help to us in regard to the way we live our lives. Living a moral life is tough. Recognizing that God is involved is a source of strength.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16 & 17

 

[Oreoracle]

It looks like you and I are back in the same old discussion about whether or not emotions are subjective or objective. Emotions and sentiments are indeed valuable, no denying that. However, emotions and sentiments are part of our internal being and thus are considered subjective according to the dictionary. In post 2, I only dealt with half of the problem with discussions when the meanings of subjective and objective have dramatically changed places.

A human decision can be based on our feelings and on own individual mental ideas which then would become a subjective decision. The is because emotions belong to one’s self and do not exist independently.

I agree. This is, in fact, exactly what I mean by saying that ethics are subjective. I mean that they don’t describe reality and are instead instructions that tell us how to bring about the “world that ought to be” which we, of course, create based on emotions and other factors. No two people imagine the same ideal world.

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. The decision to drink or not drink poison is an objective decision. It is based on the objective precept that human life is sacred including our own.

I would disagree here. Poison being damaging to one’s health is a fact, but “human life ought to be” is simply emotional. It is derived from your appreciation of life.

But just out of curiosity, how do we tell if something possesses the quality of goodness? I mean, how do you examine an object and say that it ought to exist? And if this is the case, how can we possibly prevent such things from existing? At the very least, this demonstrates that moral laws are not comparable to gravitational laws (for example). They can be broken.

Of course we do choose whether or not to follow this precept. Regardless of our choice, the precept that human life is sacred will continue to exist.

Again, whether something can be violated separates feelings from facts. If moral laws truly existed outside of my perception, I wouldn’t be able to violate them any more than gravity.

Let’s look at this another way, shall we? When you look at a beautiful painting, do you think, “I’m observing a painting that has the objective quality of beauty,” or “This painting pleases me in such a way that I feel it’s beautiful.”?

Yes, there is a lot of subjective (belonging to the person) emotions and feelings going into the decision regarding drinking poison. Subjectively, our feelings might indicate that poison might taste delicious when it is in Pepsi, but objectively (according to the independent evidence) it has serious consequences.

It has consequences, yes, but the belief that those consequences ought not be is subjective.

 

[Oreoracle]

You are right.

The philosophy of relativism, which is more widespread than one realizes, makes it difficult to deal with any real definition of objective. If everything is relative to the individual’s own feelings or own values, then the idea of a stable (objective) precept which is the basis for morality gets lost in the shuffle. As for community values, might becomes right.

Well, might always ends up making right. The most powerful have always imposed their values on others. That’s how it’s been throughout history. Should those values always be imposed? I don’t feel they should, but then, that’s because the values being imposed aren’t mine.

A subjective moralist is one who designs his own code of morals according to his own insights on life.

And everyone does that–even you. Don’t you choose to follow God’s ethics based on your own insights?

The ten commandments would be considered objective because they are not influenced by any individual’s personal preferences. Not only are the commandments independent but they apply to all human beings religious or not.

If that’s your basis for the objectivity of a moral, then even the utilitarian greatest happiness principle is objective. A utilitarian believes it should be followed in all cases, by all people. The principle demands that we act differently in different circumstances, of course, but the principle remains the same. And yet, many utilitarians admit freely that they only want this principle to be followed and that its prescriptions aren’t descriptive (meaning that it can’t be a fact).

God is the source of basic objective precepts regarding the sacredness of human life because He created human life. God exists universally and independent of human’s personal preference and prejudices. It doesn’t make much difference if one believes in God, a higher power, or nothing. The fact that human life is sacred remains firm.

But the ethic is ultimately based on God’s feelings, making it subjective.

 

[gearhead]

I agree with your first point. A society with already-agreed upon shared values describes most situations. Thus a person growing up in this society would not significantly design his own code of morals unless he becomes like the leaders of the French Revolution or a hippie type. One would have to know more about a particular society’s agreement of shared values before any evaluation regarding God could be made.

I guess I should’ve been clearer, but I was thinking of a society in which the shared values certainly didn’t come from God. Maybe they came out of mutual agreement from a previous generation; maybe they were the edicts of the society’s leader… in either case, they’d be external to the individual citizen, and therefore in a sense they’d be objective. However, since they were based on the agreement or edict of people, it would be possible to “step outside” that society and find some other situation where those rules did not apply.

Whenever I get into a discussion about objective and subjective morality, I think back to the concepts of “global” and “local” from computer programming. A “local” variable at one level is a “global” variable for the subroutines at lower levels. However, when people talk about objective morality, I assume that they’re talking about a type of morality that’s objective or “global” at all levels.

The implication is that there was a time when the Ten Commandments were not written down. There is nothing to hint that they didn’t exist or that they were false.

I disagree. There’s a big problem with holding up the Ten Commandments as an example of objective morality: many of these “objective” morals refer to subjective, i.e. non-universal, things. “Rest on the seventh day” is meaningless until such time as the term “day” is defined. “Honour your father and mother” is meaningless until mothers and fathers exist. “You shall not commit adultery” is meaningless until marriage is defined. “You shall not steal” and “you shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour” are similarly meaningless in any potential society that doesn’t consider objects to be “property” in the way that we do.

Also, if God instituted the Ten Commandments, then at the level of God, they’re subjective… and since they’re subjective at one level, they can’t be the “objective” morality that people are after.

This particular commandment is one which would be difficult to see its connection to natural law like human life is sacred. It refers to a religious ritual because this is proper to a relationship with God. It does not depend on a reference to the bible account of creation in which God “rested”.

I disagree. Take the the account from Exodus 20, in particular verse 11:

11"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

It’s structured in the form “A, therefore B”. God rested on the sabbath day, and therefore you should rest on the sabbath day. Until such time as the first part of that statement is true (“God rested on the seventh day”), the second part (“therefore you should rest on the seventh day”) cannot be considered true either.

I suppose without other information, before the Creation, it would simply be undefined whether to rest on the seventh day. However, the statement “you should rest on the seventh day because God did it” would be false, because God didn’t do it. Not yet, anyhow.

It simply means that people chose not to follow certain objective precepts. It has been a while since I visited the American Humanist Association web site and I only know about utilitarianism by reading it in various posts, however, as I recall, a lot of their “values” were derived from basic objective precepts but these were not acknowledged as such because their position denied the place of religion in life.

What does acknowledging something as objective have to do with denying religion?

When we talk about God and moral precepts, we should realize that these precepts not only pertain to relationships between people but also to the relationship between people and God. Honesty is a basic moral precept which applies to our relationship with others. We also need to be honest before God. Technically, we can’t fool God. But often our pride gets in the way of being honest with God. Some of us even know better than God.

One of the benefits of Catholicism is that there are guidelines to morality. Yes, I recognize that there are a lot of Catholics who don’t follow guidelines but that does not change them or make them disappear. The Catholic Church offers the Sacraments as a help to us in regard to the way we live our lives. Living a moral life is tough. Recognizing that God is involved is a source of strength.

Yes and no, IMO.

In a pragmatic way, I think it can be useful to get people to behave decently by bringing God into the equation, but there’s a danger there as well: if you convince the people that their moral code comes from God and therefore should be followed, it also implies that other moral codes are wrong, even if they work just as well.

If a religion manages to latch on to a moral system that’s generally good and declares it to be from God, then this cements it. It stops it from changing in bad ways, but it also stops it from being improved.

 

[grannymh]

.

Both you and Gearhead have proposed down to earth challenges, the kind I can understand and relate to. In other words, I prefer to stay away from the “mutually exclusive or” and instead look at most of life as (both / and) . Perhaps that is because I believe in the human ability to reason and to exercise choice. I shall get back to you.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.