Morality: Objective or Subjective?

[ANNE_2]

Catholics must do their best to adhere to ALL the teachings in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.

Catholics believe in truth and right, as taught by Jesus.
Relativism is wrong.

Ethical subjectivism taken to the extreme leads to the paradoxical situation of the duty to permit immorality as morally good.
Since there is no way to determine what is good and what is evil - it would be necessary to conclude that every type of behaviour is equally valid.
Common sense, however, rebels at this conclusion to which one necessarily arrives given the premise from which it began.

 

[tonyrey]

Science doesn’t work if no one is involved! It is based on subjective reasoning.

The things invented by science didn’t work because they didn’t exist! Similarly morality didn’t work when moral rules didn’t exist. Or do you believe morality never works?!

There are always people who disagree - and the majority are not infallible. What determines whether an action is beneficial? Is it just a matter of opinion?

It’s a matter of evidence with facts. Usually nowadays, generally people are open-minded and will listen to arguments. The obvious one’s have been done, but now the harder ones are under scrutiny.

If it’s a matter of evidence with facts morality is objective when our subjective opinions correspond with facts about persons.

So in practice you always try to do what you think is right?

Yes. However, those who go against the “objective” standards put into law such as the polygamist Warren Jeffs thinking it was ok to rape children because his God told him so, will go to jail and be removed the general public because his morality chose to take the rights away from others.

The fact that we make mistakes doesn’t invalidate the absolute principle that we should always try to do what we believe is right - after serious reflection and consultation.

 

[grannymh]

If it’s a matter of evidence with facts morality is objective when our subjective opinions correspond with facts about persons.

Morality, the noun, can be a quality, a system, a rule, or virtuous conduct. Objectively speaking, the thing or action that morality is being referred to actually exists. The poster is correct in saying that a subjective opinion can also affirm the fact of existence.

 

[exnihilo]

Time has nothing to do with the actual basis for evaluating moral actions. The human person is an objective fact. Human nature, which in itself unites the material and spiritual worlds, does not change with the passage of time. We neither become half-human or double-human as time passes. As descendants of two sole parents, we belong to a unified species which shares unique human nature. Thus, our human nature has always been and always will be an objective fact.

I agree. I was not advocating for relative morality. I was just pointing out that the ‘morality’ of the people changes with time. I happen to think a people can be more or less moral. The people as a whole *always *think they are the most moral. For instance we Americans pride ourselves on no longer having slaves but abort millions of babies each year. People basically think they are right otherwise they would not act as they do. The ‘morality’ of the time shows how well a people understands true morality which is objective and eternal.

After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins he says: “But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31: 18). God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Numbers 31: 25-27).

Then you mean rape as in the Rape of the Sabine Women. That is an older meaning of rape coming from the Latin word rapere which means to carry off.

Are you implying we shouldn’t have greater tolerance (mercy) and perhaps this is an injustice that would be validated by the bible to stone someone today?

I am not saying tolerance is mercy. I am saying tolerance could be injustice. Letting people get away with sin may be injustice to them and society.

Should we also rejoice in the condemnation of stoning or eternal torment? Sounds like a wife who rationalizes the good parts in her abusive husband.

We should rejoice in God’s justice. Even men feel the pain of injustice when their laws are not enforced. If someone who killed your family members was allowed to escape justice would you rejoice?

Right, I would say stoning a child who talks back to his parents one time is a little harsh.

Harsh means you think it is not just. We learn in the Bible that God has very strict standards and man does not.

This is a very good well-constructed statement. And yes, it shows that morality evolves. We can look back 1,000 years ago and say how very immoral the times were, yet 100 years ago we may call the times immoral, yet still far developed from 1000 years ago. In 100 years from now, people will most likely think we were still closer to their morality than the % difference in how we look back 100 years ago. Big common rules first start, and then it develops slowly step by step, which each step theoretically giving an advantage, so we see how morality advances humans and their collaboration in the world. Simply summed up, we develop the moralities in our land based on evidenced rationale, not just - it is what it is because it says so in a holy book.

No, this does not show that morality evolves. If morality evolves it is not morality but just democratic ethics. The point I was making is that we tend to want to define good and bad as what we want. That is not morality but human want. We condemn slave owners but abort a million babies each year. Because so many dont consider abortion to be, as it is, murder they can have this view. But the slave owners of old would find this age terribly evil. In fact I would say that even the abolitionists would find our age more evil than theirs.

 

[danserr]

With science there is a standard against which we can measure progress…

This is a response to your post number 29, I simply didn’t quote the whole thing to keep this from being too long.

Now your position is that no objective morality exists, and that morality is only subjective. This is to say that morality is solely dependent on what human beings think, ie, there is no independent existing morality. Therefore morality is only the result of socio-biological conditioning, or personal preference. And you try to claim this is sufficient for us to live happily. But it clearly is not.

My position is that if objective morality does not exist, then it is not objectively wrong to say, round up and exterminate the Jews, rape and kill a little girl, or abuse children. Such things may be taboo in the sense that society has determined them to be so, but this does not show that they are really wrong. I find this position not only irrational, but frankly offensive.

Now you respond with a few basic claims:

1. we have to set our own “objective” morality. Socieities determine morality based on the golden rule.
2. we can invent morality by reason and evidence.
3. people want a happy life with personal freedom (essentially, you try to make this your standard of morality, if something contributes to a happy and free life for many people, it is ok (not good), and if it doesn’t it is wrong.
4. Societies that do bad things, like killing Jews, are mistaken because this will hurt society and cause it to die off.
5. Science provides a sufficient measure of progress.

First, you cannot set an objective morality. That is simply a contradiction. If morality is something we invent and agree on, then it is purely subjective. This may be the case, but the consequences of this view are very ugly.

Second, you are mistaken that science provides a basis for morality or progress. Science tells us what “is”; it does not tell us what “ought” to be. It is an elementary principle of ethics that you cannot derive an ought from an is. For instance, it is a scientific fact (history is very much a science) that the Romans exposed infant girls in enormous numbers, and that the behavior we call rape happens in the animal kingdom. All science can say is that these things happen, not that they should or should not happen. (Otherwise we would have to say these things are ok because science shows they happen).

Now, all you are really saying is that if we grant that we should care about personal freedom and happiness for as many people as possible, then we can invent a system of moral values and live happily. This has some problems.
1). What if maximizing the happiness of the greatest number of people involved torturing and killing a small minority to death. Would that be ok? Isn’t this precisely the argument that most proponents of torture use today?
2). What if society determines that homosexuals should be rounded up and killed? what if this actually adds to social cohesion? Homosexuals do not reproduce and therefore aid society, what if killing them off unites society around a common “enemy,”
builds social cohesion, and destroys a group that does not contribute to the continuation of the species? In this case would killing homosexuals be morally right?
3). On atheism, why should I care about the freedom of others? You answer is that in the end it will be good for me too, but this is obviously untrue.
– What about acts of heroic self-sacrifice? It is good for society that some men are willing to die for it, but why should I be one of those men (assuming God does not exist)?
– Second, what if I am well-placed to undertake the totalitarian option? Suppose I am in the position of Stalin. For generations Russians tyrants effectively and happily ruled in a totalitarian fashion. Why should they care about the freedom of others? Why should they care about society’s well-being?
4). It is just not true that societies that are immoral won’t last long. The Roman empire lasted hundreds of years and for most of that time (until Christianity) they were exposing (killing) infant girls in huge numbers. The Soviets lasted nearly a century.

• And anyway, are you now making the determination of moral goodness what is good for society? But what if something morally obscene is good for society?
  
  Look, in the end, you are basically saying that we should be nice to each other, follow the golden rule, respect others rights. I completely agree. We should. I am simply saying that without God, there is no objective reason that this should be the case and we cannot live happily knowing this is the case. (could you really be happy with the idea that a man who raped and killed a little girl only did something socially unfashionable as opposed to objectively wrong?) Without God to ground the existence of objective moral values and duties any other attempt to ground a morality is open to the playground bully’s retort “who says?” This is true of any moral system you try to invent. Consider the quote I put in my first post,

Only if ethics is something unspeakable by us [that is, something transcendent], could law be unnatural, and therefore unchallengeable. As things now stand, everything is up for grabs.

Nevertheless:
Napalming babies is bad.
Starving the poor is wicked.
Buying and selling each other is depraved. . . .
There is in the world such a thing as evil.
(All together now), Sez who?
God help us

Reason alone is not enough. Hence the atheist philosopher Kai Nelson admits “pure practical reason even with a good knowledge of all the facts, will not take you to morality.”

 

[shoe]

It’s not a guess. It’s what works and what doesn’t based on facts. Personal liberty works, people are happy. Communism doesn’t, people are unhappy. We decide what our own rights are, based on what works.

God’s objective morals are based on His attributes and teach love, kindness, patience, and looking out for the well-being of all mankind, even if looking out for the well-being of another person is detrimental to the Christian. And God’s objective morals never change. For example, abortion was morally wrong yesterday, is morally wrong today, and will be morally wrong tomorrow. But the atheist worldview is always changing, always “evolving,” and is based not necessarily on facts but on opinions and feelings that may or may not include love, kindness, patience, and looking out for the well-being of others. What subjective morals atheists may hold in the future is “anyone’s guess,” as their morality, in the same way as evolution, is based entirely on random and chance processes that are always changing.

 

[smichhertz]

Joining the thread a little late, my apologies.

I will argue that morality is subjective. We humans must develop our cultural moralities such that we can progress and live lives with freedoms that we choose, such that it does not hinder someone else’s freedoms.

This is the crux of the misunderstanding right here. To truly be free is to do good. So to make the argument that in the name of freedom, morality must be subjective is contradictory. If morality is subjective, than you can’t even make people free, as you don’t even have a universal rule of what freedom is.

How can you condemn one that does evil or violates another’s freedom if morality is subjective? You don’t have anything to stand on, as you have ruled out any objective code to denounce the other’s actions.

 

[sharptiger999]

Since there is no way to determine what is good and what is evil - it would be necessary to conclude that every type of behaviour is equally valid.

We can measure the effects of moral laws, so yes we can determine what has positive and negative effects. Therefore, not all type of behavior is equally valid.

 

[sharptiger999]

The things invented by science didn’t work because they didn’t exist! Similarly morality didn’t work when moral rules didn’t exist. Or do you believe morality never works?!

When moral rules did not exist there was in essence no morality, and civilizations didn’t live long like that. Morality evolved to where it is today.

If it’s a matter of evidence with facts morality is objective when our subjective opinions correspond with facts about persons.

Again, I use the word “objective” as in the law of the land. Yes, we create our own morality with evidence. I do not mean there is an objective morality in the universe.

The fact that we make mistakes doesn’t invalidate the absolute principle that we should always try to do what we believe is right - after serious reflection and consultation.

I agree.

 

[sharptiger999]

This is in three posts:

Now your position is that no objective morality exists, and that morality is only subjective.

Correct.
This begs the question though from your point of view that if God told you to sacrifice your child, would you?

Wouldn’t you at least immediately begin to rationalize what you would potentially do?

Wouldn’t you therefore be structuring your own argument in your head weighing the possible benefits/negatives of this potential action and what effect it would have on you and others?

There are sometimes tough close calls of morality questions, but isn’t that what we always do?

As another example, do you not murder because you remember that God has this moral commandment, or is it something else?

Without believing in God’s moral laws, isn’t it possible for non-believers today to still live and act morally based upon what you view as God’s moral law? Then doesn’t that prove that we can reason to the same extent of what you think is God’s moral law?

This is to say that morality is solely dependent on what human beings think, ie, there is no independent existing morality.

Correct.

Therefore morality is only the result of socio-biological conditioning, or personal preference. And you try to claim this is sufficient for us to live happily. But it clearly is not.

I wouldn’t say it’s preference, but rather a necessity for what works. Hitler can have preference all day long to have it his way, but that isn’t reason in itself.

My position is that if objective morality does not exist, then it is not objectively wrong to say, round up and exterminate the Jews, rape and kill a little girl, or abuse children.

You used the word objective twice, each with a different meaning. If we grant for argument that objective reality doesn’t exist in the sense of from God, then it still is wrong objectively in the sense that humans have created the objectiveness that applies to all. Sure, not everyone will believe it is wrong, and they have their opinion (subjective view).

Such things may be taboo in the sense that society has determined them to be so, but this does not show that they are really wrong.

You are already assuming again that God has set objective morals by saying really wrong. What is really wrong is what we can reason to be wrong. Everyone can still have opinions as they do in everything.

I find this position not only irrational, but frankly offensive.

I am not trying to offend, but only reason with you. Sometimes it’s hard to believe that a child raper who never got caught will eventually die, perhaps without justice. But I’m interested in what’s true, not wishful thinking. That’s why we come together to try and give justice to those who may one day fight for ours. We have reasoned with each other that this is right because it’s reasoned so, and this is wrong because of reasoning as well.

First, you cannot set an objective morality.

Not in the sense that you are assuming again.

If morality is something we invent and agree on, then it is purely subjective.

Correct. I just use the word “objective” meaning applies to all or everything.

Second, you are mistaken that science provides a basis for morality or progress. Science tells us what “is”; it does not tell us what “ought” to be.

This is true on pure definition, but not an analytical level. We can run two experiments each with different levels of morality. The results simply show us what happened. It doesn’t pick one over the other. In fact, we can run thousands of experiments simultaneously daily, each showing different results. Now we can all look at them and simply see which is better, with our assumption that we do not want to be in distress, as that goes against instinct. We choose and debate what it “ought” to be based on the resuls.

For instance, it is a scientific fact (history is very much a science) that the Romans exposed infant girls in enormous numbers,

Yes, science says this happened. But you missed the part where science said it didn’t sustain itself and instead collapsed.

and that the behavior we call rape happens in the animal kingdom.

Rape is rare in the animal kingdom. Usually a male will not try to mate with a female unless she is in season, and she will then accept him if she feels he is a good mate. If she doesn’t want him - for example, he seems weak, and she doesn’t want his genes for her offspring - she will reject him, and there is usually no way he can force her.

One animal that commonly practices rape is the orang-utan (one of our closest relatives, interestingly). It’s thought that around half of all orang-utan births are the result of rape. This happens because orang-utans are solitary, and when a female comes into heat a young or subordinate male often finds her before any other male. The female does not want him as a mate - she wants a fully-grown, dominant male who will pass on good genes to her offspring, having proved he is a good survivor - but he is stronger than she is and, having arms and hands, is able to hold her down and force her to mate with him.

It is what it is. I don’t like it, and we can fight to change things. Nowadays we realize we are generally better off to fight with our ideas, given that if we don’t win, we still have a fairly good life, rather than battle living or dying for it.

 

[sharptiger999]

Now, all you are really saying is that if we grant that we should care about personal freedom and happiness for as many people as possible, then we can invent a system of moral values and live happily. This has some problems.

I’m not exactly advocating social darwinism, though I’m aware some try to make the case.

1). What if maximizing the happiness of the greatest number of people involved torturing and killing a small minority to death. Would that be ok? Isn’t this precisely the argument that most proponents of torture use today?

This is a good question, though you phrased it in a slanted way. This deals with the utilitarianism point of view, which I think I relate to most. I don’t want to dodge your question, but I think something very specific would help me answer. I know what you are trying to ask, but your question could relate to two very different real-world things. Obviously, I can tell you think the answer is no, but let me phrase the same, yet more specific question to you. (I’m only doing this to prove why I might need a more specific question). There’s a movie out now called “Unthinkable” starring Samuel L. Jackson. He plays an interrogator trying to find the location of some nuclear bombs. At some point it becomes obvious that unless he tortures the terrorist’s children, the terrorist will never give up the location of the bombs. He doesn’t torture the children and one of the bombs goes off killing and injuring millions. If you are a utilitarian you probably would have tortured those children to save millions from death and torture from radiation burns and sickness, etc. Now, you phrased the question in a way that assumes the majority could just kill off the minority if they wanted to. The problem with this is that it doesn’t really assume the possible real-world implications to come. If one population does it, wouldn’t they worry some of their own will do the same to them? If you don’t stand up for someone, who will be there to stand up for you?

2). What if society determines that homosexuals should be rounded up and killed? what if this actually adds to social cohesion? Homosexuals do not reproduce and therefore aid society, what if killing them off unites society around a common “enemy,”
builds social cohesion, and destroys a group that does not contribute to the continuation of the species? In this case would killing homosexuals be morally right?

Everyone has the right to make their argument, but I wouldn’t buy this one. It’s just not realistic, but I’ll explain why it hasn’t happened. People instead have decided that it’s more beneficial to them to live their lives giving up few moments of happiness (such as being disgrunted for thirty minutes at a restaurant by seeing a gay couple), rather than fighting to the much likelier death over it. Even if it’s a vast majority, it sets the precedent that someday someone could alienate and do the same thing to you, and even you are the in the majority 100/1 you face a slight chance of being retaliated against and losing your entire life rather than only being disgruntled for a likely 30mins.

3). On atheism, why should I care about the freedom of others?

Through evolution, we advance by being helpful and nice. “I scratch your back and you will scratch mine.” (Watch a documentary “nice guys finish first”). If we are nice and helpful, even though we do not expect immediate payback, it is likely that others too will be there for us if we need it. Imagine Israel for instance. Imagine the support they would get if they ever needed it in times of war.

– What about acts of heroic self-sacrifice? It is good for society that some men are willing to die for it, but why should I be one of those men (assuming God does not exist)?

Are you trying to say that if you do not expect to be payed back (in the afterlife or somehow else) there is no point in a sacrifice? This atheist derives pleasure from helping those in need. Any other means by which self-sacrifice is considered, from biological to religious, from philosophy to some personal greed, would not alter that fact.

To conclude I only do so because there’s some god up there, is as unevidenced a position as I’ve ever known. I joined the US Army as soon as I could, fully aware my actions may result in my removal from the gene pool. I did so in part because I have a sense of community, of defense of that community, and an obligation to continue the tradition set forth by my father’s Purple Heart and POW status in the Korean war. He’s not a perfect man, but his sacrifice will not be forgotten by me, or anyone who happens within earshot of my appreciation for his suffering those wounds.

Frankly, I’m a bit disappointed that so often atheists have to “prove” or “explain” why they would sacrifice, but theists are so seldom asked to explain why they’d sacrifice. Whether you believe in a god or not, if you are a rational person, you must come to grips with your own mortality. We’re all going to die. This life is going to end. We all strive to make the most of what we have. But there are some who realize, completely and fully, that they are really only one, that while their own personal existence will end, humanity will continue. For some, benefiting humanity is more important than living out their remaining days without doing that benefit.

The atheist who gives his life knowing full well what will happen is a heck of a lot braver than the theist who believes he’s about to be rewarded with eternal bliss.

 

[sharptiger999]

4). It is just not true that societies that are immoral won’t last long. The Roman empire lasted hundreds of years and for most of that time (until Christianity) they were exposing (killing) infant girls in huge numbers. The Soviets lasted nearly a century.

It is sad that they lasted as long as they did, but they’re over now, and more viable alternatives will last much longer (i.e. greater good).

• And anyway, are you now making the determination of moral goodness what is good for society? But what if something morally obscene is good for society?

Like what?

I am simply saying that without God, there is no objective reason that this should be the case and we cannot live happily knowing this is the case.

Just assume for a moment and sake of argument that God was dis-proven tomorrow and all theists realized it. Would you go out and kill, rape, and steal?

(could you really be happy with the idea that a man who raped and killed a little girl only did something socially unfashionable as opposed to objectively wrong?)

I’m not worried about my feels so much as I am about what’s true.

 

[sharptiger999]

And God’s objective morals never change. For example, abortion was morally wrong yesterday, is morally wrong today, and will be morally wrong tomorrow.

And God’s objective morals never change. Stoning an unruly child was morally right yesterday, morally right today, and will be morally right tomorrow?

 

[sharptiger999]

To truly be free is to do good. So to make the argument that in the name of freedom, morality must be subjective is contradictory.

We must debate what is good and what is not. That’s subjective.

If morality is subjective, than you can’t even make people free, as you don’t even have a universal rule of what freedom is.

Freedom is a word which is universally defined: the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. Now we must debate what morality will allow for this, as the assumption is humans do not like pain, but rather happiness, which freedom and liberty allow.

How can you condemn one that does evil or violates another’s freedom if morality is subjective?

Because we can show with evidence the effects do not produce maximum freedom/happiness for all.

You don’t have anything to stand on, as you have ruled out any objective code to denounce the other’s actions.

The objective code we rule on is the assumption that people want maximum benefits/happiness in society. Do not think that simply allowing a majority to make slaves work for them is the most beneficial, because the freedom and liberty for all allow innovation which is a larger benefit to all of society. For instance, just imagine the basic elements of complexity that what we are doing right now, pressing down buttons which correspond to letters to make words, but having the signals go through wires to my developed hard drive, then over internet wires all the way to you to spread ideas. Freedom allows innovation and the maximum happiness for all. We can measure this.

 

[danserr]

This is in three posts:

Correct.
This begs the question though from your point of view that if God told you to sacrifice your child, would you?
.

That is a meaningless question. God is morally perfect, indeed, the paradigm of moral goodness. Asking what I would do if he commanded something evil is like asking me if a square circle existed how would I measure its area. It is a contradiction and nonsense.

And please don’t bring up the Old testament without responding to my previous post where I responded to that. All the OT atrocities prove is that the Israelites may have been wrong in attributing such commands to God.

Without believing in God’s moral laws, isn’t it possible for non-believers today to still live and act morally

If you mean can believer be nice people without believing in God, then of course, I have never denied that. Christians believe God’s law is written on the hearts of all men, whether they believe in Him or not. My point is not a question of moral epistemology (perception or knowledge of moral values), but of morality, the existence of objective moral values.

You used the word objective twice, each with a different meaning. If we grant for argument that objective reality doesn’t exist in the sense of from God, then it still is wrong objectively in the sense that humans have created the objectiveness that applies to all. Sure, not everyone will believe it is wrong, and they have their opinion (subjective view)

I used objective both times to mean “independent of what humans think.” Actually, you use it in 2 different senses, both in this sense to claim that objective morality doesn’t exist. Then you claim that we can “create” an objective morality. By which you just mean we can all agree on a morality. But this is just playing with words. That is not objective at all, it is purely subjective.

Now we can all look at them and simply see which is better, with our assumption that we do not want to be in distress, as that goes against instinct.

You are not suggesting our instincts provide a basis for morality are you? First of all, that does with the objection I list above about science. It tells us what is, not what ought to be. Second, I have many instincts that require control, by what standard do I decide which one is right or not? You can’t say “our assumption we don’t want to be in distress” because you claim that is itself an instinct.

Yes, science says this happened. But you missed the part where science said it didn’t sustain itself and instead collapsed.

They lasted centuries, that seems like a pretty effective society to me. Since you determine good and bad by what is good for society and exposing infant girls did not harm their society (and maybe it could be argued, helped social cohesion), does that make it ok?
Second, you sometimes claim that morality is essentially an extortion racket (not sure if that is the exact terms). That I must be nice to others otherwise they will not be nice to me. But this provides no reason to not expose infant girls. There is no fear that someone will do the same to me one day. So it seems like the success of Roman society and their exposure of infant girls in huge numbers is a problem that doesn’t fit well into you paradigm.

It is what it is. I don’t like it, we can fight to change things.

As to rape in the animal kingdom and here, do you really find satisfying then, the fact, that on your view, there is nothing objectively wrong about rape. When an ape rapes another ape, it happens with no moral significance, because they are just animals. But on atheism, people are just animals as well. A little more clever, perhaps, but this does not shows that we are morally significant. So on atheism, we may have evolved to think rape is bad and so it has become socially taboo, but this means a rapist is doing nothing more than flouting the herd mentality and breaking a social taboo. Not doing something morally wrong. Do you find this view satisfying?

 

[danserr]

1). What if maximizing the happiness of the greatest number of people involved torturing and killing a small minority to death. Would that be ok? Isn’t this precisely the argument that most proponents of torture use today?

The problem with this is that it doesn’t really assume the possible real-world implications to come. If one population does it, wouldn’t they worry some of their own will do the same to them? If you don’t stand up for someone, who will be there to stand up for you?

Well, I think this dodges the question. Now you seem to try to answer “no” because somewhere down the line someone might do the same to me, which is really you trying to claim that torturing a small minority can never maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. This just seems untrue, and anyay, what if it did? What if a large portion of the majority would die unless a small minority were tortured and killed? What if I would die? I wouldn’t worry about people maybe doing the same to me in the future. Would it be moral to torture and kill this small minority? Isn’t your argument, just a good reason to make sure that I am never in the minority?

2). You dodged a bit on answering my question on homosexuality. What if there were some real substantial reason (besides being grossed out at 2 men kissing) that rounding up and killing all homosexuals would add to social cohesion and maximize the happiness of an enormous majority of people? On you system, this would really be not only correct, but obligatory thing to do.

3). On atheism, why should I care about the freedom of others?

Through evolution, we advance by being helpful and nice.

I’m not sure this is even true. have you looked at nature? it is brutal and competitive. Survival of the fittest. If your argument is that we should look to evolution for a guide to morality, you will get a guide. I am just not sure you will like it very much.

What about acts of heroic self-sacrifice? It is good for society that some men are willing to die for it, but why should I be one of those men

(assuming God does not exist)?
Are you trying to say that if you do not expect to be payed back (in the afterlife or somehow else) there is no point in a sacrifice?

Here you dodge my question again. The issue is not “can atheist be nice people” I grant that and have no objection to doing so. Rather, you used the following logic, “we should be nice to each other because it is good for society, and we should care what is good for society because it will be good for me.”
I pointed out in reply, that this provides no basis for self-sacrificing acts of bravery and contradicts your entire systems. Throughout the thread, I have asked why, on atheism, we should be nice. You have always answered “in the long run, it will be good for you to be good.” Now obviously this is not true, but suppose it was. It does not provide a basis for self-sacrificing bravery, because such a thing, on atheism will never be good for me. I will die and cease to exist, so how can what is good for society be good for me?!? But this invalidates your entire moral principle since your entire morality is based on the premise “what is good for society will be good for you.” Not only could this principle lead to things I have mentioned like torturing a small minority for the good of society, but it provides no basis for acts of heroic self-sacrifice.

Why would I sacrifice? Well, if I would (and God only knows if I would), it would be from a love of God, neighbor, and the conviction that it is the right thing to do. It has nothing to do with getting a reward in the afterlife and I am disappointed you even mentioned it. I am simply saying that the Christian has a moral basis to make this sacrifice, where the atheist does not. If he does, as many do, it is simply because he is better than his principles, which I applaud. But I would also prefer, he have the right principles.

And anyway, are you now making the determination of moral goodness what is good for society? But what if something morally obscene is good for society?

Like what?

That doesn’t answer the question. What it is was? Would it be ok? Remember, we are discussing your specific principles here. According to your principles, in this situation, we would have to do the morally obscene thing.

Just assume for a moment and sake of argument that God was dis-proven tomorrow and all theists realized it. Would you go out and kill, rape, and steal?

If God did not exist, I might feel such things were wrong because of evolution and sociological conditioning, but there would be no objective basis for which they could be wrong, and this would lead to many of the problems I mention above.

(could you really be happy with the idea that a man who raped and killed a little girl only did something socially unfashionable as opposed to objectively wrong?)

I’m not worried about my feels so much as I am about what’s true.

That’s a dodge. Could you be happy with that view? Do you find your own view that such a thing is not objectively wrong (except by your own eccentric definition of objectivity), satisfying?

You have at least been able to agree that there are some unpleasant consequences to your view, so that being said, Why do believe that an objective morality doesn’t exist?

 

[smichhertz]

We must debate what is good and what is not. That’s subjective.

Not at all, good and evil are objective in nature, not subjective. Simply because people disagree doesn’t change the fact that they are objective. For instance: slavery is an evil. Doesn’t matter how many people think it is permissible, it is still evil. Personal opinions do not sway the objective moral value of any given act.

Freedom is a word which is universally defined: the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. Now we must debate what morality will allow for this, as the assumption is humans do not like pain, but rather happiness, which freedom and liberty allow.

Sure, there is a universally accepted view of freedom. But good = free and evil = not free. Lets take an obvious example: drugs. The first time someone tries drugs it would be a totally free act. However, over time, the person becomes addicted to the drugs. Then, when the person chooses to do drugs, it is no longer as free of a choice as the first time. Hence, we see how evil restricts freedom. This is why laws banning drugs are not a restriction on freedom, but actually make us more free.

Because we can show with evidence the effects do not produce maximum freedom/happiness for all.

So then the ends justify the means? As long as good effects outweigh the bad effects the action is morally acceptable. How do you even judge that when one is deciding between two choices? We can’t know the effects in advance.

 

[tonyrey]

The things invented by science didn’t work because they didn’t exist! Similarly morality didn’t work when moral rules didn’t exist. Or do you believe morality never works?!

If morality is necessary for the survival, development and success of a civilisation it must have an objective basis and is not simply the result of human decisions.

If it’s a matter of evidence with facts morality is objective when our subjective opinions correspond with facts about persons.

Again, I use the word “objective” as in the law of the land. Yes, we create our own morality with evidence. I do not mean there is an objective morality in the universe.

There is objective morality in the universe with regard to personal relationships and harmony in society. Moral laws are rules we have discovered not created.

The fact that we make mistakes doesn’t invalidate the absolute principle that we should always try to do what we believe is right - after serious reflection and consultation.
I agree.

So morality is not relative in every respect.

 

[sharptiger999]

That is a meaningless question. God is morally perfect, indeed, the paradigm of moral goodness. Asking what I would do if he commanded something evil is like asking me if a square circle existed how would I measure its area. It is a contradiction and nonsense.

And please don’t bring up the Old testament without responding to my previous post where I responded to that. All the OT atrocities prove is that the Israelites may have been wrong in attributing such commands to God.

Before I read your second part, I was thinking of the part where God told Abraham to sacrifice his son… So your defense of the OT is that since you think much of it were immoral atrocities, that the Israelites must have been wrong in their attribution of it to God? Is it because you used your brain to rationalize it yourself? What about the new testament? That wasn’t wrong because it seems to make sense and is much likelier to be correct?

I used objective both times to mean “independent of what humans think.” Actually, you use it in 2 different senses, both in this sense to claim that objective morality doesn’t exist. Then you claim that we can “create” an objective morality. By which you just mean we can all agree on a morality. But this is just playing with words. That is not objective at all, it is purely subjective.

To be clear, I do not accept your claim that there is objective morality. I think you have failed at proving there is one. I have given reasons of why and how the only morality to exist have been our own collective ones.

You are not suggesting our instincts provide a basis for morality are you? First of all, that does with the objection I list above about science. It tells us what is, not what ought to be. Second, I have many instincts that require control, by what standard do I decide which one is right or not? You can’t say “our assumption we don’t want to be in distress” because you claim that is itself an instinct.

Instincts do not provide a full basis for morality. But the one instinct we all agree on is to continue living. For some reason without any advanced knowledge, two year olds’ instincts tells them not to walk over the edge of a cliff. Fear is a passed down trait that can advance the most basic knowledge through instincts. Likewise many other instincts are passed down. I do not kill because there is a law against it. For me, I have never had the urge to do so because I see no likely benefit, and I realize if I did it, others would likely do it to me. There is no societal benefit, with the only exception being capital punishment, and that’s another debate. By science giving us natural instincts of which no one will deny, we go off of that to then determine what “ought” to be based on the likely outcome in relation to maintaining our basic instincts. However, we reason that overall freedom is still more valuable than instincts such as a man wanting to reproduce with a woman who chooses not to.

They lasted centuries, that seems like a pretty effective society to me. Since you determine good and bad by what is good for society and exposing infant girls did not harm their society (and maybe it could be argued, helped social cohesion), does that make it ok?

I’m not familiar with the phrase exposing infant girls? Do you mean disposing of?

Second, you sometimes claim that morality is essentially an extortion racket (not sure if that is the exact terms). That I must be nice to others otherwise they will not be nice to me. But this provides no reason to not expose infant girls. There is no fear that someone will do the same to me one day.

There is a fear that someone else with the same mentality could one day have you in a minority in another category.

As to rape in the animal kingdom and here, do you really find satisfying then, the fact, that on your view, there is nothing objectively wrong about rape.

It’s only wrong if we can reason it so. Animal rape is basically out of our control. At this time, we find it more valuable to spend our own resources making humanity better than sending people in to stop animal rape.

When an ape rapes another ape, it happens with no moral significance, because they are just animals.

Why is there no moral significance? I may think it’s wrong, but I find the best alternative is not to spend current time and resources trying to stop it when I find more important things on our plate.

But on atheism, people are just animals as well.

Essentially yes.

A little more clever, perhaps, but this does not shows that we are morally significant. So on atheism, we may have evolved to think rape is bad and so it has become socially taboo, but this means a rapist is doing nothing more than flouting the herd mentality and breaking a social taboo.

Half right - what you are referring to as social taboo is our morals. I have already argued that only we can justify morals.

Not doing something morally wrong. Do you find this view satisfying?

It is morally wrong, because we have reasoned it wrong. Again, you keep sending the notion that it’s not really morally wrong like there must be objective morals in the universe. You have already stated you think the OT must not be exactly correct because surely it seems immoral in parts, and you have at least stated rightly so that you have used our own judgement and reason to conclude this.

 

[sharptiger999]

What if a large portion of the majority would die unless a small minority were tortured and killed?

I guess I do hold a utilitarian approach. You are phrasing this to sound bad, perhaps as a false dichotomy as it appears, but yes, if we have the only option of having 1 million living & 100k dying vs 1 million people dying & 100k living, I would pick the first, as the benefit is greater. But again, the arguments are better for real world implications.

What if I would die?

Are you more important than 100k other people? Maybe you should live and they should all die… You see how you are phrasing a silly fictitious scenario. You should try one that’s a little more specific and relevant.

Would it be moral to torture and kill this small minority?

Would it be moral to instead kill 1 million people? (Again, my point that your argument is too fictitious).

Isn’t your argument, just a good reason to make sure that I am never in the minority?

I never want majorities to simply kill of minorities for the reason I already stated: History shows diversity always prevails. What becomes the majority will then break off into categories and the precedent has been set. If a current friend gossips to you about someone else, chances are they probably gossip about you when you are not around.

You dodged a bit on answering my question on homosexuality. What if there were some real substantial reason (besides being grossed out at 2 men kissing) that rounding up and killing all homosexuals would add to social cohesion and maximize the happiness of an enormous majority of people? On you system, this would really be not only correct, but obligatory thing to do.

Correct, because I support the underlying argument of utilitarianism. However, with this specific argument you make, it does not have real-world evidence to show it to be the actual case. If you come up with that, maybe I can make a position on this specific instance.

I’m not sure this is even true. have you looked at nature? it is brutal and competitive. Survival of the fittest. If your argument is that we should look to evolution for a guide to morality, you will get a guide. I am just not sure you will like it very much.

Much of nature is brutal and competitive. But survival of the fittest however does not always assume brutality. Recent families in the animal kingdom have shown that you can be the fittest working together in tribes, rather than every “man” for himself. Sometimes the largest societal benefits come in the form of helping one another.

Rather, you used the following logic, “we should be nice to each other because it is good for society, and we should care what is good for society because it will be good for me.”
I pointed out in reply, that this provides no basis for self-sacrificing acts of bravery and contradicts your entire systems.

It depends on the specific situation. If I or my girlfriend had to die and this was the only way, I would sacrifice myself so that she could live simply because I love her. I understand why you are p(name removed by moderator)ointing the question and I see your logic, but that is my answer. Maybe it’s instinctive. I mean, I literally don’t always think what’s in it for me, but maybe it is the idea that someone might do it for me expecting no return so I will do the same. In a tough situation, I think that would be the best alternative. Maybe some would rationalize that not doing so and allowing her to die would instead leave a life with sadness, thereby not giving benefit, so the self-sacrifice benefit would be to have nothing vs having sadness.

Throughout the thread, I have asked why, on atheism, we should be nice. You have always answered “in the long run, it will be good for you to be good.” Now obviously this is not true, but suppose it was. It does not provide a basis for self-sacrificing bravery, because such a thing, on atheism will never be good for me. I will die and cease to exist, so how can what is good for society be good for me?!?

As I typed above as I was thinking in real-time, I think it’s always about the best possible alternative, which still isn’t necessarily something positive in itself, but rather only relative to something even worse. So rather than anguish, simply having nothing with no feelings is better, with the few moments of last thought that someone you love will live.

But this invalidates your entire moral principle since your entire morality is based on the premise “what is good for society will be good for you.” Not only could this principle lead to things I have mentioned like torturing a small minority for the good of society, but it provides no basis for acts of heroic self-sacrifice.

I just thought of something interesting. I have known some atheists who choose before death to give their organs to others/research/etc. But why would they care if at that point they are dead? I think it was the positive feelings and reinforcement they got while living as they have witnessed the positive impact others have left behind.