Morality and Subjectivity

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

PRMerger,

I am afraid it is the best we have. It appears believers have the same system which they try to infuse with added authority by inventing an authority entity and ascribing all authority to it. However you have not provided a shred of a scrap of evidence said entity exists as yet.

Everything we have is imperfect and prone to error. Welcome to the real world, glad you could join us. Nothing we have or do as humans is “perfect”.

How do you dissent? Look around you it happens every day. You campaign. You educate. You debate. You poll. You canvas. You talk. You advertise. You write. Seriously if you stop flooding threads with post after post after post in one long string and look around you you will find most of these answers.

And after you do all that work, you go down to the voting booth on voting day, cast your vote with everyone else, and then observe the results. If they go your way, well done! If not then start again!

This is how it works. Some people just try and take a short cut by inventing a god and declaring that it is all his will and we should follow it. Why use arguments, research, evidence or reasons when you can just make it up quickly huh?

Funny how everyones god always seems to match the morals and positions of the believer, but not the morals and positions of the believers in other gods. They all seem to claim they believe in the same objective morality from the same god, but their positions differ wildly and often.

However if you actually do want more information on my position, and you are not just posting for the sake of seeing how many posts you can make in one thread uninterrupted in a row, then you can read more here:

atheist.ie/2009/02/the-immorality-of-claiming-morality/

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Your own values.

Almost.

However in a society where we need to live WITH each other our only resource for deciding how best to do that IS each other.

So I may have my own values, but they do not supersede the entire society.

If for example my own values were to be something like: I like to murder and rape: then so be it. 99% of the society wants to build a society without such values. I have 3 choices. I can go off and find another society where my values are upheld (good luck with that one), or I can abide by the decision of the people I CHOOSE to live with, or I can commit these crimes and face their judgement and punishment.

The fact is that due to certain common truths of the human conditions, when we come together with our individual desires and morals and values we find that most of the overlap strongly. Our vast consensus on subjects like rape, murder, child protection, education, freedom etc are what the theist commonly mistakes for objective morality and I can well see how they could be led to this false conclusion.

What in fact we do have is a rainbow of morality. There are subjects where we reach mass almost total consensus. There are subjects of mild dissent. There are subjects like abortion and homosexuality which divide us almost perfectly down the middle. And there are subjects where hardly anyone can agree. There does not appear to be an objective standard which people are either conforming to or dissenting from (nor is there any evidence being offered for an objective moral law giver) but a rainbow of positions through which we are doing our best to find our way together as a species.

 

[Sair]

Almost.

However in a society where we need to live WITH each other our only resource for deciding how best to do that IS each other.

So I may have my own values, but they do not supersede the entire society.

If for example my own values were to be something like: I like to murder and rape: then so be it. 99% of the society wants to build a society without such values. I have 3 choices. I can go off and find another society where my values are upheld (good luck with that one), or I can abide by the decision of the people I CHOOSE to live with, or I can commit these crimes and face their judgement and punishment.

The fact is that due to certain common truths of the human conditions, when we come together with our individual desires and morals and values we find that most of the overlap strongly. Our vast consensus on subjects like rape, murder, child protection, education, freedom etc are what the theist commonly mistakes for objective morality and I can well see how they could be led to this false conclusion.

What in fact we do have is a rainbow of morality. There are subjects where we reach mass almost total consensus. There are subjects of mild dissent. There are subjects like abortion and homosexuality which divide us almost perfectly down the middle. And there are subjects where hardly anyone can agree. There does not appear to be an objective standard which people are either conforming to or dissenting from (nor is there any evidence being offered for an objective moral law giver) but a rainbow of positions through which we are doing our best to find our way together as a species.

Well said, sir (if indeed you are a ‘sir’ and not a ‘ma’am’) :tiphat: I too have good cause, based on experience and observation, to give credence to the spectrum of morality. I suppose from this that there are values which are always conducive to social living (such as trust and cooperation) and values which are never so (hence strictures against murder and rape, or general censure of betrayal of trust, for example) - but in between those two extremes, there are many shades of grey that consist in actions which some people approve and others don’t (such as homosexual sex, debate over religious issues, eating meat, working on Sundays, communal living, freedom of speech and association, to name but a few), but which, in themselves, are not destructive (and are often actually beneficial) to individual persons or social cohesion - unless, of course, one takes into account the vehemence of fanatics, and that changes the equation altogether…

 

[PRmerger]

I am afraid it is the best we have.

I agree with you, Nozz, that it is indeed the best you have as a non-believer.

It is quite telling that you used the word "afraid’ in your post–clearly, you understand the implications of this inferior and mediocre standard for authority.

It appears believers have the same system which they try to infuse with added authority by inventing an authority entity and ascribing all authority to it. However you have not provided a shred of a scrap of evidence said entity exists as yet.

Again, I can’t even prove that you exist, Nozz. Do you? Can you prove it to me?

(BTW,Did you read the centuries-old arguments for God’s existence I referred you to?)

Everything -]we have/-] I have is imperfect and prone to error.

:sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

How do you dissent? Look around you it happens every day. You campaign. You educate. You debate. You poll. You canvas. You talk. You advertise. You write.

Agreed.

However, you do see that being able to dissent contradicts your “society is my moral authority” argument, right?

Seriously if you stop flooding threads with post after post after post in one long string and look around you you will find most of these answers.

What? That’s a bizarre thing to get annoyed about. I am free to post as many times as I like, Nozz, and in variable ways. :whacky:

 

[PRmerger]

Why use arguments, research, evidence or reasons when you can just make it up quickly huh?

Are you claiming that Catholics don’t use arguments, research, evidence or reason? Really, Nozz?

Funny how everyones god always seems to match the morals and positions of the believer, but not the morals and positions of the believers in other gods. They all seem to claim they believe in the same objective morality from the same god, but their positions differ wildly and often.

Abusus non tollit usus.

 

[PRmerger]

So I may have my own values, but they do not supersede the entire society.

Indeed, they do, Nozz. If you claim the right to DISSENT, then you are ceding to a higher moral authority than society–your conscience.

I propose that what you’re really saying is that one must always follow his conscience. A moral individual is always obligated to obey his conscience.

That’s really your moral authority, is it not?

 

[CentralFLJames]

However if you actually do want more information on my position, and you are not just posting for the sake of seeing how many posts you can make in one thread uninterrupted in a row, then you can read more here:

This sounds like religion Nozz. Can you go up to the mountain and come back with a set of rules that give us guidelines or “the law” on how many times a person can express his thoughts and reason in a row before its taken as excessive prayer?

James

 

[PRmerger]

This sounds like religion Nozz. Can you go up to the mountain and come back with a set of rules that give us guidelines or “the law” on how many times a person can express his thoughts and reason in a row before its taken as excessive prayer?

James

'zactly!

It does indeed sound like Nozz is prescribing a certain Posting Limits Law. Don’t know where that came from.

 

[Betterave]

Almost.

However in a society where we need to live WITH each other our only resource for deciding how best to do that IS each other.

So I may have my own values, but they do not supersede the entire society.

If for example my own values were to be something like: I like to murder and rape: then so be it. 99% of the society wants to build a society without such values. I have 3 choices. I can go off and find another society where my values are upheld (good luck with that one), or I can abide by the decision of the people I CHOOSE to live with, or I can commit these crimes and face their judgement and punishment.

The fact is that due to certain common truths of the human conditions, when we come together with our individual desires and morals and values we find that most of the overlap strongly. Our vast consensus on subjects like rape, murder, child protection, education, freedom etc are what the theist commonly mistakes for objective morality and I can well see how they could be led to this false conclusion.

What in fact we do have is a rainbow of morality. There are subjects where we reach mass almost total consensus. There are subjects of mild dissent. There are subjects like abortion and homosexuality which divide us almost perfectly down the middle. And there are subjects where hardly anyone can agree. There does not appear to be an objective standard which people are either conforming to or dissenting from (nor is there any evidence being offered for an objective moral law giver) but a rainbow of positions through which we are doing our best to find our way together as a species.

 

[Betterave]

However in a society where we need to live WITH each other our only resource for deciding how best to do that IS each other.

So I may have my own values, but they do not supersede the entire society.

If for example my own values were to be something like: I like to murder and rape: then so be it. 99% of the society wants to build a society without such values. I have 3 choices. I can go off and find another society where my values are upheld (good luck with that one), or I can abide by the decision of the people I CHOOSE to live with, or I can commit these crimes and face their judgement and punishment.

Fourth option: I can commit these crimes covertly and do my best to avoid punishment. (I imagine that would tend to be more popular than your option 3, no?)

And so the question arises anew: Why *shouldn’t *your own values (and certainly *qua *values) “supersede the entire society”? In principle, at least, they do, do they not? Apart from the rather absurd example you give, you should notice that most disagreement about values is in no way subject to legal sanction (and certainly not to compelling legal sanction), so appealing to some such simplistic trichotomy as you have done is entirely irrelevant (for the great majority of cases anyway).

The fact is that due to certain common truths of the human conditions, when we come together with our individual desires and morals and values we find that most of the overlap strongly. Our vast consensus on subjects like rape, murder, child protection, education, freedom etc are what the theist commonly mistakes for objective morality and I can well see how they could be led to this false conclusion.

If this “vast consensus” is based on “certain common truths of the human condition,” why would you say it is a mistake to call it objective? (I thought you were on board with this Sair - what happened?)

What in fact we do have is a rainbow of morality. There are subjects where we reach mass almost total consensus. There are subjects of mild dissent. There are subjects like abortion and homosexuality which divide us almost perfectly down the middle. And there are subjects where hardly anyone can agree. **There does not appear to be an objective standard **which people are either conforming to or dissenting from (nor is there any evidence being offered for an objective moral law giver) but a rainbow of positions through which we are doing our best to find our way together as a species.

There does not appear to be an objective standard to you, correct? You are reporting your perspective here. But wouldn’t you grant that there also does not appear to be an “objective standard” by which to assess the existence or non-existence of an objective standard? Can you see that *your *suggestion of an ultimate standard (‘authority’) - ‘society’ - is a suggestion that needs to be explained and justified a good deal more than you have done? ‘Authority’ and ‘society’ seem to be very vague notions in your account thus far, notions which you toss about all too carelessly.

 

[Betterave]

Then, society is not your ultimate authority, is it, Nozz? If one can dissent from an “authority”, then, by defintion, it is *not *an authority.

By definition??? I don’t think so! Quite the opposite.

So, what, as a nonbeliever, is it that you have as your final and ultimate authority?

“Your own values” = your ‘conscience’(?) = ???
There is obviously some work to be done to flesh out Anti’s response (“bingo” is premature at best).

 

[PRmerger]

By definition??? I don’t think so! Quite the opposite.

So you’re saying that if we can dissent from “A”, then, by definition “A” is an authority?

That seems counter-intuitive to me, but I’m willing to hear your thoughts on this! I dunno. It would seem that an authority is, by definition, that which has the “final word”.

“Your own values” = your ‘conscience’(?)

Yes. You form your “own values” how? Via your conscience. It is your intellect applied to morality.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Betterave:

Then, society is not your ultimate authority, is it, Nozz? If one can dissent from an “authority”, then, by defintion, it is not an authority.

By definition??? I don’t think so! Quite the opposite

So you’re saying that if we can dissent from “A”, then, by definition “A” is an authority?

That seems counter-intuitive to me, but I’m willing to hear your thoughts on this! I dunno. It would seem that an authority is, by definition, that which has the “final word”.

I think I follow him. He is saying that it is a contradiction for anything to be “by definition” without an absolute authority to “define” things. But it’s a fallacy since authority can be present all around us and not be recognized as authority or called something different. e.g The Law of Gravity – jump off a cliff to challenge the natural authority there and one dies pretty fast.

I think if the original statement is reworded slightly to leave it ambiguous as to where authority comes from it gets past his objection for a few moments: ”If one can dissent then the presence of choice in the matter means its not an “authority”.

But this too is a fallacy since the assertion can still fail in another way - temporally. That is, freewill taken illicitly in the presence of an authority that is slow (relative to life span) to assert itself is where the fallacy comes out: e.g. final judgment to a punitive hell after one’s free will is removed by the authority that decides when & where it wants to get around to spanking the miscreants that challenge it by ending its mortal life.

As an aside:
I think I just discovered a general truth here. I can see that a patient or slow to act authority might be a natural expectation; otherwise another contradiction might arise. That is, a fast acting authority might be mocked or held hostage to the whims of its subordinates who might try to put authority to the test anytime it wanted to get attention (e.g. “suicide by cop scenario”). And now that slow-to-anger/enforce authority reveals through patience a virtue of Mercy. This further strengthens authority by demonstraing its election of timing to act – all while giving the miscreant an opportunity to repent and appeal to authority. That just keeps strengthening authority. Wow – sounds like the OT descriptions of God as slow to anger, patient, merciful, forgiving – things we would expect from an absolute authority. It all of course compels Love and peace. IN the progression of logic its pretty easy to see the absoulte euivivalency between authority and love. That is: Authority= Love. Primal conclusion.

What an unexpected epiphany I have found here in this little exercise…

James

 

[Betterave]

So you’re saying that if we can dissent from “A”, then, by definition “A” is an authority?

That seems counter-intuitive to me, but I’m willing to hear your thoughts on this! I dunno. It would seem that an authority is, by definition, that which has the “final word”.

I don’t want to be dogmatic about it but we do need to try to have some basic clarity about working definitions. James comments are helpful enough, though not exactly what I had in mind. I’m not so much saying what you suggest above though. What I’d suggest is: if we cannot dissent from A, then A is not an authority (in the relevant sense). If there is no possibility of dissent (specifically, illicit dissent), then there is no need for an authority. A lone wolf has no authority over him because he has no other wolf to dissent from, but as soon as a pack forms, a leader emerges, i.e., an authority, an individual in relation to which dissent becomes possible. If everyone agreed about morality and acted perfectly morally, then authority would become extraneous and could be perfectly transformed into love… and I guess that’s pretty similar to what James just said!

 

[PRmerger]

CentralFLJames;6201996I:

think I follow him. He is saying that it is a contradiction for anything to be “by definition” without an absolute authority to “define” things. But it’s a fallacy since authority can be present all around us and not be recognized as authority or called something different. e.g The Law of Gravity – jump off a cliff to challenge the natural authority there and one dies pretty fast.

I’m sorry. I’m not following.

If I say that I am the final authority regarding my children’s bedtimes–I declare it’s 8:30pm; yet Nozz claims my children can legitimately dissent from this, and decide to go to bed at 9pm, then who is the final authority? It would seem that my children, and not I, have the final word, yes?

I think if the original statement is reworded slightly to leave it ambiguous as to where authority comes from it gets past his objection for a few moments: ”If one can dissent then the presence of choice in the matter means its not an “authority”.

Agreed. And, one ought to add that the decider in the matter* is* the final authority.

 

[peary1]

I often find that people speak of objective morality as though morality is a thing that has an existence of its own, independent of sentient beings. Theists often believe that morality comes from the mind of God, and is therefore independent of human subjectivity. However, my contention is that morality springs from and depends upon the experience of sentient beings - that morality is inextricably bound to subjectivity.

Unless you are an orthodox Jew or Christian, morality is not inextricably bound to subjectivity. Example: the Ten Commandments. These are an objective moral code that Jew and Christian are bound to incorporate in one’s daily life. If we are to believe that it is God Who gave Moses this code of conduct, then morality (through a properly informed conscience) does exist independent of sentient beings because it exists in the mind of God, Who is eternal.

As far as my own view of ethics is concerned, I am, broadly speaking, a utilitarian. Although I think utilitarianism, as a system, has its flaws (which I won’t go into in detail here) it does at least centre upon the goal of maximising happiness and minimising suffering (upon which the maximisation of happiness depends), which, in terms of the reality of our lives, seems to me to be a worthy goal, and one that takes subjectivity seriously. For one thing, without subjectivity, happiness would not be possible. We would have no reason to care about others, no reason or ability to feel compassion or empathy or love. These are the very things that inform our moral choices, and I believe that to deny the role of subjectivity in a moral system is as much as to say that any such system has as its end goal something other than human happiness.

**Show me in history where utilitarianism has maximized happiness and minimized suffering; perhaps, as an example, in an increase of material comforts but this does not necessarily increase mental happiness or happiness in life generally.

Caring for one another is necessary for survival. That is how humanity has gotten this far - taking care of one’s tribe, at the beginning. Also, feelings of sympathy, empathy, and compassion are built in to the human emotional system but we ‘choose’ to whom to direct these feelings which invites us to action.**

 

[Betterave]

If I say that I am the final authority regarding my children’s bedtimes–I declare it’s 8:30pm; yet Nozz claims my children can legitimately dissent from this, and decide to go to bed at 9pm, then who is the final authority? It would seem that my children, and not I, have the final word, yes?

Agreed. And, one ought to add that the decider in the matter* is* the final authority.

Right, so perhaps we can emend what you said earlier:
“If one can -]dissent from/-] overrule (in some appropriate sense) an “authority”, then, by defintion, it is not an authority (in the appropriate sense).”

 

[PRmerger]

Right, so perhaps we can emend what you said earlier:
“If one can -]dissent from/-] overrule (in some appropriate sense) an “authority”, then, by defintion, it is not an authority (in the appropriate sense).”

That’s acceptable.

So then the question becomes: if society is not a non-believer’s authority (because one can overrule society’s morals if one disagrees), then where does a non-believer get his moral authority?

We’ve already established, contrary to what Nozz proposed, that it’s NOT society…

So, what is it then?

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

PRmerger,

It is satisfying to me that you apparently have been reduced to picking people up on turns of phrases. “I am afraid” is merely a simple turn of phrase, and if this is the only thing you can pull me up on in my post then I clearly have done well. Especially when in the rest of your reply to me in post #277 you had to even take something I said, CHANGE it and then pretend you were quoting me.

However, as I said, it appears you and I have the SAME system. You have just added one element for which you have provided zero evidence for. Even if you did provide evidence that this god entity exists, you would STILL have the same system as everyone interpretation of the “word of god” is different, sometimes wildly so, and appears to be just as subjective as anything anyone else is dealing in.

A shame however that while posting a string of post after post in an attempt to flood the thread, you have been unable to provide a scrap of evidence to back up the existence of the moral authority you claim to live by.