Morality: Objective or Subjective?

[exnihilo]

Psychiatry is branch of medicine that deals with mental disorders. The related field psychology is a science of human behaviour. I can’t say that I understand how medicine and psychology are said to replace religion. But that’s a discussion for another day and another thread.

In order for psychiatry and psychology to be useful they have to proclaim that there are normal thoughts and mental processes. In order for psychology to be useful it must proclaim that there is a mind and that this mind can control thoughts. If we were just a material being then there would be no mind to harness.

They replace religion as in they define good and evil. They use words like right, wrong, disordered etc. which previously were the realm of religion. Materialists dont mind this so much since they want it both ways. They want there to be right and wrong but no God behind it.

 

[sharptiger999]

A part of speech is merely a word! If you believe morality is no more than that it is insignificant…

You didn’t address my point. Our idea of morality simply describes how we act and treat each other and things. For morality exist, humans only need to exist. Anyway they act is an essence of their morals which simply describes the code of actions amongst them.

It does if one way works better than others!

Are you serious or a poe? I’m assuming you have half a brain and can comprehend that one version of morality can show results that people die and another version tested shows people live and are happy. What part do you need help understanding?

From the fact that “When moral rules did not exist there was in essence no morality, and civilizations didn’t live long like that”.

Right…they didn’t exist until we created them because we reasoned having moral laws allow progress… Someone realized when their family member got murdered that they became sad, and they voiced that surely killing cannot be good…

They are the prelude to the decision and action. The principle remains absolute…

I am fine with principles remaining absolute as you say, only if it can always be justified by reason. However, I argue that sometimes reason can outweigh what you consider to be absolute such as not murdering. Yet reason has concluded that if a burglar threatens your life and rights first with a gun, you have the right to kill in defense. This reason is from evidence that shows society will be the most better off, which makes that moral argument relative.

 

[sharptiger999]

1). You do admit that if the well-being of a majority involved torturing and killing a small minority, then we would be obligated to do it.

You are right, instead we should do nothing and allow the majority to die, because obviously, letting more people die than live is better. More death is always the goal.

2). Your principles “what’s good for society is good for me” does not provide a basis for heroic self-sacrifice. I don’t think many of your arguments were very good, but in these 2 instances I think your system especially falls apart. And if it falls apart here, then it doesn’t work as a system.

You are right, obviously it makes more sense to live a life full of sorrow, pain, and regret than to not live at all. Obviously the negative EV is much higher than zero.

You keep saying that you have given good reasons morality is not objective. This is not true. You have not even given one.

By definition, for morality to be objective means it is the way it is and therefore what we reason has no merit. No offense, but I like reason as it is the only mechanism that allows progress. Now could the best moral system be “out there” (not physically obviously) that one day our knowledge can grasp? Possibly. But in any case we still would have reason that determines it. It’s not the same in the way that you think it’s just made so because it has to be made so.

• Second, it is simply untrue that an objective morality would mean we don’t question things with reason.

If you acknowledge that it’s possible for objective morality, you acknowledge the possibility that it could be anything, including instructions for atrocities.

We would still use reason to determine what that morality is, as indeed ,Christians have always done. The current pope, in one famous address has said “faith must be purified by reason.”

If you have reason, why does faith need to come into play?

I’ve enjoyed our discussion but it’s obvious it’s like we’ve hit the end of the line before too much redundancy, so we can let viewers decide from here.

 

[sharptiger999]

I can say it is evil because it violates an objective moral law.

So if the objective law states we must stone unruly children, not doing so is evil?

How can you say it is evil if morality is subjective?

I don’t like to use the word evil, but I can say so by giving evidence that it hinders our maximum well-being, which is the underlying agreed assumption.

You can’t as long as they believe what they are doing is right, it is right.

I can say it’s immoral and they may say otherwise. However, what society determined with evidence will be enough to lock those lone individuals away and out of the gene pool.

With due respect, how is this relevant? We’re discussing whether morality is objective or subjective in nature. We can’t even begin to discuss Scripture without a basic agreement on morality.

It is relevant because for you to argue that morality is objective means you cannot think for yourself, but instead live by objective morals, some of which I pointed you to that obviously have a big clash with your own capability to reason and therefore you realize we can subjectively create our own moralities that make sense. The only “objective” part of the argument that we agree on is that humans have been instilled with genes that strive for life and happiness, not sorrow and death. With that “objectiveness” in mind, we create morals that give the greatest chance for that.

"Doesn’t matter how many people think it is permissible, it is still evil.

Why?

Personal opinions do not sway the objective moral value of any given act."

Fallacy alert: You are assuming your own conclusion in this premise…

Do you agree that personal opinions can’t make something bad good or visa versa?

I do agree. Rather, evidence can only show something bad or good. This is how we have always developed our own morals.

How does our knowledge or lack of knowledge have anything to do with the objectiveness of morality? If something is evil, then it is evil, and ignorance doesn’t change that. Take an insane person for instance. They might not understand that murder is evil, but if they commit murder, then they are still doing evil. Granted, they may be removed from the responsibility of the act, but the act in and of itself is still evil.

So if an insane person for instance happened to murder Hitler during that time period, it is still an evil act? Or was it relative to everything else?

 

[sharptiger999]

Those who would advance the most would be those who seem to help others but truly do things for themselves.

What is your evidence for this? Hopefully it’s not the next two sentences…

We tend to call those folks sociopaths since evil is not a diagnosis in modern psychiatry. Many successful businessmen and politicians are probably sociopaths (evil).

Maybe you should go live in Afghanistan and tell me how you enjoy your life with the absence of successful businessmen and politicians. You have chosen a very small sample size. Simply adhering to my general dismay for politicians as well does not make your argument better. When you look at the bigger picture, people who generally provide better ways of life to others will themselves have better ways of life in return.

Why *should *I care about humanity? I certainly could. But what imperative is there to do so? There is no such command absent true objective morality. Your caring for humanity would just be your preference.

What did you just wake up in this forum and not realize you’re giving one of the oldest refuted arguments in ‘the book’? If you don’t care about humanity and get in the way of hindering it’s prosperity, you will be out of the gene pool in a hurry (i.e. prison time, death penalty, etc.)

If it agreed with mine I might prefer it. But I’d have no grounds to declare it superior to the idea of not benefiting humanity. And if someone said benefiting humanity is riding it of the idea of empathy, which is just a holdover from religion, I’d have no grounds to condemn that belief other than to say I dont prefer it.

Unfortunately for you, everyone else has come to grips with reason, so you’d be out of society very soon and instead on your own in a 5x5 cell.

Regarding giving your life as an atheist by your reasoning you have then made the most brave person the one who gives up his life believing in a God but also believing that God is going to send them to Hell for eternal torment. So the theists still win!

Wow you are sick. I think you are even about to be called out by fellow Catholics on this one…

To say that that thinking is good or bad requires objective morals.

No, it requires evidenced reason.

To even say it is beneficial or not beneficial first requires defining the objective.

What did you just wake up? Our genes have defined it as the will to live happy, not die and live full of sorrow.

But again the objective is always assumed to have snuck in the idea of morality or imperatives on how one should live.

How one should live is to fulfill the requirement of long, happy lives, until it then hinders someone else’s happy life. Our actions have an evidenced effect on the world and others around us. My freedom to throw around my fist in the air stops where your face begins. Simply doing what you want for your own happiness will actually hinder it because others will stop yours. The maximum benefit is that everyone can prosper, with that comes innovation and better lives, including the keyboard that you are punching down to make words come up on a screen, and travel through wires to me to promote ideas and future innovation.

 

[sharptiger999]

To sharptiger999:

Based on what I have read in your comments, to remain consistant, you should agree with the following:

-If morality is subjective then no single culture or society is more “right” than any other.

The only morality we understand, know, and developed is our own. We can only argue what is “right” with reason. I think some cultures are more “right” than others because I see the evidence of what cultures are able to progress with maximum happiness vs others that do not.

-If morality is subjective then we have no basis to judge another’s actions outside our society/community.

Why not? Can we not persuade others with evidence? Can we not help others into maximum prosperity? Rather, if morality was objective then indeed we have no basis to judge because the morality itself is unquestioned. You could not judge the morality if it said what we now consider horrible acts, because it simply goes unquestioned as the moral law!

Following this line of reasoning an Islamic fundamentalist/extremist is justified in conducting a suicide bombing targeted at civilians in our society because he feels threatened by us.

Ironically, this is what happens when people act on faith, belief without evidence, that they are compelled enough to do what they think is objective in nature and cannot be argued against. With subjectiveness, sure, people will disagree and go against the cultural “objectiveness” as in the law of the land. With that, they will be removed from society. But the prosper societies that enable growth will be enough to eventually override societies that have developed worse off moral systems.

If morality is subjective then we have no basis to condem that kind of action outside our society because that is an accepted practice in that society. To them that action promotes the “greater good” but to us it does not. Who is right?

The one who is right is the one with proper evidence and justification, which, in reality, will continue to prosper to a point where the deniers will have no other choice but to acknowledge their moral system is infallible.

 

[tonyrey]

A part of speech is merely a word! If you believe morality is no more than that it is insignificant…

Our idea of morality describes how we should act and treat each other and things.

For morality exist, humans only need to exist.

For morality to exist persons, not necessarily human, need to exist.

Anyway they act is an essence of their morals which simply describes the code of actions amongst them.

The code reflects what is necessary for their well-being.

It does if one way works better than others!

Are you serious or a poe?

I ignore (and delete) discourteous remarks which do nothing to further the discussion. They merely reveal your aggressive attitude…

From the fact that “When moral rules did not exist there was in essence no morality, and civilizations didn’t live long like that”.

Right…they didn’t exist until we created them because we reasoned having moral laws allow progress…

Precisely! They are based on facts about personal relations and development.

Someone realized when their family member got murdered that they became sad, and they voiced that surely killing cannot be good…

It wasn’t just a question of emotion but a recognition of injustice.

They are the prelude to the decision and action. The principle remains absolute…

I am fine with principles remaining absolute as you say, only if it can always be justified by reason. However, I argue that sometimes reason can outweigh what you consider to be absolute such as not murdering.

Killing in self-defence is not murder. It is also a universal principle that we should be reasonable!

Yet reason has concluded that if a burglar threatens your life and rights first with a gun, you have the right to kill in defense…

You are still doing what you believe to be right and demonstrating that it is an absolute principle that we should do what we believe to be right.

This reason is from evidence that shows society will be the most better off, which makes that moral argument relative.

According to that argument science is also relative. In fact everything we think about is relative - to us - but it doesn’t stop science and morality from being based on objective facts.

 

[sharptiger999]

Our idea of morality describes how we should act and treat each other and things.

Right. It’s kind of assumed if the person is intelligent with forethought that he/she will act moral because it will give the best benefit. Sure, people also can act on urge so you can say it is how we should act. We are in agreement here.

For morality to exist persons, not necessarily human, need to exist.
The code reflects what is necessary for their well-being.

Correct, we seem to be in agreement that morals reflect what is necessary for well-being. Even wildlife animals have a moral system, though we view ours as superior.

Precisely! They are based on facts about personal relations and development.

Right, because we created them…because obviously as you just stated we needed the facts about personal relations and development. We seem to be in agreement again. And with new facts/evidence can come beneficial changes to the moral system.

It wasn’t just a question of emotion but a recognition of injustice.

Correct, injustice because this action hindered maximum benefit, therefore shown to be immoral. We seem to be in agreement yet again.

Killing in self-defence is not murder. It is also a universal principle that we should be reasonable!

Reason FTW.

You are still doing what you believe to be right and demonstrating that it is an absolute principle that we should do what we believe to be right.

The absolute principle is that we all want to live with happiness.

According to that argument science is also relative. In fact everything we think about is relative - to us - but it doesn’t stop science and morality from being based on objective facts.

Yes, I think I can agree that science and morality are based on objective facts. But are you proposing that because morality is based on objective facts, that there is an objective morality in the universe?

If so, wouldn’t that conclusion come with a premise that whatever was wrong yesterday, is wrong today, and in the future?

I’m trying to understand your exact argument of what objective morality is and where it comes from, if anywhere, because it seems that we do agree on a lot.

I acknowledge that the perfect morality could be “somewhere” waiting for us to find it, but that doesn’t mean I call it objective. It’s just a constructed idea of which only we can subjectively reason for to essentially create our perhaps one size fits all morality, thereby in essence being an objective one. But only we can create it. It was never “there.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I acknowledge that the perfect morality could be “somewhere” waiting for us to find it, but that doesn’t mean I call it objective. It’s just a constructed idea of which only we can subjectively reason for to essentially create our perhaps one size fits all morality, thereby in essence being an objective one. But only we can create it. It was never “there.”

How about talking about some of the ways in which the moralities with which you are familiar are inadequate? It may highlight how you feel that morality can be improved.

Being most familiar with USA history I can some ways in which it has improved here over the past few hundred years. In present day I think many here in the USA would now regard the genocide of the native people, the holding and ill treatment of slaves, and the unequal treatment of women as being things that were wrong (that is they worked against the well being of the people). Things still being worked out is how to react to those that enter into the country looking for better lives, whether or not the financially underprivileged should have access to health care, and for those whose morality takes into consideration non-human lives and the environment there’s still improvement that could be made on how our actions impact the environment. All of these touch on well being and are in the domain of moral discussion.

For those that hold a belief in a system of rules for well being that come from your deity how do you distinguish between something that is a “correct rule” instead of a misinterpreted or fabricated rule? As pointed out earlier in this thread commandments that come from texts labeled as holy have been used to support various forms of subjugation and killing of people and to support war actions. A declaration that an action is supported by one’s deity and the presentation of a text that can be interpreted as supporting an action might not be a consistently reliable way of determining the impact that the action will have on well being of a person or people.

 

[sharptiger999]

Originally Posted by tonyrey 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?

That’s a question for which I think we still have no adequate answer. At first glance it looks like an easy question with an obvious answer. It may invoke responses that relate to emotional and physical well being of individuals and groups. But between our actions having impact and being entangled with the actions of others and the mixture of predictable and unpredictable consequences, both short term and long term, you don’t have to dig for too long before you start to encounter problems with producing an evaluation method that has wide spread validity.

I expect that some one that deals with public policies has had to struggle with this a lot with hoping/praying that she/he is making the “right decisions” on various matters.

We do have an adequate answer. Actions produce results. From the results sometimes we can see correlation of negative, neutral, or positive effects. If the answer is tough at a given time, that may mean the potential action is amoral. Now, this does not mean you simply weigh two actions such as stealing $10 but then immediately donating $100 to a charity to offset the negative in order to make it moral.

Sometimes we have to estimate through tough decisions, with an option also being to do nothing. We can only make the best decision at a given time, and if it is noticeably wrong afterwords given the correlated effects from the action, then we can potentially adapt or add a new moral, and even try to give retribution. Notice that as our lives evolve, new scenarios come into play, which gives the unique scenarios of which morals may have not been tested. This slow growth allows still allows the majority of our lives to be confident that we can live morally, and small mistakes which we can learn from will not be enough to crush us.

How about talking about some of the ways in which the moralities with which you are familiar are inadequate? It may highlight how you feel that morality can be improved.

Thankfully, because this is 2011, rather than 1600 for instance, life generally is pretty good (in USA) and has set morals that work, no matter what I can nitpick. I’m not sure that I can think of something clear-cut that I’m ready to stand behind right now.

 

[exnihilo]

Being most familiar with USA history I can some ways in which it has improved here over the past few hundred years. In present day I think many here in the USA would now regard the genocide of the native people, the holding and ill treatment of slaves, and the unequal treatment of women as being things that were wrong (that is they worked against the well being of the people).

I would not say morality has improved. At most a more correct practical application of morality has occurred.

Regarding the genocide of the native people was it a genocide? It was opposed by some people at the time. It is not as if all agreed with it. I think a fair view realizes that Americans did break promises and often poorly treat the natives. It also must be acknowledged that natives were at times hostile. But was the killing of them for the purpose of killing them or for taking their land? Not that the later is noble. But modern Americans are more than happy to kill people, say Iraqis, Iranians and so on. We have our reasons, just like our ancestors.

The chief claim against slavery is that a man does not have the right to compel another to work. This principle is applied only to private citizens. The government can compel people to work. The military can compel people to work in situations that is likely to get them killed. Apparently corporate slavery is just fine.

Regarding women the treatment was unequal with many advantages going to women. Women for instance in the old days could escape a death sentence if they were pregnant. Women today are exempt from the draft. Women today have the sole power to kill their child in the womb (and do so at a rate that would shock the sensibilities of those we say we are better than). I could go on listing the advantages women have in today’s society.

I can find lots of immorality in current culture based on its own alleged principles. But each time thinks it is right so most dont see this. Most think we are the most moral people. And a hundred years from now the people might think they are still better. If today’s generation could see the future it might condemn its morality. Why should the judgment of the past be any less valid than the modern judgment?

For those that hold a belief in a system of rules for well being that come from your deity how do you distinguish between something that is a “correct rule” instead of a misinterpreted or fabricated rule? As pointed out earlier in this thread commandments that come from texts labeled as holy have been used to support various forms of subjugation and killing of people and to support war actions. A declaration that an action is supported by one’s deity and the presentation of a text that can be interpreted as supporting an action might not be a consistently reliable way of determining the impact that the action will have on well being of a person or people.

What justifies our current wars? We have no need for religious texts to justify war. We get by on lies, ignorance and irrationality. Since man makes war with or without religion it would seem religion is not the cause of war. It would also seem that it is not the justification for war. Though it may be a convenient excuse.

 

[sharptiger999]

The chief claim against slavery is that a man does not have the right to compel another to work. This principle is applied only to private citizens. The government can compel people to work.

I agree they should not be able to have a draft as it takes away personal liberties and arguably does more harm than possible good.

The military can compel people to work in situations that is likely to get them killed.

Nowadays, Americans have the choice of joining the armed forces or not, well for the most part. I do not support a draft.

Apparently corporate slavery is just fine.

What kind of corporate slavery? If you don’t want to work, don’t. There is already overtime pay, which I’m not even sure if I agree with.

Women today have the sole power to kill their child in the womb (and do so at a rate that would shock the sensibilities of those we say we are better than).

I can sympathize with you on this one.

Why should the judgment of the past be any less valid than the modern judgment?

It is often harder for modern judgment to already have the appropriate facts showing how something is immoral.

What justifies our current wars? We have no need for religious texts to justify war. We get by on lies, ignorance and irrationality. Since man makes war with or without religion it would seem religion is not the cause of war. It would also seem that it is not the justification for war. Though it may be a convenient excuse.

I do not think our current wars our justified, I agree. However it might be worth pointing out that when people are willing to die for something which they consider the ultimate moral truth and can not give rational, evidence like everyone else, then this precedent can lead to people dying “for” a cause and in the process hurting or killing many people.

 

[exnihilo]

Nowadays, Americans have the choice of joining the armed forces or not, well for the most part. I do not support a draft.

I would point out two things to consider. Once you join the army you lose your liberty. You can not quit it like a normal job. Our volunteer army might be best characterized as indentured servitude which was a form of slavery where you were automatically freed after a certain period of time.

The other thing is we dont have an active draft. I was required to register for the draft. Just because it is not active does not mean the government does not reserve the right to enslave me for military service at its sole discretion. I’m like an eastern African waiting by the shores for a slave ship to snatch me up.

What kind of corporate slavery? If you don’t want to work, don’t. There is already overtime pay, which I’m not even sure if I agree with.

I meant corporate in the sense of a collection of individuals. I meant that private slavery is deemed wrong meaning I cant own a slave. But corporate slavery, which really is just the state, is OK.

I occasionally use the term corporate slavery to describe the problems of modern corporate power, which is the real private/public partnerships we have. But here I meant state slavery.

I do not think our current wars our justified, I agree. However it might be worth pointing out that when people are willing to die for something which they consider the ultimate moral truth and can not give rational, evidence like everyone else, then this precedent can lead to people dying “for” a cause and in the process hurting or killing many people.

Maybe so. Our ultimate moral truth might be America.

I dont think much of the intellect of the people. I think they are easily misled. But I’m not so sure the leaders really believe in the ultimate moral truth. I think they are corrupt, either before they take power but most certainly by the power itself. They know better. So the lies are always merely convenient for them. They use what will persuade the people. The leaders being corrupt they corrupt what is good, that is either the Truths of God or the goodness of a country, to their evil ends.

 

[danserr]

You are right, instead we should do nothing and allow the majority to die, because obviously, letting more people die than live is better. More death is always the goal.
.

You have talked alot about the wonderfulness of reason, but I think now we have seen where your own moral system, rationally followed to its logical conclusion leads.

1. After initial hesitation, you admitted that your moral system means that if torturing a small minority to death for the benefit of a majority was good for society, then we would have to do it. (So much for minority rights).
2. Your moral system (do what’s best for society because it will be good for me) provides no basis for acts of heroic self-sacrifice. Here your only attempt to escape this was to claim that if I fail to make the sacrifice, I will live a life of pain and regret, but this just seems untrue. What if someone wouldn’t. Or if that regret were only temporary as it seems likely to be? Presumably someone would “get over it” eventually and then go on enjoying life.

• I will add one more

1. Your principle “do what’s good for society because it will be good for me,” is really just “do what’s good for me,” which is really “look out for yourself.” You try to rationalize (not reason) that this means doing what is good for society, but I have shown that is not true. Even if it was, this means your whole moral principle is “be selfish.”

Now for all your claim about your love of reason, you have not really answered these first two very well, only mocked with your fondness for rolling your eyes. Does that sounds “reasonable” to you? You are simply using the words “reason” and “evidence” as magical terms, but when I present reasons and evidence about where your view leads, you can do little better than mock.

Second, in your determination to maintain your subjective morality, you actually admitted that torturing and killing a small minority for the benefit of a majority is good. This is the sort of man Chesterton spoke of when he talked about the man who “would wreck this world out of hatred for the other.” Rather than gives up your subjective morality, you double down and accept its ugly and irrational conclusions. With all the attendant consequences for society.

But your first instincts were right when you tried to resist this conclusion. You simply have no basis for feeling this torture to be wrong on your system. So rather than give up your (immoral) system, you decide that torture in this case is moral. What you should do, is keep your original and better principles, and simply search for another basis for them, namely, an objective morality based in God’s perfect nature. Reason still helps up discover these principles and apply them to new situations, but we have an objective basis for them, a morally good God.

made so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danserr View Post

• Second, it is simply untrue that an objective morality would mean we don’t question things with reason.

If you acknowledge that it’s possible for objective morality, you acknowledge the possibility that it could be anything, including instructions for atrocities.

Completely wrong. This objective morality comes from God’s nature which is necessarily kind, loving, just, good, merciful etc. Asking if God could command atrocities is like asking how to measure the area of a square circle. It is a meaningless question.

On the contrary, only if morality is subjective (whatever society says it is), can it be anything even atrocities. Actually, we have proven this here, since you admit that on your system, we should torture and kill a small minority for the benefit of the majority. A subjective morality leads to the ability to rationalize (not reason) anything.

 

[sharptiger999]

I’ve noticed I am the one quoting you and deconstructing your argument point by point, but yet when you reply to me, you have lately started stating your own general points again without replying to my specific break down response. I can’t go much further with you posting like this. I’m also curious why this somehow only has to be a conversation between us. I’m specifically wondering why no other catholics are willing to quote me and respond to the disagreements between you and me…

1. After initial hesitation, you admitted that your moral system means that if torturing a small minority to death for the benefit of a majority was good for society, then we would have to do it. (So much for minority rights).

It would only be right if it was the best possible benefit for society. You cannot do simply make an equation and say this is more beneficial, therefore it’s correct. I’ve stated that if you give this false dichotomy, and they are the only two possible choices (such as in the movie example I gave which you ignored), then obviously we have to choose the best choice. But realistically this example does not happen, and it doesn’t happen for a reason unless it’s a terrorist holding a group hostage. It does not mean a majority can do whatever they want to a minority because it makes them happy. We’ve already gone over this.

1. Your moral system (do what’s best for society because it will be good for me) provides no basis for acts of heroic self-sacrifice. Here your only attempt to escape this was to claim that if I fail to make the sacrifice, I will live a life of pain and regret, but this just seems untrue. What if someone wouldn’t.

Everything is possible, but we have to make decisions based on relevant evidence, in this case which would be the atheist at the moment of having a gun to his head for instance rather than someone he loves, so he concludes how he would feel immediately after (and still likely for decades to come) that he would be miserable and guilty. Your continued notion that an atheist has no reason to die for someone is kind of sick. But I’ve stated a clear-cut undeniable reason for this. The immediate pain and shame in living is just not worth it vs ceasing to exist and having your last thought be out of love while it still matters.

Or if that regret were only temporary as it seems likely to be? Presumably someone would “get over it” eventually and then go on enjoying life.

It could be possible, but at decision-time, especially in a situation like that, instinctive feelings cause action, rather than someone pondering hmm, well maybe I’ll get over it down the road. You sir/madam are absurd for obviously not realistically thinking about that situation if it played out.

1. Your principle “do what’s good for society because it will be good for me,” is really just “do what’s good for me,” which is really “look out for yourself.” You try to rationalize (not reason) that this means doing what is good for society, but I have shown that is not true. Even if it was, this means your whole moral principle is “be selfish.”

It’s hard to help others if yourself is not helped and enabled first. But it’s an immediate circle. Everyone trying to help themselves first actually makes everyone better off.

Now for all your claim about your love of reason, you have not really answered these first two very well, only mocked with your fondness for rolling your eyes. Does that sounds “reasonable” to you?

Yes, very much so, at a point when I can do nothing more than blatantly deconstruct your argument in front of you, and then you come back starting your generalizations over without quoting me.

You are simply using the words “reason” and “evidence” as magical terms, but when I present reasons and evidence about where your view leads, you can do little better than mock.

You didn’t provide reason and evidence - For instance you just assumed doing nothing to the small minority and letting the majority die is a better scenario because that way it was nature or whatever else that caused it and you don’t have the blood on your hands.

 

[sharptiger999]

Second, in your determination to maintain your subjective morality, you actually admitted that torturing and killing a small minority for the benefit of a majority is good.

To clarify again, it cannot be done simply if it happens to benefit the majority. But if this is a dichotomy like I thought it was and there was no foreseeable way out of either scenario, one result obviously is better than the other, even though both conclusions are not ideal.

This is the sort of man Chesterton spoke of when he talked about the man who “would wreck this world out of hatred for the other.” Rather than gives up your subjective morality, you double down and accept its ugly and irrational conclusions. With all the attendant consequences for society.

Mmm, definitely don’t have hatred for the other. (Not sure where you’re getting this from - maybe if you would stick to quotes you would be seen as more credible).

But your first instincts were right when you tried to resist this conclusion. You simply have no basis for feeling this torture to be wrong on your system. So rather than give up your (immoral) system, you decide that torture in this case is moral.

Since science can measure effects on morality, we must choose the best known actions that produce the best results. Torture is probably wrong unless you give me a dichotomy like you did earlier, because then letting 1 million people die is wrong. It’s all relative due to our ability to reason the consequences.

This objective morality comes from God’s nature which is necessarily kind, loving, just, good, merciful etc. Asking if God could command atrocities is like asking how to measure the area of a square circle. It is a meaningless question.

What support is there that your God is the God that has given objective morals rather than other Gods? And what support is there that your God is only necessarily kind, loving, just, good, & merciful?

On the contrary, only if morality is subjective (whatever society says it is), can it be anything even atrocities.

Only if it is the best possible benefit, which it never has been.

 

[tonyrey]

Our idea of morality describes how we should act and treat each other and things.

Bravo!

For morality to exist persons, not necessarily human, need to exist.
The code reflects what is necessary for their well-being.

Correct, we seem to be in agreement that morals reflect what is necessary for well-being. Even wildlife animals have a moral system, though we view ours as superior.

Theirs is a system of instinctive values which is the law of the jungle - beyond which we have progressed…

Precisely! They are based on facts about personal relations and development.Right, because we created them…because obviously as you just stated we needed the facts about personal relations and development.

We must have **discovered **them because they apply not only to us but to all rational beings.

We seem to be in agreement again. And with new facts/evidence can come beneficial changes to the moral system.

Bravissimo!

It wasn’t just a question of emotion but a recognition of injustice.

Correct, injustice because this action hindered maximum benefit, therefore shown to be immoral. We seem to be in agreement yet again.

Bravississimo!

Killing in self-defence is not murder. It is also a universal principle that we should be reasonable!

Reason FTW.

Bravissississimo! You are indeed a sharp tiger… You don’t need to dial 999.

You are still doing what you believe to be right and demonstrating that it is an absolute principle that we should do what we believe to be right.

The absolute principle is that we all want to live with happiness.

Although not at the expense of others…

According to that argument science is also relative. In fact everything we think about is relative - to us - but it doesn’t stop science and morality from being based on objective facts.

Yes, I think I can agree that science and morality are based on objective facts. But are you proposing that because morality is based on objective facts, that there is an objective morality in the universe?

“On” every planet and “in” every universe with rational beings.

If so, wouldn’t that conclusion come with a premise that whatever was wrong yesterday, is wrong today, and in the future?

Yes. We’re not morally infallible. If we were we couldn’t have progressed!

I’m trying to understand your exact argument of what objective morality is and where it comes from, if anywhere, because it seems that we do agree on a lot.

I acknowledge that the perfect morality could be “somewhere” waiting for us to find it, but that doesn’t mean I call it objective. It’s just a constructed idea of which only we can subjectively reason for to essentially create our perhaps one size fits all morality, thereby in essence being an objective one. But only we can create it. It was never “there.”

It never was, is or will be anywhere because it isn’t a physical object! Truth, justice, equality, freedom, good, evil or love are not located in time or space. They are intangible, eternal and indestructible realities which are far more important than the things we can see and touch. No one can chain our minds. We cannot observe freedom under a microscope but men and women are fighting and dying for it at this very moment. A sobering and inspiring thought…

 

[razredge]

Then why can you make the claim that you somehow know there is objective morality? I’ve made pretty good arguments showing how and why they are only subjective.

You are confusing moral epistemology with moral ontology, you can have the latter without the former.

I think it suggests that until we have reason to believe that there are objective morals, then we shouldn’t believe it. However, even the thought of an objective moral sounds preposterous, because the definition means it is what it is without question or reason. The only things I can thing of that fit that definition are the laws of the universe. They are what they are and whether we like it or not it is the way it is.

Well, if God exists then objective morality does exist, if he doesn’t then objective morals don’t either - unlike the views of many atheists who try and claim they can have objective morality without God.

 

[sharptiger999]

“On” every planet and “in” every universe with rational beings.
Yes. We’re not morally infallible. If we were we couldn’t have progressed!
It never was, is or will be anywhere because it isn’t a physical object! Truth, justice, equality, freedom, good, evil or love are not located in time or space. They are intangible, eternal and indestructible realities which are far more important than the things we can see and touch. No one can chain our minds. We cannot observe freedom under a microscope but men and women are fighting and dying for it at this very moment. A sobering and inspiring thought…

I think I can agree with your terminology. I think maybe I just wasn’t pondering the words correctly. I’m still debating this now altogether in my head… But I’m not sure that it leads me to your ultimate conclusion that god must exist if objective morality exists. Because morality is not a physical object, and isn’t “there,” as you said, and although there may be an ultimate set of reasoned morality, that just means we haven’t reasoned perfectly with all of the evidence to get there yet. Our quotes and many agreements were about how we have developed our morality throughout time.

What’s interesting is that I started this topic before watching many youtube videos on the subject, and I realized that the higher majority of atheists still called morality objective, but that it wasn’t from a God; rather, just humans continually trying to get closer and closer to what gives good benefit to humans as a whole, and objective because it was reasoned with fact that showed what truths led to benefits to society, no matter what else people thought. The only reason I (and others) stuck to the word subjective was because it was promoting that only we can reason to still create the undeniable “objective” measure that apply to all. I thought that “objective” from the religious argument simply portrayed that morality is what it is and we cannot question it. Again, it seems like I and the other atheists disagreed simply on semantics.

I like speaking with you a lot more than this danserr character; at least you still quote and focus point by point with minimal, yet clear rebuttals. Bravo.

 

[Rudolfo]

The Natural Law