Morality: Objective or Subjective?

[razredge]

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.

An ‘objective’ morality, with its basis in reasoning (presumably achieved through consensus) is a contradiction in terms as ultimately it is still subjective unless grounded in a transcendant anchor (ie. God)

So yes, unfortunately, you cannot have objective morality without God.

 

[sharptiger999]

An ‘objective’ morality, with its basis in reasoning (presumably achieved through consensus) is a contradiction in terms as ultimately it is still subjective unless grounded in a transcendant anchor (ie. God)

If reasoning deals with facts, how are facts subjective?

 

[razredge]

Reasoning does not necessarily have to deal with facts.

 

[oftruefaith]

The first thing I would like to touch base which I have seen that a lot of people have already is that the concept of ‘Morality’ is based solely on the cultural outlook on life. In most cases this is brought on by some form of religion (christian or non-christian). Being that this is the basis of ‘Morality’, good and evil is nothing more than conjecture on the part of one culture to another.

As to ‘Morality’ being Objective or Subjective really is nothing more than asking is what I am doing good or evil. Even in this case can you honestly say that certain actions are GOOD or EVIL.

In my response I want to ask a simple question. Is MURDER wrong?

If yes, then why is killing for your faith/country/self defense accepted? Is it then not a sin? Is it GOOD?

If no, then let me ask you of your faith and based on your faith isn’t it a SIN to kill in any form?

The question about morality is an interesting topic and in my sincerest belief it is completely and will always be SUBJECTIVE. My statement is only because of what the moral compass has been is not what it is now. Again with the same flow the moral compass of one country/culture is not the same as another, hence the difference in laws and procedures that differ.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In my response I want to ask a simple question. Is MURDER wrong?

The word “murder” is already associated with bad/wrong. When asking that question I think that “killing” may be more appropriate as it is less likely to influence one’s answer. Murder is usually used to indicate a willful ending of a life with negative overtones. While the word “killing” could be used to talk about the same thing. It’s more generic and more neutral. One might use it when talking about ending a life when morality isn’t a significant concern such as what happens to something before (or in rare cases after) we eat it.

Example: “The chicken was killed to be prepared for dinner”

If some one ends the life of another human in self defense or without intent it usually isn’t called murder. “Killing in self defense” , “involuntary manslaughter”, and other terms are more common in that situation.

 

[exnihilo]

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”.

You have to be careful not to let your worldview be limited by the experience of the physical world. Does beauty exists? Is it objective? If it does not exist then any man who says his wife is beautiful is lying. If it is not objective then such a statement means to him and him alone. Most wives want their beauty to be something universal. Here beauty is about something in the physical world but the concept is metaphysical. A bumble bee does not find beauty in a spider’s web.

I think if you study it long enough you’ll find it hard to believe in objective morality without God. The other options are that objective morality popped into existence (which seems pretty incoherent) or existed eternally. Since morality is something that requires purpose and purpose is something that requires a mind it would seem there would have to be a mind for objective morality to exist.

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.

There is an aspect of morality that makes it *feel *like we can be getting closer and closer to the truth. But it isn’t the creation of morality itself but the practical application of it. It is a better understanding of what always was.

This is similar to case law in English systems. Each trial offers the opportunity to apply the principles of justice to an actual situation. Over time rules can form that help us to test a case to see what principles apply. Often in the law there are specific requirements stated something like if a, b, and c are true then this applies. Once that rule is set then there is case law that further establishes exactly what a, b, and c are.

Another way the law can help clarify this is in considering contracts. If you look at a contract from a business that has been around for a while you’ll find a lot of clauses, some almost funny and certainly strange. Those clauses aren’t really an expression of new rules but rather an explicit statement of a practical application of a principle. These clauses result from someone having made a novel claim that some other principle applies in a certain situation. The business then needs to be explicit in its words to protect itself from future claims. But those clauses are there to protect the original understanding the business had.

 

[oftruefaith]

The word “murder” is already associated with bad/wrong. When asking that question I think that “killing” may be more appropriate as it is less likely to influence one’s answer. Murder is usually used to indicate a willful ending of a life with negative overtones. While the word “killing” could be used to talk about the same thing. It’s more generic and more neutral. One might use it when talking about ending a life when morality isn’t a significant concern such as what happens to something before (or in rare cases after) we eat it.

Example: “The chicken was killed to be prepared for dinner”

If some one ends the life of another human in self defense or without intent it usually isn’t called murder. “Killing in self defense” , “involuntary manslaughter”, and other terms are more common in that situation.

BOW my apologies in word the word play, very well. If you KILL someone then is it wrong?

 

[exnihilo]

BOW my apologies in word the word play, very well. If you KILL someone then is it wrong?

Not to belabor the point but ThinkingSapien is entirely correct and it is important to try to be precise so that we can have true understanding. Murder = killing + wrong. Have you ever heard the idea that Eskimos have a hundred words for snow? Well I think that is not really true and kind of silly. We probably have a hundred words for kill: murder, manslaughter, homicide, suicide, regicide, matricide etc. Each word is trying to express an idea often a complex one. Murder is wrong because the word carries that meaning. Determining if something is murder is a difficult thing attested to by many a court case.

 

[oftruefaith]

Not to belabor the point but ThinkingSapien is entirely correct and it is important to try to be precise so that we can have true understanding. Murder = killing + wrong. Have you ever heard the idea that Eskimos have a hundred words for snow? Well I think that is not really true and kind of silly. We probably have a hundred words for kill: murder, manslaughter, homicide, suicide, regicide, matricide etc. Each word is trying to express an idea often a complex one. Murder is wrong because the word carries that meaning. Determining if something is murder is a difficult thing attested to by many a court case.

Well, to play on the idea of word play then let me rebut on this statement. First the word ‘MURDER’ in of itself has no negative or positive meaning, it means quite literally the killing of another human being under the pretenses of the law. This being said then wouldn’t in that term under law (and we will use the United States for example) killing anyone by any means (be that in war time or not) be then classed as MURDER.

In an understanding of languages, a word has no meaning unless you put meaning to it. So if you put the meaning of MURDER into context of Killing + Wrong = Murder, then you are in turn saying that Killing in of itself is not wrong but only under the aspect of what word you use for ‘Killing’ be that murder, manslaughter, ect., is when you actually delineate the definition of the word then giving rise to the RIGHT or WRONG part in the entire sentence. If you wish for me to be concise with my verbiage then I will do so. Playing word games is not something that I really want to do, it is just a means to an end at this point.

 

[exnihilo]

In an understanding of languages, a word has no meaning unless you put meaning to it. So if you put the meaning of MURDER into context of Killing + Wrong = Murder, then you are in turn saying that Killing in of itself is not wrong but only under the aspect of what word you use for ‘Killing’ be that murder, manslaughter, ect., is when you actually delineate the definition of the word then giving rise to the RIGHT or WRONG part in the entire sentence. If you wish for me to be concise with my verbiage then I will do so. Playing word games is not something that I really want to do, it is just a means to an end at this point.

I really dont see this as word games. Philosophy like the law relies on precise language. In casual speech we dont require that level of attention to what we say but in these areas we must.

Killing is not wrong in and of itself. It is not wrong for you to kill someone in self defense. It is not wrong to kill an enemy in war. It is not wrong for the authorities to execute a murderer. It is not wrong to kill by accident (though this is always a difficult thing as there is contributory negligence to consider which is wrong). The law recognizes the idea that killing is acceptable under many circumstances and that killing for wrong purposes is made worse by lying in wait or planning. What makes something wrong is purpose, knowledge, and premeditation (this may not be a complete statement and I’m sure authorities on morality would have a better and more thorough statement).

Quite literally the ends do justify the means in that what you are trying to achieve is *part *of what makes something right or wrong. Cutting someone’s gut open is not wrong. Cutting their gut open for the purpose of incapacitating them so you can rob them is wrong. A surgeon cutting them open to remove a diseased appendix is right.

 

[danserr]

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.

maybe if you would stick to quotes you would be seen as more credible

You sir/madam are absurd

It is “sir,” thank you for caring, I am very much moved, but if you are moving from mockery to insults, then I must again question your self-proclaimed commitment to “reason.”

As for my limiting the use of quotes, it is simply my stylistic preference to limit use of them as write in a professional and and organized a manner as possible. I have no objection with anyone who prefers to use them, I simply prefer to limit them, though I will use them when I think it helpful.

I am afraid you no have right to feel hard-done-by because I am not responding directly to every single line you write individually. I am indeed responding to everything you have written, but I simply refuse to be drawn into the type of argument you are baiting me into. Let me explain. I am making a reduction ad absurdum argument, that your principles, carried to their reasoned conclusions entail absurd consequences. You respond by arguing “yes, but normally they wont,” thus trying to bait me into an argument on whether they will or not. Now this is very speculative, you can offer no evidence for it, simply bare repeated assertion. Second, this ignores my argument.

So my reductio ad absurdum argument. I am going to lay out your moral principles as you have admitted them. Then I will show that, carried to their logical, reasoned conclusion, your principles entail various rationally absurd and morally obscene consequences. If they do, then your rational principles and the moral system you have constructed around them should be rejected. Therefore, your moral system should be rejected.

1. You say that we should maximize the happiness for the greatest number of people possible. (do what is best for the majority).
2. We should make our decisions based on whether or not that decision will contribute to maximizing the happiness/well being for the greatest number of people
3. We should care about this because it will be the best for us. (ie, doing what is best for society will be good for us.
4. The majority should take into account the minority because it is best for the majority.

Now beneath all the rest of your ideas, these seem your principles at base. Now I think there are many problems with this, but I am going to a list a few that seem to me very serious. It is no good for you to complain “but normally that wouldn’t happen,” because we are discussing the principles.

So here are what I see as some problems with your system:

*1. It entails that if maximizing the well being of the majority involved some moral obscenity, then we would be obligated to do the moral obscenity. *

-For example: If raping and torturing a little girl to death could somehow benefit the majority, then we would be obligated to rape and torture the little girl to death. Your own principles necessitate that this be the case.
1a). Your moral principles do not allow for anything to be intrinsically or absolutely evil. (because if something would maximize the well-being of society, we would be obligated to do it, no matter what it was) Yet some things, raping and torturing a little girl to death, exposure (left outside to die) of infants are intrinsically evil.

• Now, it is no good for you to protest, “ah yes, but this would hardly ever happen.” The point is that it is conceivable that it could happen and if it did, in principle, (at least by the principles you lay out), we would be obligated to do it. Your principles therefore, hold that a morally obscene thing might be “morally good.”

2. Your principles can be reduced to the 2 word dictum: be selfish

• You say I should care about maximizing the well-being of the majority. But you say that we should do this because it is the best for me. Therefore, your moral principles are really that I should do whatever is best for me! But this seems like a pretty poor morality, doesn’t it? It seems more like a lack of morality!
• You admit this, but then try to escape by claiming that caring about others will be best for me, but consider.
• What if it were not? I will address this again below, but self-sacrifice helps others, but is certainly not best for me.
• What about someone like Stalin, well placed to rule society in an iron fashion and powerful enough that he does not fear a rival? In this case what is best for him is to rule society in a totalitarian manner killing any potential rival, and killing others just for good measure and instill fear in potential enemies. On your system, first, what is good for Stalin is obviously not best for society, and second: since this is best for Stalin, he is obligated to rule with an iron fist killing all rivals!

 

[danserr]

3. Your principles provide no basis for heroic self sacrifice.

-Here you try to dodge this issue by taking umbrage and telling me that “Your continued notion that an atheist has no reason to die for someone is kind of sick.” But this is badly (I suppose deliberately) phrased on your part. My point is that, assuming your moral principles (see above) and the system you would construct around them. You provide no basis for acts of heroic self-sacrifice.

• Why? Because I am supposed to do what is best for me. In self-sacrifice, I will cease to exist, therefore, self-sacrifice will never be best for me.
• You try to escape by claiming that I would feel pain and regret if I did not sacrifice, but what if I would not? Then according to you, I should not make the sacrifice, which seems absurd. Next, the pain and regret of not making the sacrifice would probably (as pain and regret often is) be temporary, and then I would be free to go on enjoying life.
• Second, even if it were somehow best for me (and on atheism, I don’t see how it could be), then (according to your principles) I am doing that act of self-sacrifice for my own sake (because it is best for me). That is, my act of self-sacrifice is a selfish act! But this seems absurd! Your moral principles do not allow for selflessness! (because the guiding principle is to do what is good for me).
  Now atheists may commit acts of heroic self-sacrifice, but when they do, it is because they are better than their principles. What I am doing here is trying to show why those principles (as you have laid them out) are mistaken.

4. Many things that would maximize the well-being of the majority are clearly immoral

• For example, it would maximize the well-being of the majority to kill all mentally and physically disabled people (and probably even to practice eugenics). They are a small minority who uses a disproportionate amount of medical care, financial assistance, and other social resources. It would certainly maximize the well-being of the majority to do this (which is the basis of your moral system), freeing up medical care and other resources for those more likely to live and benefit society. Yet, this is morally obscene. So on your moral system, we are obligated to do something morally obscene. Hence, your system fails.
• You will claim that “ah, but caring for them is good for the majority because you may one day be in the minority.” But this is obviously both wrong and irrelevant. It is statistically impossible that a large proportion of the majority will one day be in the minority in a similar situation. Therefore, as someone in the majority, I should conclude that it is very statistically improbable that I would ever be in the minority. Therefore, I should (under your principles) support killing all the handicapped.

And my Chesterton quote was to make a simple point. If you don’t understand it say so, but don’t mock. It is no credit to someone to mock things they don’t understand. The point is that in a morally perfect God, you would have a solid basis for morality, but such is your determination to avoid God, that you would rather accept a moral system that would lead to moral obscenities.

You say you have been watching many you tube videos. I suggest watching the following. It is a debate between the Christian philosopher WL Craig and the “New” Atheist Sam Harris on the subject of morality without God. youtube.com/watch?v=T8wUOUmM1OA

As to your other questions toward the end of your post on how I know God is just, loving, etc. I know because I have evidence, and if you like I will present it. But this thread is already longer than I suspect you will be happy with. So for now I will refer you to the video above, which is useful, you can also search for Craig’s debate with Christopher Hitchens if you like. If you want to do some reading (which I recommend), then Craig’s books (Reasonable Faith is good, a more basic version is “On Guard” both on amazon, and website is useful reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer, along with the writings of NT Wright, including Surprised By Hope, which I mentioned in another thread.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

First the word ‘MURDER’ in of itself has no negative or positive meaning

I’m inclined to disagree with that. But the point that I was raising was about the negative associations with the word, not the negative meaning. When trying to get insight on what some one else things if you don’t want to influence their response. If you do want to influence their response then you can choose certain wording to do so.

This being said then wouldn’t in that term under law (and we will use the United States for example) killing anyone by any means (be that in war time or not) be then classed as MURDER.

It may or may not be. That’s not sufficient information to determine if an act constitutes murder. There is some variation in the criteria that constitutes murder in different states so even the location in which the act is performed influences which criteria will be used. Intentionally running over someone with a car and killing them might or might not be considered murder. Unintentionally running over some one with a car and killing them might be considered a lesser charge of manslaughter. In either case if the person looses a life as a result of the action it is “killing.” But further information is needed on the surrounding circumstances to determine if it is murder.

Playing word games is not something that I really want to do, it is just a means to an end at this point.

I’m not trying to play word games. I’m highlighting the influence that the wording of the question will have on the replies. I was interacting with a friend that was preparing to interview people as a part of a project she needed to do in completing her PhD and in a conversation about how she prepared her interview questions we talking about the influence that wording and question order can have on some one’s response. When she submitted the results she also had to submit recordings of the interactions with those interviewed so that (among other things) some one could try to determine if she had influenced those being interviewed.

Feel free to accept or reject my words as a suggestion. I’m not trying to pick your question apart but wanted to share a consideration.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

The Natural Law

Yep. Not revealed but still objective–it would qualify.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

The correspondence of morality to personal/social harmony and development implies that it has an objective, rational basis which is not adequately explained by fortuitous events. If it is not due to Chance it must be due to Design.

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.

Not entirely. Some religious people do believe God’s Will alone is the basis of morality. Yet it has to be consistent with His perfection. His commands are not arbitrary but motivated by love and compassion. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity have their foundation in the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father. In a Godless universe we just happen to co-exist for no reason or purpose. Freaks of nature have no rights or moral obligations - unless they invent them but even then they are merely hypothetical imperatives which make no difference to their ultimate destiny…

 

[sharptiger999]

BOW my apologies in word the word play, very well. If you KILL someone then is it wrong?

It’s not wrong if we reason the killing to benefit society most, such as protecting yourself/property/others by killing the person who first decided to take away others rights for his/her own benefit. It’s all relative to the situation. That being said, there may be an “ultimate” set of morals that will work for all of society, but only we can reason to eventually evolve to that set.

 

[oftruefaith]

It may or may not be. That’s not sufficient information to determine if an act constitutes murder. There is some variation in the criteria that constitutes murder in different states so even the location in which the act is performed influences which criteria will be used. Intentionally running over someone with a car and killing them might or might not be considered murder. Unintentionally running over some one with a car and killing them might be considered a lesser charge of manslaughter. In either case if the person looses a life as a result of the action it is “killing.” But further information is needed on the surrounding circumstances to determine if it is murder.

Well, based on this response then would you agree then that morality is subjective? As to the lead in question, words and how the context is used this is led by the information that is brought to and forth with each subject is correct. The words in question that I was using was specific only because the usage was appropriate because if you look at what MURDER is only in this context then you look at something again like morality, a complete and utter subjective topic. Because of different areas (even within the United States) it is different, so being that it is different even within these areas can you think of how different they may be from country to country or even continent?

I’m not trying to play word games. I’m highlighting the influence that the wording of the question will have on the replies. I was interacting with a friend that was preparing to interview people as a part of a project she needed to do in completing her PhD and in a conversation about how she prepared her interview questions we talking about the influence that wording and question order can have on some one’s response. When she submitted the results she also had to submit recordings of the interactions with those interviewed so that (among other things) some one could try to determine if she had influenced those being interviewed.

Feel free to accept or reject my words as a suggestion. I’m not trying to pick your question apart but wanted to share a consideration.

Putting in this comment is a double standard in of itself. First you state that you are not playing word games, then you turn around and state that everything is a word game by giving an example of your friend writing her thesis. This is confusing only in the sense that you first state you are not trying to, but I am…

Word play is important in the sense that if you lead with statements and questions in a specific way then yes you would get a specific response that may or may not be what you intended (in some a lot of cases you can lead the person to answer the way you want to). In my case, that was not my intention, just merely bring up something and that is why I had corrected myself with the response and correct word afterwards.

 

[oftruefaith]

It’s not wrong if we reason the killing to benefit society most, such as protecting yourself/property/others by killing the person who first decided to take away others rights for his/her own benefit. It’s all relative to the situation. That being said, there may be an “ultimate” set of morals that will work for all of society, but only we can reason to eventually evolve to that set.

So based on your information here, and I want to understand this to the fullest. Killing is okay if and only if it is to defend yourself or if it benefits the SOCIETY? I want to completely understand your statement here before I give a response.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ThinkingSapien;8260733:

It may or may not be…But further information is needed on the surrounding circumstances to determine if it is murder.

Well, based on this response then would you agree then that morality is subjective?

I wouldn’t use my previous statements as a base for agreeing that morality is objective or subjective. I would (and did) use it to answer the question “…wouldn’t in that term under law (and we will use the United States for example) killing anyone by any means (be that in war time or not) be then classed as MURDER.”

Putting in this comment is a double standard in of itself. First you state that you are not playing word games

I wasn’t trying to do so. Carry on with your preferred choice of words for ending a life.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It’s not wrong if we reason the killing to benefit society most, such as protecting yourself/property/others by killing the person who first decided to take away others rights for his/her own benefit. It’s all relative to the situation.

Here’s a couple of situations (these are variations of situations from a book and not my own). Do you think the “benefit of society” consideration is helpful in making a decision in either of these two.

Scenario 1:

Let’s say that 5 people in a hospital will die if they don’t get various organ transplants. It just so happens that there is a healthy person in the waiting room of the hospital that is compatible with these five people. More lives would be saved than lost if the needed organs are taken from that healthy person. A greater number of people in society will benefit from the death of the healthy person. If some one decided to take that person’s organs to save the 5 others has a moral infraction been committed? Why or why not?

Scenario 2:

A loose train car is rolling downhill on some tracks. At the bottom of the hill are 5 people unaware that the train car is coming and may be killed. Someone happens to be further uphill on the tracks in a position that would allow them to pull a lever to divert the train to another set of tracks but too far away from the five people working down hill to get their attention. While pulling the lever would save those 5 lives it would kill a sixth person that happens to be working alone on the other set of tracks. So a greater number of people would benefit by diverting the train on a path that would kill the 6th person. Is the benefit of society rule helpful in deciding whether or not to divert the train car?