How to argue with subjective moralists

[grannymh]

gearhead:
Both you and Oreoracle 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.

However, I should state that I am not a scripture expert. Thus, whenever I am presented with a scripture verse such as Exodus 20: 11, I read the material before and below it, check footnotes, and refer to the way it is presented as Christian teaching.

Looking at the structure of verses 8 - 11, one finds that it is actually verse 8 which states the purpose or intent of the 3rd commandment. If you wish, you could consider verse 8 as being similar to John 3: 16-17 which gives the intent or purpose of Jesus Christ’s mission. Verse 11 is in support of verse 8. Verses 9 and 10 are descriptions or examples which apply to the current Jewish people. For modern times, verses 9 -11 illustrate the emphatic importance of verse 8.

In other words it is verse 8 which tells us that we, as the created, must set aside time to honor the Creator. This is the objective teaching.

Talk to you later about the other interesting points.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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?

im not arguing for objective morals, im pointing out that in there absence there are really no morals at all.

the point being that even those who deny objective morals, those people usually just have their own set of what they wish to be objective morals.

all moralists are therefore objective moralists, or at least want to be.

 

[Betterave]

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.

Question-begging; if all good things come from God, including (obviously) human reason and indirectly human society, then our shared values always do come from God, at least remotely.

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.

“It is wrong to torture and kill persons who were born in Antarctica” - meaningless??? No application is not the same as meaningless!

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.

Perhaps you should read what I wrote on divine command theory above (or read it more carefully if you already did so). This is just silly.

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.

See comment above.

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.

Whoa! Wait a minute! “work just as well”? “changing in bad ways”? What is this supposed to mean, given that “working well” and “bad ways” are supposed to be purely conventional? It sounds like you’re sneaking in non-conventional (transcendent) standards. Weren’t you the one who was against that?

(Local standards only apply locally; what is the global standard you’re using to compare two different local modules? I thought you said there wasn’t one (a very problematic position in itself, if you think about it).)

 

[mlchance]

How to argue with subjective moralists?

Invite one over for a beer and pretzels. Pour his beer, then spit in it. Lick all the salt off a pretzel and put it back in the bowl. When he complains, respond, “Hey, that’s just your opinion.”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

“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.

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?

ok, so robbing and killing are neither wrong nor right? we just expect people not to do it based on out shared values? i dont see a difference between that and objective morality.

 

[AntiTheist]

ok, so robbing and killing are neither wrong nor right?

That’s right.

we just expect people not to do it based on out shared values?

No, that’s not quite right. The majority of people tend not to want to do those things. For those people who do want to do them, we’ve created rules and social punishments to act as deterrents.

We would expect that some people will do those things – that’s the precise reason for creating a society and making rules and punishments that discourage people from doing those things.

When we create those rules, though, we’re not basing those rules on some absolute set of rules that say “no one should ever, ever do these things” – we’re simply making the rules on the basis that most of us don’t like robbing and killing.

i dont see a difference between that and objective morality.

Uh…someone who believes in objective morality says that there are absolute standards of behavior that are somehow inherent to actions, that there are things that “should” or “should not” be done in all circumstances.

But we just established that actions – such as robbing and killing, as you mention above – are not, in and of themselves, good or bad. They’re just actions. Most people don’t like those two actions that you used as examples, so we make rules against doing them. There’s no absolute law that says you “should not” do them, but there are lots of reasons that make it not such a great idea to do them (an individual’s lack of desire to do them and the constraints of society being two obvious reasons that keep most people from doing them). Similarly, there’s no absolute law that says you “should” do them.

In practice, the difference in behavior between an “objective moralist” and a moral nihilist will probably not be so great, assuming that they are from the same culture. In theory, however, the difference between the two positions is enormous.

 

[liquidpele]

How to argue with subjective moralists?

Invite one over for a beer and pretzels. Pour his beer, then spit in it. Lick all the salt off a pretzel and put it back in the bowl. When he complains, respond, “Hey, that’s just your opinion.”

– Mark L. Chance.

While funny, this is exactly right, and I lean towards subjective morality

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That’s right.

No, that’s not quite right. The majority of people tend not to want to do those things. For those people who do want to do them, we’ve created rules and social punishments to act as deterrents.

We would expect that some people will do those things – that’s the precise reason for creating a society and making rules and punishments that discourage people from doing those things.

When we create those rules, though, we’re not basing those rules on some absolute set of rules that say “no one should ever, ever do these things” – we’re simply making the rules on the basis that most of us don’t like robbing and killing.

Uh…someone who believes in objective morality says that there are absolute standards of behavior that are somehow inherent to actions, that there are things that “should” or “should not” be done in all circumstances.

But we just established that actions – such as robbing and killing, as you mention above – are not, in and of themselves, good or bad. They’re just actions. Most people don’t like those two actions that you used as examples, so we make rules against doing them. There’s no absolute law that says you “should not” do them, but there are lots of reasons that make it not such a great idea to do them (an individual’s lack of desire to do them and the constraints of society being two obvious reasons that keep most people from doing them). Similarly, there’s no absolute law that says you “should” do them.

so in societies that commit genocide, thats ok? when most folks want to kill other folks that arent like them thats ok? i think your its “just rules” argument goes down a pretty dark path here.

 

[AntiTheist]

so in societies that commit genocide, thats ok?

No. “Ok” and “Not Ok” are another way of saying “right” and “wrong,” which I’ve been arguing are meaningless.

Committing genocide is not “ok,” but it’s not “not ok,” either – it’s an action. It’s an action that most people hate, and that’s precisely the reason why people fought against genocides and continue to do so.

when most folks want to kill other folks that arent like them thats ok?

Again, it’s not “ok,” but it’s not “not ok,” either – it’s an action. It’s an action that most people hate, and that’s precisely the reason why we come up with rules, like declarations of human rights and other such agreements.

i think your its “just rules” argument goes down a pretty dark path here.

Does it? Many of the people who have committed atrocities in history have believed in objective morality and that their actions were “good.” You don’t think that the people who participated in genocides thought that they were doing “good”? That goes to show you how useless “objective morality” is right there.

How many horrible things have been done in the name of “good” in the course of history?

We’re better off looking at things as they are and not trying to universalize our value judgments.

 

[hatsoff]

so in societies that commit genocide, thats ok? when most folks want to kill other folks that arent like them thats ok? i think your its “just rules” argument goes down a pretty dark path here.

I don’t think you quite have it, yet, but it seems like you’re getting closer.

Genocide is “ok” or “not ok” only with respect to some moral agent or code. Antitheist thinks genocide is horrible, I’m sure, as do I. Some societies disagree, however, and many of them end up actually committing genocide.

We might like to say that one of these agents is correct and that the other is incorrect, but we cannot, because morals are not matters of fact. We can only make the best of our differing opinions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t think you quite have it, yet, but it seems like you’re getting closer.

Genocide is “ok” or “not ok” only with respect to some moral agent or code. Antitheist thinks genocide is horrible, I’m sure, as do I. Some societies disagree, however, and many of them end up actually committing genocide.

We might like to say that one of these agents is correct and that the other is incorrect, but we cannot, because morals are not matters of fact. We can only make the best of our differing opinions.

yeah thats a pretty bad place to be, there are millions of survivors, victims families, and others who wouldnt agree. and its not ok with respect to a moral agent, its definitely not ok with G-d. “shared values” enforced by the power of law, is in no way any different than objective morality.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No. “Ok” and “Not Ok” are another way of saying “right” and “wrong,” which I’ve been arguing are meaningless.

Committing genocide is not “ok,” but it’s not “not ok,” either – it’s an action. It’s an action that most people hate, and that’s precisely the reason why people fought against genocides and continue to do so.

Again, it’s not “ok,” but it’s not “not ok,” either – it’s an action. It’s an action that most people hate, and that’s precisely the reason why we come up with rules, like declarations of human rights and other such agreements.

Does it? Many of the people who have committed atrocities in history have believed in objective morality and that their actions were “good.” You don’t think that the people who participated in genocides thought that they were doing “good”? That goes to show you how useless “objective morality” is right there.

How many horrible things have been done in the name of “good” in the course of history?

We’re better off looking at things as they are and not trying to universalize our value judgments.

this is the sort of thinking that makes genocidal pogroms and eugenics ok. not a world i think you really care to live in. you may really dislike gecocide yourself, but its ok under some circumstances. pretty dark world there.

 

[AntiTheist]

you may really dislike gecocide yourself, but its ok under some circumstances.

Please quote the exact words in which I say that genocide is ever “ok.”

I thought that I was quite clear that “ok” and “not ok” have nothing to do with any particular act.

 

[hatsoff]

yeah thats a pretty bad place to be, there are millions of survivors, victims families, and others who wouldnt agree.

Tough cookies. Just because you and others think it would be nice if morals were objective doesn’t mean morals really are objective.

But, honestly, it’s not a “bad place to be” once you become accustomed to the idea. We really don’t need objective morals to condemn atrocities. We don’t need anything at all. We are free agents to judge as we please.

and its not ok with respect to a moral agent, its definitely not ok with G-d. “shared values” enforced by the power of law, is in no way any different than objective morality.

How is it that you do not see the difference between a divine autocrat implanting morals into our brains on one hand, and on the other hand society developing and instituting their own shared moral codes? For me, the difference is quite plain.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Please quote the exact words in which I say that genocide is ever “ok.”

I thought that I was quite clear that “ok” and “not ok” have nothing to do with any particular act.

you were quite clear in that assertion. but then you justify an enforced objective morality, by the might makes right platform. a bit of a contradiction there no?

 

[hatsoff]

you were quite clear in that assertion. but then you justify an enforced objective morality, by the might makes right platform. a bit of a contradiction there no?

I do not recall AntiTheist attempting to justify an “objective morality,” saying that “might makes right,” or anything to that effect.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Tough cookies. Just because you and others think it would be nice if morals were objective doesn’t mean morals really are objective.

But, honestly, it’s not a “bad place to be” once you become accustomed to the idea. We really don’t need objective morals to condemn atrocities. We don’t need anything at all. We are free agents to judge as we please.

its a really bad place to be, its one step from genocidal atrocities. but you have an enforced objective morality. might makes right. quite a contradiction there. you say there is no objective morality, but you ascribe to some yourself, simply changing the language and calling it shared values.

How is it that you do not see the difference between a divine autocrat implanting morals into our brains on one hand, and on the other hand society developing and instituting their own shared moral codes? For me, the difference is quite plain.

G-d has the legitimate authority of the Creator, over the Creation. people have no such authority, they can only enforce an opinion, one which can vary wildly by culture, society, etc. making some very bad things just fine.

 

[hatsoff]

its a really bad place to be, its one step from genocidal atrocities. but you have an enforced objective morality. might makes right. quite a contradiction there. you say there is no objective morality, but you ascribe to some yourself, simply changing the language and calling it shared values.

Except that I do not subscribe to any objective morality, nor do I believe that “might makes right.”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I do not recall AntiTheist attempting to justify an “objective morality,” saying that “might makes right,” or anything to that effect.

as ive already pointed out, there is no difference between yalls’ “shared values” “empathy” or “benefits of society” and objective moralities. further, they are enforced by law, ergo, the might makes right.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Except that I do not subscribe to any objective morality, nor do I believe that “might makes right.”

yes you do, you just call it shared values orsome other code. and its enforced by law, so i dont see how that isnt a might makes right situation.