Morality? What morality?

[Ichthys4121517]

You put it together really well, even anticipating some possible objections. Good job. I am simply saying that the adjective “moral” is not based upon facts, it is based upon “opinion”. We call or declare something to be “moral” without justification. As to whether an “objective” morality exists or not, without a common definiton of “morality” it is a futile endeavor. Yes, I know that according to the Christian perception (opinion again) God is the “standard”. But since you cannot prove that God exists, it is a vacuous opinion.

Even if one could prove that, he would have to come to terms with the fact that God, at least in the Old Testament, has a vastly different idea of morality than the average human. And not in a good way.

I think the subjectivity and unfalsifiability of morality is precisely the reason why it is so important to people. We don’t know why we do what we do, or believe what we believe regarding morals. We just use standards that we have come to accept for the sake of society. That mystery of morality makes it beautiful. It is our duty in life, I believe, to perfect morality as much as possible, for it is the only thing that keeps us sane.

This is all, of course, opinion, but an opinion can change the world more than some facts could ever hope to do.

 

[4Horsemen]

Even if one could prove that, he would have to come to terms with the fact that God, at least in the Old Testament, has a vastly different idea of morality than the average human. And not in a good way.

God had to work with people who were nomads, for the most part in the OT, without having developed much of a civilization. The bible is a collection of books and stories and prophecies which must be sorted out and understood against the background of the particular culture. IMO, the evil things that happened in the OT were not the will of God. That certain evil things happened, God had to work through them with a basically stubborn people to bring about a just society. He did not take away free will to accomplish His plan of salvation.

I think the subjectivity and unfalsifiability of morality is precisely the reason why it is so important to people. ** We don’t know why we do what we do, or believe what we believe regarding morals. **We just use standards that we have come to accept for the sake of society. That mystery of morality makes it beautiful. It is our duty in life, I believe, to perfect morality as much as possible, for it is the only thing that keeps us sane.

This is all, of course, opinion, but an opinion can change the world more than some facts could ever hope to do.

Who is “We?” in the bolded sentence? Christians know why we do what we do and believe what we believe regarding morals. The reason the moral landscape seems undefined to non-Christians is because they don’t believe in God’s revelation to them. And why should it be our “duty” in life to “perfect morality” when it’s already defined? You mean the interpretation of moral issues relevant to particular situations, I presume. Without a code of law few people would care to act morally. The Code of Hammurabi dating back to 1700 BC is one of several sets of laws that were enacted to keep order in society. I agree that morality keeps us sane.
Some opinions are better than others.

 

[4Horsemen]

Indeed. I sure agree that wars are horrible, and I wish they never happened. And they always declare the enemy as sub-human, too. Truly horrible.

It is very probably true. It also saved many Japanese lives, who would have continued the war, if the horrors on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have happened. All we can safely say that that these questions are not easy to answer and they may be unanswerable, too.

The foundation of the moral law is the admonition that we cannot do a wrong (action) to obtain a right (result). However, interpreting a “wrong” and a “right” isn’t always easy. Also, the Golden Rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you is foundational for a just society. Here’s a quote for you:

"For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense. . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely." (Cicero, Rep. III, 22,33)

 

[4Horsemen]

Well . . . looks like the atheists, semi-atheists and agnostics lost the argument, as usual. That an objective morality exists outside our own subjective realm of thought is beyond their perspective. You can’t see the bigger picture when you only have tunnel vision. Materialism doesn’t answer the big questions.

 

[Warrenton]

You think that because people disagree on perception something, the thing itself (here morality) cannot exist.

1. Person A sees an apple tree.
2. Person B does not.
3. They disagree.
4. Therefore there is no apple tree.

What Spock says goes even farther than this. He says that because 1,2, and 3 “there can be no apple trees.” No apple trees anywhere. He says the term apple trees is devoid of meaning.

The mistake here lies in the false distinction between opinion about supposedly objective or subjective things. If we cannot develop true conclusions through our senses about morality, why should we trust the conclusions as to anything else. Why, for instance, should we agree that the explosion killed anyone, or that those killed were enemies, or that the suicide bomber was killed. Perhaps there was no explosion at all. How do we know who agrees with whom?

If all we need do to create doubt about our ability to apprehend meaning is find one person who disagrees, I expect there will be certainty about nothing.

 

[CTuck]

I wonder if Spock considers Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally evil? He did admit they were horrible, and he wished they had never happened.

 

[sidbrown]

Here a scenario for you to consider:

Someone strapped a few bombs to his body, and blew up some people whom he considers his enemies. He also died in the process.

If you agree with the person, you will consider him a “morally upright, self-sacrificing hero”.
If you disagree with the person, you will consider him a “morally evil, horrible terrorist”.

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it.

No. I think it is pretty clear that the suicide bomber is wrong from any perspective. He has taken the lives of innocent people and this is always wrong.

 

[BKulash_eski]

As to that morality I don’t believe that is a very mature morality, but their faith, all be it misguilded, is far greater than most everyone I know, with one exception The Father, Son and Holy Ghost. How do we learn from these things, is the question I ask. One of the biggest problems I see is that we do not understand each other, things get lost in translation. We could live in a win, win world, if we could only agree on one thing: what to call The heavenly Father(sorry ladies).

 

[Warrenton]

Indeed. I sure agree that wars are horrible, and I wish they never happened. And they always declare the enemy as sub-human, too. Truly horrible.

Horrible? Why? Some people love war. Attila, it is written, loved war.

You think war is horrible. Attila thinks war is wonderful. Obviously, “horrible” is another empty word like “morality.”

Which brings us to a point.

When I read your first post, I thought “here is an atheist of the good old variety - full of vigor and steel.” I hoped you were cut from the same bolt as Marx, Lenin and Mao - perhaps not necessarily a communist, but at least, as the Mexicans say, “con gusto.”
That comment about war, though, has just torn it. You are one of these contemptible “smiling atheists,” like Gervais, with his stupid jokes, simpering, and phony pity.

The Mexicans have another expression for that: sin wayvoes.

 

[In_Spiration]

Here a scenario for you to consider:

Someone strapped a few bombs to his body, and blew up some people whom he considers his enemies. He also died in the process.

If you agree with the person, you will consider him a “morally upright, self-sacrificing hero”.
If you disagree with the person, you will consider him a “morally evil, horrible terrorist”.

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it.

I haven’t read the other replies yet, which I’m assuming have highlighted the distinction between one’s subjective moral *opinions ***about **objective moral facts and the reality of those facts themselves (namely, facts pertaining to real actions in the world). I’ll instead go ahead and basically agree with your “Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning.”

You’re quite right. We base our moral predications on our individual opinions, on our subjective inner worlds as *we *see them, which we only suppose to reflect reality – the facts – though w/out shared certainty. When we voice our judgments, we’re professing something subjectively, not objectively accessed. And that makes sense, being that we’re the only ones who *can *see our inner worlds of concepts, propositions, and knowledge.

Man gives meaning to his terms, and moral terms like the ones you mention are not absolute. They’re conventional. If no minds existed, then a leftover sheet of paper that reads, “Murder is wrong,” would be meaningless, for failure to ever again possibly signal the thoughts of an individual’s subjective judgment.

But obviously you’ve given no argument for that last conclusion (“It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words”). That was rather grossly and illogically smuggled into the discussion. Blatant non sequitur. My refutation? I do mean something when I say, “The killer is morally evil.” Even if you and your friends don’t. And if meaning is subjective, then you’re thus out of bounds when you claim factual knowledge regarding my subjectively accessed meaning and intent. I guess we’re just speaking different languages.

On that note: You have inexcusably breached the English language’s grammatically institutionalized laws for its man-made semantics of moral pronouncements. You see – I’m a hardcore linguistic prescriptivist, not some willy-nilly, “anarcho-terminological” descriptivist. The many liberties you’ve taken up to this point with ethical words, on this accusation, amount to very egregious attempts at absconding them away from their rightful owners, indeed, from the democratically lain foundation of the public communicative good itself. Your sentence? You must create a *new *word to function as a “feel-good, but meaningless ‘filler’” in specifically ethical propositions. Maybe it’ll catch on and in the future nobody will confuse the folks actually making moral judgments with the folks simply dressing up their gustatory/emotive expressions!

 

[Betterave]

I haven’t read the other replies yet, which I’m assuming have highlighted the distinction between one’s subjective moral *opinions ***about **objective moral facts and the reality of those facts themselves (namely, facts pertaining to real actions in the world). I’ll instead go ahead and basically agree with your “Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning.”

You’re quite right. We base our moral predications on our individual opinions, on our subjective inner worlds as *we *see them, which we only suppose to reflect reality – the facts – though w/out shared certainty. When we voice our judgments, we’re professing something subjectively, not objectively accessed. And that makes sense, being that we’re the only ones who *can *see our inner worlds of concepts, propositions, and knowledge.

Man gives meaning to his terms, and moral terms like the ones you mention are not absolute. They’re conventional. If no minds existed, then a leftover sheet of paper that reads, “Murder is wrong,” would be meaningless, for failure to ever again possibly signal the thoughts of an individual’s subjective judgment.

But obviously you’ve given no argument for that last conclusion (“It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words”). That was rather grossly and illogically smuggled into the discussion. Blatant non sequitur. My refutation? I do mean something when I say, “The killer is morally evil.” Even if you and your friends don’t. And if meaning is subjective, then you’re thus out of bounds when you claim factual knowledge regarding my subjectively accessed meaning and intent. I guess we’re just speaking different languages.

On that note: You have inexcusably breached the English language’s grammatically institutionalized laws for its man-made semantics of moral pronouncements. You see – I’m a hardcore linguistic prescriptivist, not some willy-nilly, “anarcho-terminological” descriptivist. The many liberties you’ve taken up to this point with ethical words, on this accusation, amount to very egregious attempts at absconding them away from their rightful owners, indeed, from the democratically lain foundation of the public communicative good itself. Your sentence? You must create a *new *word to function as a “feel-good, but meaningless ‘filler’” in specifically ethical propositions. Maybe it’ll catch on and in the future nobody will confuse the folks actually making moral judgments with the folks simply dressing up their gustatory/emotive expressions!

LOL! Er… well… when you put it that way…

(This was a good one. Spock and inocente: you should read this post and think about it.)

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by danserr
You think that because people disagree on perception something, the thing itself (here morality) cannot exist.

1. Person A sees an apple tree.
2. Person B does not.
3. They disagree.
4. Therefore there is no apple tree.

What Spock says goes even farther than this. He says that because 1,2, and 3 “there can be no apple trees.” No apple trees anywhere. He says the term apple trees is devoid of meaning.

I think you and danserr are both mistaken here. Spock’s argument is like this:

1. Person A sees an apple tree.
2. Person B does not.
3. They disagree.
4. Therefore there both is and is not an apple tree.

 

[frnate]

C.S. Lewis dealt with this in part one of Mere Christianity. Without invoking God.

Pax,
++N

 

[inocente]

(This was a good one. Spock and inocente: you should read this post and think about it.)

I’m not arguing there’s no morality (see my post #14) but am questioning how objectivity might apply.

Answer this dilemma:

A small girl is about to throw a switch that unknown to her will kill both herself and one million other children. We ourselves are safe, thousands of miles away watching her on video, but by pushing a button we can save the million by killing the girl, shortening her life a little. We only have five seconds to decide - is our most moral action to push the button or not?

If we push the button some will say we are morally evil, we deliberately murdered the girl, the ends never justify the means, evil can’t stop evil. If instead we don’t push the button some will say we are morally evil, our inaction makes us mass-murderers.

Either way I’d suggest the moral action can’t be arrived at objectively.

 

[You]

I’m not arguing there’s no morality (see my post #14) but am questioning how objectivity might apply.

Answer this dilemma:

A small girl is about to throw a switch that unknown to her will kill both herself and one million other children. We ourselves are safe, thousands of miles away watching her on video, but by pushing a button we can save the million by killing the girl, shortening her life a little. We only have five seconds to decide - is our most moral action to push the button or not?

If we push the button some will say we are morally evil, we deliberately murdered the girl, the ends never justify the means, evil can’t stop evil. If instead we don’t push the button some will say we are morally evil, our inaction makes us mass-murderers.

Either way I’d suggest the moral action can’t be arrived at objectively.

If not pushing the button did not result in a million deaths but did result in the girls death; do you think it would be moral to push the button. If you are speaking objectively it is always every action judged on its own which determines its objective morality. If you judge an act immoral in one instance you cannot contradict that truth by judging the same one act moral in another instance. The question is not about the million but about the morality of the one initial act.

 

[Spock]

I wonder if Spock considers Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally evil?

Well, wonder no more. I will don my Catholic thinking cap, and use some Catholic logic to answer.

1. God only premits evil, if he can “twist” it so that something good will come out of it. (Catholic doctrine)
2. God permitted both bombs to detonate. (Fact)
3. If God wanted to, he could have made either one of the bombs or both of them to become a “dud”. (Catholic doctrine pertaining to God’s omnipotence)
4. Therefore the bombing was morally good, since God permitted them. (Logical corollary)

Life is so easy when one becomes a Catholic for a minute. By the same token, the whole “problem of evil” becomes nonexistent. Everything we do is permitted by God. Moreover, God actively participates in all of our actions!

Dogmas jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm:

69: God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
70: God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)

So God was an active participant in releasing the bombs. Surely you don’t want to accuse God to do something immoral, do you?

 

[Warrenton]

I think you and danserr are both mistaken here. Spock’s argument is like this:

1. Person A sees an apple tree.
2. Person B does not.
3. They disagree.
4. Therefore there both is and is not an apple tree.

I thought about that possibility, but discounted it based on what Spock said. Remember when Spock asked us to admit that morality was a meaningless filler word? I took that to indicate that he concluded there was not morality in fact.

Further thoughts?

Interesting thread.

 

[inocente]

If not pushing the button did not result in a million deaths but did result in the girls death; do you think it would be moral to push the button. If you are speaking objectively it is always every action judged on its own which determines its objective morality. If you judge an act immoral in one instance you cannot contradict that truth by judging the same one act moral in another instance. The question is not about the million but about the morality of the one initial act.

There is no right answer, the purpose of the dilemma is to explore the reasoning. The opposition can say perfectly objectively that the girl will die anyway and we can save a million lives. Both sides can proclaim their own objectivity but neither has a trump card, suggesting objectivity doesn’t cut the mustard here.

 

[You]

There is no right answer, the purpose of the dilemma is to explore the reasoning. The opposition can say perfectly objectively that the girl will die anyway and we can save a million lives. Both sides can proclaim their own objectivity but neither has a trump card, suggesting objectivity doesn’t cut the mustard here.

You cannot have your own objectivity. And those types of examples mix 2 or more actions.
Like this;
1 moral action + 1 moral action = moral action
1 immoral action + 1 moral action = immoral action
1 immoral action + 1 immoral action = immoral action

It is never the case that 1 moral action + 1 immoral action = moral action

 

[inocente]

It is never the case that 1 moral action + 1 immoral action = moral action

Subjective. The opposition can say:

1 immoral action + 1,000,000 moral actions (saving the other million kids) = 999,999 moral actions