Moral Objectivism versus Moral Subjectivism

[larkin31]

If the foundation of morality is speculative there is no good reason why anyone should regard any standards as obligatory…

There are plenty of reasons. They just are not absolutely true and entirely persuasive. Morality requires a level of cooperation and compromise, too. But they also can be very easily rejected.

Ultimately, morality is established and spread through experience, teaching, and force.

 

[tonyrey]

There are plenty of reasons.

Let us have a few.

They just are not absolutely true and entirely persuasive. Morality requires a level of cooperation and compromise, too. But they also can be very easily rejected.

It looks as if there’s not much difference between a criminal and a philanthropist!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

Indeed.

Not only can atheists have standards, but so can persons of ALL the religions and faiths of the world. And some of these standards are nearly universal in acceptance and practice (well, practice tends to lag, huh?)

I did not say atheists cannot have standards. What I said is that they have no objective ground for their standards other than Reason. Reason can lead us to God or it can lead us to the devil. Without God, the devil will fill the vacuum as soon as he can. With God, there is a brake on our selfish desires to please ourselves. Without God, there is no brake other than Reason, and Reason at that point has no reason not to sell her wares to the highest bidder. This assumes that not all people as equally reasonable (a fact of life), and some will sell out Reason a lot sooner than others. Not only Reason will go, but also Common Sense. I have known many atheists who will hold on to reason as long as they can, but the reason they hold on to it is most often the reason they learned through the traditions of Christianity that permeate our society. Give up on Christ, and the reasons for judging certain values as objectively corrupt begin to fail, and ultimately do collapse in many cases.

Yes, some religions practiced child sacrifice. That doesn’t mean all religions do. Some religions are better than others, and Christianity, though many Christians do not live up to their ideal, at least offers the ideal. Western civilization is rapidly consuming the moral capital built up by Christianity over the last two thousand years. Only the ignorant and unthinking can deny this.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*Ultimately, morality is established and spread through experience, teaching, and force. *

But this has nothing to do with whether morality is subjective or objective. Both kinds of morality can be spread through experience, teaching, and force. But what really is the issue is whether the morality we are talking about is objective or subjective. What is the ground of all morality. Is it reason alone? But reason is frail and faulty and subject to the devil within us.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hatsoff

First of all, pornography is not necessarily immoral.

I take it you would not mind if your son or daughter entered the business of making pornographic films?

*Firstly, I don’t have the statistics on schoolyard murders, and I’m not willing to simply take for granted that there are more today than in 1960. *

Believe it, there were no mass murders of school children at all in the 1960s.

 

[tonyrey]

i was asked for a foundation for morality that does not depend on god. i offered the same one that everyone has regardless of whether or not they believe in any particular religion.

Do you think everyone believes everyone has the same rights?

if we are talking about moral questions–questions about how human beings can thrive in their relations to one another–then we need to apply whatever knowledge we have about how human beings can thrive. for example, we know that humans don’t thrive nearly so well in environments where fear of violence, rape, murder, and dishonesty are the norm as they do in societies where trust and cooperation are the norm.

So morality is ultimately based on** fear **of what will happen without laws?

i

n spite of what the guy in the youtube video says, morality is not a matter of personal preference, it is about the real causes of human flourishing. one can have whatever preferences he wants but he can also be wrong about what his preferences ought to be so as to thrive in this world. for example, just think about what it would be like if everyone generally preferred to be dishonest with one another. even if they preferred to do so, they would obviously be wrong about what is moral–about what makes humans thrive and what is likely to bring about the worst possible misery for everyone.

I agree with you but the criminal takes advantage of others knowing they are afraid of the consequences of lawlessness and honesty is not always the best policy for him!

the objective difference between the greatest possible wellbeing for everyone and the worst possible misery for everyone is all that is needed as a basis for morality.

The problem is twofold. Not everyone agrees about what is the greatest possible well-being and not everyone wants to make that the first priority.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

*Not everyone agrees about what is the greatest possible well-being and not everyone wants to make that the first priority. *

As millions of prisoners who defy the law, and the millions who were never caught, can testify.

 

[Rocinante]

Do you think everyone believes everyone has the same rights?

no. given that that there are true and false moral claims then there are some people who are certainly wrong about what is and is not moral.

So morality is ultimately based on** fear **of what will happen without laws?

I agree with you but the criminal takes advantage of others knowing they are afraid of the consequences of lawlessness and honesty is not always the best policy for him!

The problem is twofold. Not everyone agrees about what is the greatest possible well-being and not everyone wants to make that the first priority.

the target keeps moving here.

first the claim was that there can be no basis for morality without religion. i gave such a basis. it is the self-evident truth that some things are better than others. a fact that one would need to accept before he could even try to deny it.

then it was claimed that even if morality can be said to exist in non religious terms, non religious people have no way of knowing what is right and wrong. i explained how knowledge of morals is knowledge about what is and is not good for human beings. we can inquire into what is right and wrong by becoming more knowledgeable about what practices do and do not help people thrive.

now you seem to be adding a new objection that morality is invalid unless there is a way to enforce it. but morality has always been enforced with law and police as well as most importantly by the world, since when we are not moral we don’t thrive as we otherwise would.

also, your objection about lack of agreement is moot. consider the fact that some people thought the earth is flat is a completely separate issue from whether it is in fact round and whether it is possible to learn about the fact that it is round.

whenever there is something to know on a subject, then some people will know more than others. morality is no different. the fact that some people don’t know that slavery is wrong has nothing to do with the question of whether it is in fact wrong.

now i am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction. the ontological status, epistemic status, and enforcement of morals have all been discussed already. i fully expect that whenever i defend against objections to the ontological status of morals, my response will be met with objections to the epistemic status. my responses on the epistemic status will be met with objections to how morals can be enforced. the target will keep moving and this conversation will continue to go around in circles. because even though charlemagne insists that he understands the distinction between ontology and epistemology, he doesn’t get it. and tonyrey for some reason thinks that the fact that people disagree is a problem for the possibility of truth, while obviously this issue is irrelevant to truth.

 

[larkin31]

no. given that that there are true and false moral claims then there are some people who are certainly wrong about what is and is not moral.

the target keeps moving here.

first the claim was that there can be no basis for morality without religion. i gave such a basis. it is the self-evident truth that some things are better than others. a fact that one would need to accept before he could even try to deny it.

then it was claimed that even if morality can be said to exist in non religious terms, non religious people have no way of knowing what is right and wrong. i explained how knowledge of morals is knowledge about what is and is not good for human beings. we can inquire into what is right and wrong by becoming more knowledgeable about what practices do and do not help people thrive.

now you seem to be adding a new objection that morality is invalid unless there is a way to enforce it. but morality has always been enforced with law and police as well as most importantly by the world, since when we are not moral we don’t thrive as we otherwise would.

also, your objection about lack of agreement is moot. consider the fact that some people thought the earth is flat is a completely separate issue from whether it is in fact round and whether it is possible to learn about the fact that it is round.

whenever there is something to know on a subject, then some people will know more than others. morality is no different. the fact that some people don’t know that slavery is wrong has nothing to do with the question of whether it is in fact wrong.

now i am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction. the ontological status, epistemic status, and enforcement of morals have all been discussed already. i fully expect that whenever i defend against objections to the ontological status of morals, my response will be met with objections to the epistemic status. my responses on the epistemic status will be met with objections to how morals can be enforced. the target will keep moving and this conversation will continue to go around in circles. because even though charlemagne insists that he understands the distinction between ontology and epistemology, he doesn’t get it. and tonyrey for some reason thinks that the fact that people disagree is a problem for the possibility of truth, while obviously this issue is irrelevant to truth.

you are correct, and the “shifting target” is a common occurrence here when one makes clear the flaws in these absolutist religious claims about morality. And, you are patient. I commend you.

 

[larkin31]

Let us have a few.

It looks as if there’s not much difference between a criminal and a philanthropist!

What? Sometimes criminals are also philanthropists. What are you trying to say? You are not making a salient point with this.

See Racio’s replies for “reasons” behind morality. These, through cultural studies and reflective thought, have been seen mostly to have been based on values that have tended to promote stable living in tribal or village settings–i.e. the long history of the development of human culture. These values have varied, but there have been some fairly common threads of standards that have contributed to the stability of small communities based on families/clans and the struggle for resources.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

*my responses on the epistemic status will be met with objections to how morals can be enforced. the target will keep moving and this conversation will continue to go around in circles. because even though charlemagne insists that he understands the distinction between ontology and epistemology, he doesn’t get it. and tonyrey for some reason thinks that the fact that people disagree is a problem for the possibility of truth, while obviously this issue is irrelevant to truth. *

It is your illusion that the target keeps shifting. The target has been from page one to assert that morality cannot have an objective base except in Reason and God. We have been saying right along that Reason by itself can obtain objective truth, but that it does not always do so. Some people are simply not rational and bend with the prevailing wind. Others are corrupted by passions that Reason bows to and justifies. When that happens in the atheist world, there is no other objective base for morals. All is lost. Subjective winds prevail. In the religious world there is a higher authority that reinforces truth and helps Reason get pointed in the right direction.

I don’t see how we have been saying anything different from page one on.

 

[tonyrey]

]Do you think everyone believes everyone has the same rights?

no. given that that there are true and false moral claims then there are some people who are certainly wrong about what is and is not moral.

So we agree that morality is objective - which is a curious phenomenon in an amoral universe…

So morality is ultimately based on fear of what will happen without laws?
I agree with you but the criminal takes advantage of others knowing they are afraid of the consequences of lawlessness and honesty is not always the best policy for him!

The problem is twofold. Not everyone agrees about what is the greatest possible well-being and not everyone wants to make that the first priority. the target keeps moving here.

first the claim was that there can be no basis for morality without religion. i gave such a basis. it is the self-evident truth that some things are better than others. a fact that one would need to accept before he could even try to deny it.

“better” is not necessarily a moral judgment. A better clock has nothing to do with morality.

then it was claimed that even if morality can be said to exist in non religious terms, non religious people have no way of knowing what is right and wrong. i explained how knowledge of morals is knowledge about what is and is not good for human beings.

“good for human beings” is ambiguous. A thing may be materially good for us but not morally good. “Man does not live on bread alone…”

we can inquire into what is right and wrong by becoming more knowledgeable about what practices do and do not help people thrive.

Material success very often leads to moral failure. People can be healthy, wealthy and worldly wise yet still morally defective.

now you seem to be adding a new objection that morality is invalid unless there is a way to enforce it. but morality has always been enforced with law and police as well as most importantly by the world, since when we are not moral we don’t thrive as we otherwise would.

I don’t know how you reach that conclusion…

also, your objection about lack of agreement is moot. consider the fact that some people thought the earth is flat is a completely separate issue from whether it is in fact round and whether it is possible to learn about the fact that it is round.

whenever there is something to know on a subject, then some people will know more than others. morality is no different. the fact that some people don’t know that slavery is wrong has nothing to do with the question of whether it is in fact wrong.

Why should it?

now i am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction. the ontological status, epistemic status, and enforcement of morals have all been discussed already. i fully expect that whenever i defend against objections to the ontological status of morals, my response will be met with objections to the epistemic status. my responses on the epistemic status will be met with objections to how morals can be enforced. the target will keep moving and this conversation will continue to go around in circles. because even though charlemagne insists that he understands the distinction between ontology and epistemology, he doesn’t get it. and tonyrey for some reason thinks that the fact that people disagree is a problem for the possibility of truth, while obviously this issue is irrelevant to truth.

You obviously don’t understand the point I am making. The fact that people disagree about what is the greatest possible well-being for everyone and the worst possible misery for everyone makes it an **inadequate **basis for morality. Whose version are you going to choose? It’s not a problem for the possibility of truth but for the **attainment **of truth. We are groping in the dark unless we have an existential basis for morality and that certainly doesn’t exist if we just happen to find ourselves on this planet with no idea of why we are alive. One vivid description of this predicament was given by an atheist who stated that we are all on a sinking raft and the least we can do is be kind to one another before we perish. I don’t regard that as a compelling reason for “animals” which exist by chance!
BTW That is a term commonly used by materialists on this forum to describe human beings…

Morality implies the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity that cannot be justified scientifically. How do you justify them?

 

[tonyrey]

So morality is ultimately based on** fear **

 

[tonyrey]

What? Sometimes criminals are also philanthropists. What are you trying to say? You are not making a salient point with this.

You are clutching at a straw! Almost all crime entails misanthropy because almost all crime is at some one else’s cost. Not many criminals rob the rich to help the poor…

See Racio’s replies for “reasons” behind morality. These, through cultural studies and reflective thought, have been seen mostly to have been based on values that have tended to promote stable living in tribal or village settings–i.e. the long history of the development of human culture. These values have varied, but there have been some fairly common threads of standards that have contributed to the stability of small communities based on families/clans and the struggle for resources.

So morality is based primarily on the need for stability and resources?

 

[Rocinante]

You obviously don’t understand the point I am making. The fact that people disagree about what is the greatest possible well-being for everyone and the worst possible misery for everyone makes it an **inadequate **basis for morality.

perhaps you can explain why this is any more of a problem for objectivity of morals for atheists than the fact that people don’t agree on what is demanded by the will of god is a problem for theists?

to be consistent, i think you would have to say that catholics can’t claim to have an objective basis for morality since there is no agreement that catholicism is the one correct religion.

on the other hand, we can agree that your objection is way off target. agreement on what the basis is has nothing to do with whether or not it is an adequate basis.

rocinante

 

[larkin31]

You are clutching at a straw! Almost all crime entails misanthropy because almost all crime is at some one else’s cost. Not many criminals rob the rich to help the poor…

My point was to suggest that people are mixtures of things: the murderer who gives to his church, etc.

So morality is based primarily on the need for stability and resources?

Through the growth of human culture through its tribal origins. Yes. Probably. IMO.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

to be consistent, i think you would have to say that catholics can’t claim to have an objective basis for morality since there is no agreement that catholicism is the one correct religion.

Catholics do agree that theirs is the one true religion, or why would they be Catholics?

They can also claim to have an objective base for morality. Why can’t they? Because those outside the religion don’t believe in their objectivity? That’s like saying science has no objective base for relativity because most people cannot even understand the theory, never mind agree with it.

 

[tonyrey]

                 My point was to suggest that people are mixtures of things: the murderer who gives to his church, etc.

True but a murderer does not cease to be a murderer. Philanthropy does not diminish the gravity of the crime if he or she is fully responsible for murder - although if it is the result of repentance it is a redeeming feature. Much depends on the motive and the consequences. If the crime was for financial gain which far exceeded the donations to good causes the philanthropy is hardly praiseworthy because it may be just to stifle the pangs of conscience!.

So morality is based primarily on the need for stability and resources?

Through the growth of human culture through its tribal origins. Yes. Probably. IMO.

Then morality is ultimately no more than egoism! It is motivated by self-interest…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

My point was to suggest that people are mixtures of things: the murderer who gives to his church, etc.

The murderer who gives to his church has very likely repented of his sin and been forgiven. On the other hand, the serial killer who gives to his church is very likely using his church as a cover for his nefarious activities, just as does the abortionist who goes to church every Sunday.

Yes, man is somewhere between angel and animal. But with atheism he is all animal.

 

[larkin31]

Then morality is ultimately no more than egoism! It is motivated by self-interest…

No, you are reducing this beyond what is reasonable. But yes, nearly all ethics and morality in every culture has been about survival, or stability, or power. I don’t have any problem accepting this. It seems reasonable, and does not mean that the ethic is inhumane by rule, but of course every culture has had, what we might call now, inhumane ethics, as they might call some of our present ethics the same!