Moral Objectivism versus Moral Subjectivism

[tonyrey]

What we do know is material.

We infer material objects but we have** direct knowledge** of our perceptions.

The models that are most productive, successful and efficient are materialist ones.

Materialist models are only successful with material objects.

We don’t have warrant or need for any claims of “transcendent supernatural knowledge”.

We transcend material objects with our insight, knowledge and control.

It does because it exists for a purpose.

Being purposeful from a mind or will is as subjective as it gets.
Do you think a pencil has a mind or will?

. I find existence valuable, in part because I’m physiologically wired to do so, but also because I find it gratifying and rewarding…

A rewarding existence is proof of its value regardless of your opinion.

But that’s my own subjective take on my existence…

You are confused if the value of existence depends** solely **on your opinion!

It’s subjective, but in no way an illusion.

.
Is the evil of the torture of a child also subjective??

“infinitely good” doesn’t change the principle of subjectivity or objectivity.

It doesn’t change it for you because you believe nothing is good!

…it’s not wrong, by definition, to understand that which proceeds from God’s will to be subjective.

It’s wrong to define God!

If you believe in a God that created the universe by his will, you have embraced a view that necessarily denies the objectivity of that universe.

If you create something does that make it subjective?

Nor would God exist without God!

In that case, and I’ve said this more than once previously in this thread now, God himself would obtain objectively. It’s all of that which proceeds from his mind that obtains subjectively.

If you create something…

If it’s objective, then it obtains independently of mind or will.

Not in the case of Ultimate Reality.

The universe obtains subjectively because it proceeds from the (personal!) mind/will of God.

If you create something…

“Objective value” is as incoherent as “square circle” if we understand “value” to be assigned by a mind or will. That is the rational basis for those terms – dependency on mind/will, or not. Value has a perfectly rational basis – see my example in the “value of money” thread; the basis of value is our decisions that some element or currency should be value, subjectively. It’s perfectly reasonable, and enormously useful for just that reason – if we can agree, subjectively, on the value of some material, commodity or currency, we can transact using that, and that furthers our goals and satisfied practical needs.

I have pointed out that money is valuable because it is created and designed for a particular purpose. Things which serve no purpose are valueless - unless an arbitrary value is assigned to them. Their value therefore is not a matter of opinion but of recognition. Even if a person rejects the value of everything it doesn’t follow that everything is valueless. Why should one person’s opinion be superior to that of everyone else? According to you a lunatic’s opinion of value is as valuable as a sane person’s!
If you rejected the value of all your opinions you would be unreasonable because you would contradict yourself. At least one opinion must be valuable; otherwise it doesn’t make sense. You would imply that all your opinions are mistaken - including the opinion that all your opinions are mistaken…

That is to be expected because you regard rationality as ultimately absurd, i…e. a product of non-rational events.

No, not hardly.

Don’t you regard it as a product of non-rational events?

Rationality is the basis for all of the concepts I’m advancing. It’s not dogma, it’s not superstition, it’s just rational applications of concepts and principles.

You are defining** rational**ity in terms of “rational applications”!. If rationality is fortuitous it is likely to be unreliable. Materialism is far less convincing than the view that rationality is a fundamental reality that accounts for all the most important aspects of life.

I think “does not accord with my superstitions” is the best description of your use of “irrational” based on all I’ve read from you now. Clearly, there’s a discrepancy between us in what that word means and how it should be used.

“superstition” is literally the best description of your use of “rational” because it means “standing over”, i.e. higher beings appearing above lower ones - like persons from particles. Every occupation has its hazards and that of the programmer is no exception. His constant work with algorithms tempts him to identify reasoning with computations, human thought with artificial intelligence and persons with machines. Insight, intuition and insight are replaced by mechanical processing, with the loss of our uniqueness, value and dignity. We just happen to exist like everything else and are of no more significance, as Renan remarked, than the moss under our feet. In your scheme of things the ascent to God has become the descent of man, our Tale of Two Cities has become Bleak House and our Great Expectations have become Hard Times - with nothing to look forward to except rigor mortis!

What makes them value is the decision by natural beings with natural minds to value them, to assign them priority or importance in pursuit of goals, in enabling transactions, for keeping records, etc…

Goals, transactions and records **sum up **your mundane, computerised view of life. Where do truth, beauty and love fit into the atomic system? And why order rather than chaos?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

This video may or may not help to clarify matters. It’s about ten minutes.

youtube.com/watch?v=exiCcOcjbBY&feature=related

 

[Rocinante]

This video may or may not help to clarify matters. It’s about ten minutes.

youtube.com/watch?v=exiCcOcjbBY&feature=related

i watched it. the thesis is that an intellectually honest atheist must be a moral nihilist. the author bases this argument on the false notion that facts and divorced from values.

 

[Touchstone]

the issue here is not whether the act is subjectively or objectively moral. the issue is whether or not it is true that the act is moral. the subjective/objective distinction (once we dispense with the notion of ontological objectivity as you say you have) is a matter of epistemology.

Agree with this, but the “dispensing” is provisional. If we set aside the question of ontological objectivity/subjectivity, and go investigate a question on epistemic grounds, if we come up with an answer that is “X is (epistemologically) objectively moral” – that is, all observers can come up with the same answer, or the answer can be arrived at instrumentally (without any minds at all) – you are still right back with the ontological question, which encloses it.

The epistemological question finally rests on the ontological question.

in terms of epistemology, subjectivity versus objectivity is not then a matter of whether or not something really is immoral. that is a basic question of fact rather than knowledge of that fact. it is a matter or how we can hope to get agreement with other inquirers into the question of the truth or falsity of the proposed fact. the claim that something is immoral or moral is epistemically objective if there is a way of getting agreement on the matter. it is subjective if there is no way of getting agreement. it is objective if one can point to evidence such as a rational argument and subjective if it is claimed as a personal preference or based on some special revelation that not everyone has access to.

rocinante

Right. If we take an example claim: “(A): homosexual contact is immoral”, we can stipulate, for the purposes of discussion that (A) is epistemologically objective. That would mean that all observers would come to the same conclusion on (A). The “knowability” of (A) is not dependent on minds, or more precisely, since knowing is a function of mind, the “knowability” of (A) is not dependent on any particular mind, and is objective as is possible, epistemologically, in this context.

OK, so (A) is found to be epistemically objective – all observers and investigators come to the same interpretation based on the same (name removed by moderator)uts. So does that make (A) “objective morality”.

No, because the “morality” question hasn’t been addressed in terms of values. It’s been investigated epistemologically, but the grounding of the values at work in (A) have not been addressed at all. What makes (A) moral or immoral? It can’t be “knowability” – that’s an epistemic question.

We are left, necessarily, then with the ontological question. Whence the moral value here? If we say, as perhaps an objectivist atheist (like a follower of Ayn Rand) might, that “moral values are objective, ontologically”, then on that view, (A) would pass both tests, being found to be epistemologically and ontologically objective. Homosexual contact as a moral wrong is as much a brute fact of nature as gravity, and that brute fact is not dependent on any mind or will anywhere. No god could change or impact that even a little bit, even if one existed, any more than we could, per the ontologically objective view of moral facts.

But if a god is posited as the basis for (A), ontologically, then the epistemological objectivity of (A) is eclipsed by the ontological subjectivity of God’s will determining moral values. Now, we have subjective morality again, even if the “knowability” of the subjective values is universal, objective. The valuation itself is subjective.

This is why the distinctions between epistemological objectivity/subjectivity and ontological objectivity/subjective are worthwhile as local notions, but if we are taking on the question of morality as a whole being objective/subjective, the ontological question always trumps the epistemological question, just because any the epistemic question is a development of the ontological question. If there is no ontology, there is no epistemology. (A) may be 100% “epistemological objective”, but the overal subjectivity/objectivity of (A) finally depends on the ontological question. If homosexual contact is just a brute moral evil, no matter what any person (God, human or otherwise) says or wills, than (A) really is a statement of objective morality. If Allah’s will is the grounds for (A), that epistemological objectivity doesn’t make (A) objective – it’s subjective as a whole, because the values are grounded in Allah’s (subjective) will.

-TS

-TS

 

[Rocinante]

Agree with this, but the “dispensing” is provisional. If we set aside the question of ontological objectivity/subjectivity, and go investigate a question on epistemic grounds, if we come up with an answer that is “X is (epistemologically) objectively moral” – that is, all observers can come up with the same answer, or the answer can be arrived at instrumentally (without any minds at all) – you are still right back with the ontological question, which encloses it.

The epistemological question finally rests on the ontological question.

i really would like to dispense with ontology. i think all we need so that we can have a fruitful discussion about morals is to agree that there are true and false claims to be made about them. then we can go on to discuss how various claims may be justified.

ontology would only need to come in if we insist on a correspondence theory of truth where the truth or falsity of a proposition like “slavery is evil” is thought to only be true if it corresponds with some aspect of objective reality. such an insistence leads to skepticism about the possibility for such statements to be regarded as having truth-value.

but why demand such a correspondence? doing so rules out the possibility than any statement about what ought to be can never be said to be true or false. yet, whenever we say that anything is true or false is to claim that someone else in a similar position ought to also believe it. all facts depend on such values, so if we set up a definition of truth such that ought-claims can’t have truth-value, then we could never be able to claim to know anything at all. we could never claim the truth that “socrates is mortal” based on the fact that “socrates is a man” and “all men are mortal” without presupposing what ought to be concluded from such premises.

so if we want to be able to claim anything at all as true, we need to drop the idea that something can only be said to be true if it corresponds with objective reality to allow that ought-claims can have truth-value. at that point, having dispensed with ontology, we can go on to discuss the truth-value of the claim “slavery is evil” without worrying about the ontological status of “slavery” “is” and “evil” or however one might think to try to match up reality and that claim for proper correspondence with objective reality.

we still need to answer questions about what we mean when we say that slavery is evil and why we believe it. but these are epistemological concerns rather than ontological ones.

rocinante

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

*i watched it. the thesis is that an intellectually honest atheist must be a moral nihilist. the author bases this argument on the false notion that facts and divorced from values. *

Not divorced from values, Just not the same as values. If sodomy is practiced by two people, that is a fact. Whether they ought or ought not to commit sodomy is a value.

His point, I think, is that people defend sodomy, for example, because it is a fact, not because they ought to defend it. The caving in to depraved conduct is endemic in our society just because people fail to distinguish between the “fact” and the “ought.” Thus, in a militantly radicalized society morals become subjective allegiance to facts, rather than objective allegiance to values. Moral anarchy ensues.

“Whatever I like is good, and to hell with you if you don’t like it.”

The NAMBLA cult, North American Man/Boy Love Association, is a case in point. Fifty years ago the idea of such a group openly promoting its cause with propaganda and recruitment of adult members from all walks of life would have been unbelievably obscene.
Fifty years ago the prospect of such a club taking for its motto, “If not by eight, it’s too late” would have been viewed as insane. Today it is humdrum acceptance by the public, not of the ought, but of the fact. As is gay marriage and the wholesale slaughter of the unborn.

The fundamental point of the tape is that the atheist has to find a ground for his oughts. If the ground is not God, what is it? The only thing it can be … the subjective whim (whether based on reason or irrationality) of each acting moral agent. However, this is a recipe for moral anarchy … which is pretty much where our society is today compared to fifty years ago. I was a young man fifty years ago. From my vantage point, I can objectively insist that the world then was a much cleaner place in which to raise children. Today, it is more like an immoralist pig sty everywhere you look thanks to the triumph of moral relativism.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Here is a closing passage from the Marquis de Sade’s “Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man.” Note that the Marquis, projecting himself as the the character of the dying man, was himself an atheist, and he is trying to justify atheism as superior to the religious life.

DYING MAN - I say nothing of the kind. Let the evil deed be proscribed by law, let justice smite the criminal, that will be deterrent enough; but if by misfortune we do commit it even so, let’s not cry over spilled milk; remorse is inefficacious, since it does not stay us from crime, futile since it does not repair it, therefore it is absurd to beat one’s breast, more absurd still to dread being punished in another world if we have been lucky to escape it in this. God forbid that this be construed as encouragement to crime, no, we should avoid it as much as we can, but one must learn to shun it through reason and not through false fears which lead to naught and whose effects are so quickly overcome in any moderately steadfast soul. Reason, sir - yes, our reason alone should warn us that harm done our fellows can never bring happiness to us; and our heart, that contributing to their felicity is the greatest joy Nature has accorded us on earth; the entirety of human morals is contained in this one phrase:* Render others as happy as one desires oneself to be, and never inflict more pain upon them than one would like to receive at their hands. *There you are, my friend, those are the only principles we should observe, and you need neither god nor religion to appreciate and subscribe to them, you need only have a good heart

Notice that the very heart of his supposed morality is a formula he took from Jesus in the bold words above. Ah yes, what a lofty sentiment, not even his own but Christ’s, to whom he gives no credit. Yet the sentiment is defeated by his appeal to reason alone. Very well, the words of Christ are indeed reasonable. But not every man is reasonable, and he can quickly enough find a way to rationalize rather than to confront the truth about his acts. Reason is a whore and will sell herself to the highest bidder … whether it be sensuality, or fame, or power, or riches. Reason will sell itself to the notion it is so smart that it can be served to advance any crime without being caught and punished.

Ask the millions in prison if they did not use reason to lure themselves into crimes, and finally into prison. With atheism the ultimate arbiter of good and evil is one’s own ego. There is a very thin line between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, between Albert Einstein and the atomic bomb.

The heart does not need Reason to be pure. It needs God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

4Horsemen

(I know the poster initiated the idea of keeping God out of the picture, but I just couldn’t resist!)

I feel your pain. I can’t resist either!

 

[hatsoff]

The fundamental point of the tape is that the atheist has to find a ground for his oughts. If the ground is not God, what is it? The only thing it can be … the subjective whim (whether based on reason or irrationality) of each acting moral agent. However, this is a recipe for moral anarchy … which is pretty much where our society is today compared to fifty years ago. I was a young man fifty years ago. From my vantage point, I can objectively insist that the world then was a much cleaner place in which to raise children. Today, it is more like an immoralist pig sty everywhere you look thanks to the triumph of moral relativism.

In what way(s) do you find the (American?) society of fifty years ago to be “cleaner” than present-day society? I’m curious to hear whether these flaws which you find in society depend on religious doctrine. For example, if you complain that homosexuality is more visible or rampant, then that’s not something everyone will agree is immoral. On the other hand, if you think that there is a higher incidence of, say, murder, then that’s an agreeable degeneration in at least one aspect of social health. But to my knowledge, murder rates in the United States are no worse now than fifty years ago.

 

[Rocinante]

The fundamental point of the tape is that the atheist has to find a ground for his oughts. If the ground is not God, what is it? The only thing it can be … the subjective whim (whether based on reason or irrationality) of each acting moral agent. …

the ground for oughts is simply that some things are better than others. that is a self-evident truth. in fact, if it weren’t true then saying so would be no worse than saying it is not true. to deny it would be to contradict one’s self.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hatsoff

*In what way(s) do you find the (American?) society of fifty years ago to be “cleaner” than present-day society? I’m curious to hear whether these flaws which you find in society depend on religious doctrine. For example, if you complain that homosexuality is more visible or rampant, then that’s not something everyone will agree is immoral. On the other hand, if you think that there is a higher incidence of, say, murder, then that’s an agreeable degeneration in at least one aspect of social health. But to my knowledge, murder rates in the United States are no worse now than fifty years ago. *

I have the impression you were not alive 50 years ago, so it’s a very difficult and elaborate case to make in a thread like this to someone who cannot imagine what life was like for the young growing up in the 1950s. But you can ask anyone who was young, and they will tell you it was “cleaner” than it is today. In those days, there was an abundance of common sense throughout society, and filth oriented moralities were hardly tolerated. I remember never hearing about pornography until I was about fifteen years old. It was hard to find, even if you were looking for it. In my youth you never heard of fellow students using drugs. The idea that they could be easily sold on a high school campus was absurd. That students should be killing each other in the schoolyard was also unheard of. I could go on and on.

Today everything is tolerated. Today nobody is supposed to judge anybody else because everybody’s values are equal to everybody else’s values. This is the point of this thread … that subjectivism (moral relativism) rules everywhere. It has no ground of justification, however, in the philosophical sense. It was a cleaner society then because it was a more religious society. Today atheism (or indifference to religion) is rampant among the young. We are already paying the price, and down the road will pay a heavier price. Actions have consequences.

Turn away from God and we have no where else to go but to the devil.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

*the ground for oughts is simply that some things are better than others. that is a self-evident truth. in fact, if it weren’t true then saying so would be no worse than saying it is not true. to deny it would be to contradict one’s self. *

Yes, some things are better than other things. But it is not a self evident fact, not any more. As noted above, the truth has been stood upside down so often that all common sense seems to have fled the American scene. One cannot even invoke Reason any more, because Reason has sold out to political correctness.

So there is no ground for collective morality in atheism. However, there is a ground in atheism for moral anarchy.

 

[Rocinante]

Rocinante

*the ground for oughts is simply that some things are better than others. that is a self-evident truth. in fact, if it weren’t true then saying so would be no worse than saying it is not true. to deny it would be to contradict one’s self. *

Yes, some things are better than other things. But it is not a self evident fact, not any more. As noted above, the truth has been stood upside down so often that all common sense seems to have fled the American scene. One cannot even invoke Reason any more, because Reason has sold out to political correctness.

So there is no ground for collective morality in atheism. However, there is a ground in atheism for moral anarchy.

you’ve made a political statement in response to my philosophical point that to deny that some things are better than others would be to contradict one’s self. your political statement is out of place here. the fact is i have justified a basis for morality that does not depend on a divine lawgiver. the fact(?) that “Reason has sold out to political correctness” has no bearing on the fact that it is entirely reasonable to claim that some things are better than others as an undeniable starting point for moral reasoning that you have said that atheists simply can’t have. on the contrary, they obviously can.

 

[tonyrey]

you’ve made a political statement in response to my philosophical point that to deny that some things are better than others would be to contradict one’s self. your political statement is out of place here.

You haven’t given any reason **why **some things are better…

 

[larkin31]

you’ve made a political statement in response to my philosophical point that to deny that some things are better than others would be to contradict one’s self. your political statement is out of place here. the fact is i have justified a basis for morality that does not depend on a divine lawgiver. the fact(?) that “Reason has sold out to political correctness” has no bearing on the fact that it is entirely reasonable to claim that some things are better than others as an undeniable starting point for moral reasoning that you have said that atheists simply can’t have. on the contrary, they obviously can.

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?)

 

[tonyrey]

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?)

Is there any** reason** why they are nearly universal in acceptance and practice?

 

[larkin31]

Is there any** reason** why they are nearly universal in acceptance and practice?

Probably. But answering that ends up speculative in the final analysis. Suffice it to say, that some behaviors in nearly all cases freak humans out (are considered taboo). But even ritual sacrifice of children has been promoted in some cultures, even on religious grounds.

 

[hatsoff]

I have the impression you were not alive 50 years ago, so it’s a very difficult and elaborate case to make in a thread like this to someone who cannot imagine what life was like for the young growing up in the 1950s. But you can ask anyone who was young, and they will tell you it was “cleaner” than it is today. In those days, there was an abundance of common sense throughout society, and filth oriented moralities were hardly tolerated. I remember never hearing about pornography until I was about fifteen years old. It was hard to find, even if you were looking for it. In my youth you never heard of fellow students using drugs. The idea that they could be easily sold on a high school campus was absurd. That students should be killing each other in the schoolyard was also unheard of. I could go on and on.

So, you have the following objections:

(1) pornography is more common;
(2) drug use is more common;
(3) there were fewer schoolyard murders.

Regarding (1), there are several possible responses to this. First of all, pornography is not necessarily immoral. Your religion teaches that it is immoral, but what is that to a secular person? However, even if you insist that it really is immoral, the popularity of pornography very likely has more to do with technological advances than any decline in the social moral fiber.

(2) is more difficult to tackle. Is drug use really more common in 2010 than in 1960? Maybe. If it is, then this is agreeably an unfortunate symptom of some underlying problem. Is that problem moral decline? Maybe, but that is not at all clear. However, this is a genuine point of concern, I agree.

(3) seems less convincing. 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. If it is true, however, I find it very hard to believe that moral decline is to blame. After all, it’s not as if people think murder is acceptable nowadays, as is often the case with porn and drug use. Perhaps we could say that people are just more selfish, and that they now act out their selfishness in murder. However, this also seems a pretty great stretch, since a rise in selfishness leading to murder we should expect to impact murder in general (as opposed to just schoolyard murders). But are murder rates up in general? I don’t know that they are, and indeed I’d be pretty surprised in that case.

Just food for thought.

 

[tonyrey]

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?)

                             Is there any** reason** why they are nearly universal in acceptance and practice?  Probably. But answering that ends up speculative in the final analysis. Suffice it to say, that some behaviors in nearly all cases freak humans out (are considered taboo). But even ritual sacrifice of children has been promoted in some cultures, even on religious grounds.:shrug:

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

 

[Rocinante]

You haven’t given any reason **why **some things are better…

well until now i haven’t been asked. 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.

as for why some things are better than others, that depends on what we are talking about. the reason that roy halladay is better than any other pitcher today is not the same reason as why an imac is better than a commodore 64.

if we are talking about moral questions–questions about how human beings can thrive in there 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.

in 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 possibly misery for everyone.

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.