Morality and Subjectivity

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

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”?

I see my 3 and your 4 as the same thing really. At least it shows you are getting my point, unlike some. Amalgamate the two into one if you like, it does not alter the point I am making at all.

However this fits exactly what we see in society today. This is exactly what does happen.

However you ask why SHOULDN’T your own values supersede it? I have already answered this. The best way we have to find a way to live WITH each other IS each other. Everyone living by their own standards and their own standards only would lead to anarchy and we know that simply does not work.

However it is not exactly a revolutionary thing I am proposing here. We all do it every day. Look at relationships. When two people come together they do not agree on everything about how to live, how their relationship should work or how to proceed. They discuss it, they agree on some things, disagree on others and they COMPROMISE on the rest. That is how a relationship works.

Why would a society be any different? If we want it to work with people living together, just like any relationship, compromise has to be involved. Where people do not compromise violence and argument follows. This we know of humans more than anything else.

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?

Because as I said the consensus is vast, not total. It can differ from person to person and so is not objective. There is very little true about one person that is true about all.

Take for example the wish to avoid pain. What does this lead us all to want? A society where the inflicting of pain is considered “bad”. We do not want to be hurt. We do not want our loved ones to be hurt. Therefore the ideal society for us to build together is one where hurting is considered bad. Of course there are those few who enjoy inflicting pain, and there are those even fewer who enjoy having it inflicted upon them. However the vast majority consensus is to avoid inflicting it and having it inflicted and so that is the society we build.

Try it with any moral position. It works. Dinesh D’Souza for instance openly admits on many occasions that without a god he sees no reason to give old women his seat on a bus. Not one. I guess for me it is a relief that people so devoid of common human solidarity have not lost their faith. That aside however my position wholly includes such charity. I have many loved ones in my life that are old. I have loved ones including myself and my partner who will become old. The reason therefore I give my seat to an old person on a bus is because I want to build a society where this action is performed. By giving my seat to the old person I am in a small way ensuring that when my own mother boards a bus, the same act is visited upon her.

There does not appear to be an objective standard to you, correct?

Exactly, and if someone shows me there is one after all I will happily re-evaluate my entire position at once.

 

[Sair]

Looks like this thread is starting to morph into another - the one entitled If God does not exist, everything is permissible.

A lot of people tend to mistake subjective morality as some kind of rampant and thoughtless individualism, but this is clearly not the case.

Every person’s morality is subject to his or her own experience - that experience is made up of the minutiae of daily interactions with other people and with the environment in which the person lives. This includes whether or not that person was raised in a religious community, and taught to obey religious teachings. Even the choice to obey or disobey religious moral precepts is made subjectively - we act in certain ways, we evaluate the consequences and how those consequences affect our feelings and circumstances, and we make choices as to whether we act in that way again.

None of this requires the existence of an absolute set of objective moral principles - it is just part of what it means to be humans living in a society.

 

[PRmerger]

However, as I said, it appears you and I have the SAME system.

INDEED!! That’s exactly what I’m trying to say! :extrahappy:

Your claim that “society” is your moral authority is, actually, not true. For you have stated that you are free to dissent in society. Thus, it cannot be your authority.

[SIGN]Your actual moral authority is your conscience.[/SIGN] Just like mine.

Now, we can go on to discuss how understanding that your conscience is your moral authority is actually a tacit acceptance of the existence of God.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

I’m **afraid **(ha! ha!) that you have no authority over me to stop me from “posting a string of post after post”.

There’s a diversity of ways in which one can post in the CAFs. I suggest some tolerance in this regard, Nozz!

 

[PRmerger]

you have been unable to provide a scrap of evidence to back up the existence of the moral authority you claim to live by.

Can you prove I exist, Nozz?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Can you prove I exist, Nozz?

I’ve been on to you for a few days now. Come on - admit it - you are Nozzferrahhtoo’s sock puppet and are debating yourself to insure an audience.

James

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve been on to you for a few days now. Come on - admit it - you are Nozzferrahhtoo’s sock puppet and are debating yourself to insure an audience.

James

'zactly!

And, unless someone can prove otherwise via our virtual computer limitations, there’s no proof that I am a separate entity than Nozz. Therefore, I do not exist. :whacky:

 

[Betterave]

I see my 3 and your 4 as the same thing really. At least it shows you are getting my point, unlike some. Amalgamate the two into one if you like, it does not alter the point I am making at all.

However this fits exactly what we see in society today. This is exactly what does happen.

However you ask why SHOULDN’T your own values supersede it? I have already answered this. The best way we have to find a way to live WITH each other IS each other. Everyone living by their own standards and their own standards only would lead to anarchy and we know that simply does not work.

Well anarchists, at least, don’t know that! Anyway, you selectively quoted me and ignored my broader point, which was that your simplistic trichotomy is largely irrelevant. Why did you ignore that? When you arbitrarily ignore complications, I’m sure it’s very easy to hold a view like yours. But some of us, people whom you claim to want to “find a way to live with,” I take it, are interested in examining little details like the fact that what you have written is largely irrelevant to the question it claims to address.

However it is not exactly a revolutionary thing I am proposing here. We all do it every day. Look at relationships. When two people come together they do not agree on everything about how to live, how their relationship should work or how to proceed. They discuss it, they agree on some things, disagree on others and they COMPROMISE on the rest. That is how a relationship works.

Why would a society be any different? If we want it to work with people living together, just like any relationship, compromise has to be involved. Where people do not compromise violence and argument follows. This we know of humans more than anything else.

Violence and argument, you say? And these are to be avoided? But the point of an argument is what? With all due respect, it shouldn’t be to make yourself feel good about your own position (this seems to be what you’re after, at least some of the time). It should be to find the truth. And the thing about the truth is that it’s true, it’s not false, it’s objective, it’s not just subjective. So you can run away from arguments, but you should be careful - you might be running away from the truth by doing so.

Because as I said the consensus is vast, not total. It can differ from person to person and so is not objective. There is very little true about one person that is true about all.

Take for example the wish to avoid pain. What does this lead us all to want? A society where the inflicting of pain is considered “bad”. We do not want to be hurt. We do not want our loved ones to be hurt. Therefore the ideal society for us to build together is one where hurting is considered bad. Of course there are those few who enjoy inflicting pain, and there are those even fewer who enjoy having it inflicted upon them. However the vast majority consensus is to avoid inflicting it and having it inflicted and so that is the society we build.

But the point obviously cannot just be about the fact that some people dissent from the majority view. This *obviously *doesn’t ipso facto vitiate objectivity. Do you need me to explain this? (Better: think about it yourself, read the rest of this thread if you need to, and then see if you can explain it to me - it shouldn’t be a difficult point.)

Try it with any moral position. It works. Dinesh D’Souza for instance openly admits on many occasions that without a god he sees no reason to give old women his seat on a bus. Not one. I guess for me it is a relief that people so devoid of common human solidarity have not lost their faith. That aside however my position wholly includes such charity. I have many loved ones in my life that are old. I have loved ones including myself and my partner who will become old. The reason therefore I give my seat to an old person on a bus is because I want to build a society where this action is performed. By giving my seat to the old person I am in a small way ensuring that when my own mother boards a bus, the same act is visited upon her.

Well shame on Dinesh! And thank God for faith! As for your understanding of “charity,” that’s perhaps something we could discuss…

Exactly, and if someone shows me there is one after all I will happily re-evaluate my entire position at once.

There’s more than one way to re-evalute your position and re-evaluting the entire thing at once is not one of them. You should note at once that it is not enough to be shown an objective standard; you also have to be able to see it. Showing, properly speaking, requires receptivity on the part of the showee, just like seeing requires vision, not just a visible object. If you don’t want to see an objective moral standard, you probably won’t. The role of the will in intellection is a complication that is often forgotten and vitiates many attempts to understand moral phenomena from the get-go. Do you get this point? It’s a basic point that I think you’ll need to grasp if you want going to get anywhere in moral reasoning.

 

[Betterave]

Looks like this thread is starting to morph into another - the one entitled If God does not exist, everything is permissible.

A lot of people tend to mistake subjective morality as some kind of rampant and thoughtless individualism, but this is clearly not the case.[Not so clearly. That judgment will depend on our conception of “rampant and thoughtless.”]

Every person’s morality is subject to his or her own experience - that experience is made up of the minutiae of daily interactions with other people and with the environment in which the person lives. This includes whether or not that person was raised in a religious community, and taught to obey religious teachings. Even the choice to obey or disobey religious moral precepts is made subjectively - we act in certain ways, we evaluate the consequences and how those consequences affect our feelings and circumstances, and we make choices as to whether we act in that way again.

None of this requires the existence of an absolute set of objective moral principles - it is just part of what it means to be humans living in a society.

What you’re claiming here is far too vague. What is “experience” (Erfahrung? Erlebnis?)? What is “subjection” supposed to mean here? These are not clear terms.

Experience is *not *simply subjectively constituted in any reasonable account of what human experience is; it is only subjectively experienced. That means that human experience always already has trans-subjective elements built into it’s very constitution, and part of the human experience, especially the experience of morality, involves apprehending the nature (the direction) of this trans-subjective element. Morality can be seen precisely as resting on my recognition of my subjection to the other, and not just to “my own subjective experience.” The fact that I can reject the claims of the other on me is part of the nature of free finite moral being, it is not evidence for the claim that morality is not objective, that it is constitutively grounded purely in finite fallible individual subjectivities, which (who) may or may not choose to “optimize” their “living with others,” and whose choices are, as such, intrinsically self-grounded and thus uncriticizable.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

I’ve been quite puzzled by this very peculiar objection.

<PRmerger thinking to herself: Why? Why is Nozz posting such a lame objection? Eureka! Because, now that he’s understanding that his argument–society is our authority–has no merit he’s going to have to find some way to “ignore” the discussion that ensues. >

SIGH!

 

[Sair]

What you’re claiming here is far too vague. What is “experience” (Erfahrung? Erlebnis?)? What is “subjection” supposed to mean here? These are not clear terms.

Experience is *not *simply subjectively constituted in any reasonable account of what human experience is; it is only subjectively experienced. That means that human experience always already has trans-subjective elements built into it’s very constitution, and part of the human experience, especially the experience of morality, involves apprehending the nature (the direction) of this trans-subjective element. Morality can be seen precisely as resting on my recognition of my subjection to the other, and not just to “my own subjective experience.” The fact that I can reject the claims of the other on me is part of the nature of free finite moral being, it is not evidence for the claim that morality is not objective, that it is constitutively grounded purely in finite fallible individual subjectivities, which (who) may or may not choose to “optimize” their “living with others,” and whose choices are, as such, intrinsically self-grounded and thus uncriticizable.

Earlier in this thread, I posted regarding my own reading up on the notion of objective vs subjective realities. Objective realities are things that exist independently of our experience of them - like trees, or York Minster. Subjective realities must be experienced in order to exist. Morality is essentially a subjective reality. While it is objectively true that certain actions have effects which are beneficial or harmful, our moral judgement of such actions is subjective, and dependent upon the collection of life experiences that have shaped our judgement.

Clear as mud?

 

[sidbrown]

Earlier in this thread, I posted regarding my own reading up on the notion of objective vs subjective realities. Objective realities are things that exist independently of our experience of them - like trees, or York Minster. Subjective realities must be experienced in order to exist. Morality is essentially a subjective reality. While it is objectively true that certain actions have effects which are beneficial or harmful, our moral judgement of such actions is subjective, and dependent upon the collection of life experiences that have shaped our judgement.

Clear as mud?

I am not so sure because there seems to be a tendency nowadays to go overboard and make most of morality and what is or what is not a moral value, to make it subjective and relative to the culture or times that one lives in. For example, take the question of the moral value of a female Catholic priesthood. For centuries, the Church has held that it is wrong for women to be priests and that there can be only a male priesthood. However, recently, we have seen several Catholic women saying that this issue is one which is relative to the culture and that women should be able to be priests. Although it has not yet been given official approval by the Roman Catholic Church, nevertheless in the past century, steps have been taken to give women certain rights and privileges which they presumably did not have in the early Church, if we are to believe what is written in Corinthians. Women were required to have their heads covered and were to remain silent in Church. This has been overturned recently and we see women giving all kinds or readings in the Church with their heads uncovered and wearing pants contrary to what was asked of women before. So in a sense then we see that morality is subjcetive and does depend on the culture, but on the other hand, there are those in the Roman Catholic Church who say that it has been infallibly declared that women cannot be priests and that will not change so that is something which cannot be said to be held subjectively.

 

[Sair]

I am not so sure because there seems to be a tendency nowadays to go overboard and make most of morality and what is or what is not a moral value, to make it subjective and relative to the culture or times that one lives in. For example, take the question of the moral value of a female Catholic priesthood. For centuries, the Church has held that it is wrong for women to be priests and that there can be only a male priesthood. However, recently, we have seen several Catholic women saying that this issue is one which is relative to the culture and that women should be able to be priests. Although it has not yet been given official approval by the Roman Catholic Church, nevertheless in the past century, steps have been taken to give women certain rights and privileges which they presumably did not have in the early Church, if we are to believe what is written in Corinthians. Women were required to have their heads covered and were to remain silent in Church. This has been overturned recently and we see women giving all kinds or readings in the Church with their heads uncovered and wearing pants contrary to what was asked of women before. So in a sense then we see that morality is subjcetive and does depend on the culture, but on the other hand, there are those in the Roman Catholic Church who say that it has been infallibly declared that women cannot be priests and that will not change so that is something which cannot be said to be held subjectively.

At the risk of causing a debate over the relationship between feminism and the Church, I would say that the prohibitions against women being Catholic priests are culturally dictated, and therefore subjective. Those who argue against women being priests argue from the desire to preserve a tradition which they think represents more than historical contingency. The early church arose in a time when misogyny was the cultural norm, and it was unlikely that anyone would have taken female preachers seriously - consequently, this state of affairs has become part of church doctrine, but for no better reason than “That’s the way things were, and we don’t want to change”.

 

[PRmerger]

Those who argue against women being priests argue from the desire to preserve a tradition which they think represents more than historical contingency.

I don’t believe the CC would state it quite that way.

Certainly, an all-male priesthood is a tradition which has been preserved for millenia, (pre-dating Christianity.)

However, the argument proposed goes beyone mere tradition, but is ontological.

**Originally posted by Padro **here: Just as it is not by the natural properties of water or the human symbolism of Baptism (the Jews had a baptism of repentance) that the supernatural effects of Sacramental Baptism occur, neither is it by the natural qualifications of any human being, male or female, as such that any supernatural effects of Priesthood take place. That is why it is not by the natural qualifications of a woman functioning in the role of a priest (preaching, ministering, etc.) that there would by any supernatural effects. Only the men the Church accepts as living symbols of the God-Man Jesus Christ as Head to the Body of the Church, and Groom to the Church as His Bride through sacramental Ordination by Apostolic Succession have the supernatural causality.

It is obvious that a woman can not symbolize being Christ the Groom (inescapably male); neither also the supernatural Headship (i.e., as reference point and absolute origin – rather than superiority - like the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit in the Trinity). So it is not a put-down of the natural or attained abilities of a woman who could function in the activities of the office as well - or in some cases (preaching) better – than a man or particular men from a social point of view. It is the lack of symbolism in being a woman of the specific Man Jesus Christ Who as a man is Priest, Head to the Body, Groom to the Bride, Son to the Father, Father of the World to Come. The woman can of course symbolize the Body and the Bride of Christ and she does, and Mary is the Woman and the symbol of the Church in its highest

.

 

[Betterave]

Earlier in this thread, I posted regarding my own reading up on the notion of objective vs subjective realities. Objective realities are things that exist independently of our experience of them - like trees, or York Minster. Subjective realities must be experienced in order to exist. Morality is essentially a subjective reality. While it is objectively true that certain actions have effects which are beneficial or harmful, our moral judgement of such actions is subjective, and dependent upon the collection of life experiences that have shaped our judgement.

Clear as mud?

Yes, mud! Of course moral judgments are (metaphysically) subjective, and are dependent upon prior factors shaping those judgments - all judgments are! If you want to say that moral judgments are subjective in that sense, don’t bother - you’re just stating the obvious. But you seem to be agreeing with Nozz now, who is saying something much more ambitious, and it would beg the question if you were to insist that these prior factors are nothing but a “collection of life experiences” (and I’m assuming that this phrase is meant to imply that there is no fundamentally spontaneous activity of the intellect that is involved in the constitution of our life experience, that “life experience” is merely passively “collected” by the human organism).

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

PRMerger,

You appear to be understanding me but saying things I do not espouse. You also appear to be trying to suggest you have discovered something about my position as if you are outing me. Maybe if I reiterate my position but in slightly different ways it will help.

Society is indeed the authority on this. The society we build together. I respect its rules and laws for example. However I am free to dissent while following these laws.

What I mean by this is that, for example, I am pro-choice on abortion values. Currently in Irish society where I am from Abortion is illegal. This means two things:

1. I will not engage in suggesting anyone in Ireland have an abortion, I will not perform any myself, I will not break this law. I would support the prosecution under law of anyone who does it.
2. I will also argue, educate, petition and motivate for this law to be changed.

So I am indeed granting authority to the society, but I am also suggesting that that society change it’s ways and its position on the matter. Therefore I really do not see the issue you have with “dissent”. The society is the authority, my own beliefs and conscience ect are just what I provide to that society to work with.

The rest of your posts are not worth replying to as I never suggested you can not, or should not, flood the threads with a series of posts. I merely pointed out that this is what you are doing and I merely postulated my own theory on why you do it.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Betterave,

I am not sure how to reply to you. Your post appears to be entirely made up of claims I ignored your point (which I did not), claims that my point is irrelevant (without any back up as to why, and merely saying it is does not make it so) and false accusations which presume to know me about why I post and debate.

You can engage in fantasy ad hominem about me posting only to feel good if you like, but it leaves me nothing to reply to. I can not reply to something you have wholly made up. Nor do I have any onus to defend myself from an accusation without any evidence. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

When I remove accusations, ad hominem, and made up stuff from your post I find nothing I can reply to. So I will have to make do with repeating my point…

Given that there is no objective morality on offer, nor any evidence of it OR a moral law giver…. And given that morality, from the notion of it to what it should be, appears to come ENTIRELY from our subjective minds, then this is the only source I am left to work with.

That said, since we wish to live together, I find the only way we can decide what that morality should be is WITH each other. We come together with all our subjective opinions on what it should be and work together to establish this moral norm.

What we expect, and in fact see, from this is that there are areas where we achieve broad almost total consensus. There are areas where no one agrees. There is everything in between too.

And as with any human relationship, its success is based on compromise. We will not agree in everything so we must compromise to the social authority on issues we may disagree with. If something is deemed immoral or illegal I must recognise that by wanting to be part of that society I will have to conform to this or risk offending, being ostracised by, or even being prosecuted by, the members of that society.

As I said before if you wish more information on this you can read my entry here:

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

What is important to note however is that the people claiming, without a scrap or a shred of evidence, the existence of an objective morality are still operating by the same system I am espousing. They merely come together, read the book that is meant to be objective and interpret it each in their subjective way. God is therefore not only without any evidence but appears to be entirely superfluous to morality at all.

 

[tonyrey]

While it is objectively true that certain actions have effects which are beneficial or harmful, our moral judgement of such actions is subjective, and dependent upon the collection of life experiences that have shaped our judgement.

1. Since animals experienced beneficial and harmful effects before human beings existed it would seem that values are not man-made.
2. If life experiences have shaped our judgment surely morality is objective. If our moral judgment has physical causes the distinction between subjective and objective disappears.

 

[PRmerger]

The rest of your posts are not worth replying to as I never suggested you can not, or should not, flood the threads with a series of posts. I merely pointed out that this is what you are doing and I merely postulated my own theory on why you do it.

Fair enough.

So you will tolerate my style of posting while not necessarily agreeing with it? That’s a very Christian virtue!

 

[PRmerger]

Society is indeed the authority on this. The society we build together. I respect its rules and laws for example. However I am free to dissent while following these laws.

Ah. So you’re talking about governance. I agree with you, then. As a member of a democratic society I respect its rules and laws.

However, Nozz, the title of this thread is “Morality and Subjectivity”. The question is: what is your moral authority? That is,* where do you get your values?*. What tells you what is right and what is wrong?

It is clear that you do NOT get your moral values from society. For your society says that abortion kills a human life.

So where do you get your moral values from? As I said earlier, you really are saying that you get your values from your conscience.

Now, after you’ve affirmed that you’re really *not *saying that your moral authority is society but is really your conscience, we can talk about how that really means you believe in God…