Objective morality and why Subjectivism cannot work in ethics

[atheistgirl]

Well then, forget murder.

Oh, OK then

Any breaking of the law. Is that not an imposition of an objective value upon another? Don’t You see what I am getting at?

You mean like how it was legal and moral to own slaves, and now it’s not?

Or, how it was legal and moral to stop me as a non white person marrying a white person, and now it’s not?

Or how it was legal and moral to deny women an education, and now it’s not?

Objective? Or relative?

Morality in general, even societial, has objective moral values.

Until we decide they are no longer our objective moral values, like slavery, discrimination, racism, right?

If society operated from a morally relativist standpoint, then we would have to suspend the courts, judges, lawmakers, lawyers, free all the criminals etc.

Nope. We just change the law.

So, you don’t get your hand cut off any more for theft, in a democracy. But you do in some theocracies. We change the law so if I married a white man, he wouldn’t be sent to prison now. We change the law so if I’m accused of being a witch, I don’t get my hands tied behind my back and my feet bound, and get thrown in a lake. And my husband doesn’t have stones piled on his chest.

We change one moral legal objective value, for another more moral legal objective value that’s more palatable and acceptable to the majority

Sarah x

 

[edward_george]

Just for the records though, Half truth and untruth are one and the same thing. A half truth is still a lie.

I think this is sort of the crux of this issue and several others from what I’ve read of your posts, namely that there’s a kind of dualism at work–something is either good or it’s evil, and that’s just not how it always works, and good Catholic theologians would probably not put it that way either. Aquinas has a conception of good and evil, being and non-being, existing on a continuum–evil is not a separate positive reality from good, and so a half-truth is not automatically invalidated simply because it is only half true. The true half is still true. Morality is far more complex than simply “Objective morality is right, everything else is insane.” Do you not allow for a subjective element in morality? There are objective moral standards, and then there are how those are upheld (or not) in moral decision making. There are circumstances to moral acts, a variety of stages to them. Thomistic morality has a fairly complex vocabulary that goes far beyond just “this system is good and everything else is evil.” There’s a need for more nuance.

-ACEGC

 

[atheistgirl]

Just for the records though, Half truth and untruth are one and the same thing. A half truth is still a lie.

So all those priests and Bishops who engaged in mental reservation, were lying?

In the Murphy Report into the Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin, Cardinal Desmond Connell describes it (mental reservation) thus:

Well, the general teaching about mental reservation is that you are not permitted to tell a lie. On the other hand, you may be put in a position where you have to answer, and there may be circumstances in which you can use an ambiguous expression realising that the person who you are talking to will accept an untrue version of whatever it may be – permitting that to happen, not willing that it happened, that would be lying. It really is a matter of trying to deal with extraordinarily difficult matters that may arise in social relations where people may ask questions that you simply cannot answer. Everybody knows that this kind of thing is liable to happen. So mental reservation is, in a sense, a way of answering without lying.

Cathleen Kaveny, writing in the Catholic magazine Commonweal, notes that Henry Garnet in his treatise on the topic took pains to argue that no form of mental reservation was justified — and might even be a mortal sin — if it would run contrary to the requirements of faith, charity or justice.[4] But according to the Murphy Report:

The Dublin Archdiocese’s preoccupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The archdiocese did not implement its own canon-law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the state.

Kaveny concludes: “The truths of faith are illuminated by the lives of the martyrs. Southwell and Garnet practiced mental reservation to save innocent victims while sacrificing themselves. The Irish prelates practiced mental reservation to save themselves while sacrificing innocent victims. And that difference makes all the difference.”

Some Irish prelates invoked the concept of “mental reservation” to justify misleading others about the abuse situation. For example, Cardinal Desmond Connell, the archbishop of Dublin from 1988 to 2004, told a victim that he did not lie to the media in order to cover up the use of diocesan funds to settle the victim’s case. The cardinal emphasized that “he had reported that diocesan funds are not used for such a purpose; that he had not said that diocesan funds were not used for such a purpose.” According to the victim, “Cardinal Connell considered that there was an enormous difference between the two.”

Read more: readperiodicals.com/201001/1938473571.html#ixzz2BPeYuTKT

Sarah x

 

[InJesusItrust]

I’ll further clarify. If morals are not objective and only subjective, not from a transcendent authority but from each man and culture, then a dictatorship is inevitable and necessary.

For example one might argue that it is moral to feed the hungry. But from where do we derive this? If not from God then from our own conscience. But the conscience of a psychopath might say it is okay to kill the hungry. What makes you right and the psychopath wrong? Only power. You have numbers and strength on your side, so that is why the psychopath is wrong. If morality is subjective, then life is nothing but a power struggle. The one who has the most power wins. If sheer power decides what is right and wrong there is nothing wrong with doing anything you please to be at the top. Once you are at the top, simply declare that all your actions were good and enforce it. Since you have power, other have to accept your declarations. There is nothing objectively wrong with this because there is no objective right or wrong.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ThinkingSapien;9978694:

Are not the first 4 commandments only applicable to Christianity (or first three, I understand they are numbered differently in that Catholic bible)? Would this also mean that any culture that does not engage in Christian religious practices as being automatically in in violation of these 10 commandments by default?

Its still an objective truth, however they may not be aware of them, so they can claim ignorance. The principle itself is objective.

What does it mean to be aware of them? Does it suffice to have read about them? As the people I have in mind are familiar with the ten commandments. But they are not Christian

 

[ThinkingSapien]

For example one might argue that it is moral to feed the hungry. But from where do we derive this? If not from God then from our own conscience.

Some will do this from empathy. Some from others encouraging the action. Some because it can be an effective PR move (or even to seem “good” to close associates). Some will argue it’s socialism, some will argue that by feeding the poor you are removing their incentive for trying to put themselves in a better position in life. I share this not in disagreement with you. But to illustrate that there seem to be a variety of views on this relatively simple issue of whether or not to be charitable to the less fortunate. There are some equally diverse views on to do for the sick.

 

[mymamamary]

Oh, OK then

You mean like how it was legal and moral to own slaves, and now it’s not?

Or, how it was legal and moral to stop me as a non white person marrying a white person, and now it’s not?

Or how it was legal and moral to deny women an education, and now it’s not?

Objective? Or relative?

Until we decide they are no longer our objective moral values, like slavery, discrimination, racism, right?

Nope. We just change the law.

So, you don’t get your hand cut off any more for theft, in a democracy. But you do in some theocracies. We change the law so if I married a white man, he wouldn’t be sent to prison now. We change the law so if I’m accused of being a witch, I don’t get my hands tied behind my back and my feet bound, and get thrown in a lake. And my husband doesn’t have stones piled on his chest.

We change one moral legal objective value, for another more moral legal objective value that’s more palatable and acceptable to the majority

Sarah x

It doens’t matter if we change it, it is still objectively true. Now, please answer this:

If we were to implement Moral Relativism on a grand scale, would we need lawyers, judges, courts, and policemen?

If we were to implement Moral Relativism on a grand scale, would there be any peace, or just more chaos??

Really, just think about it, we cannot logically have moral relativism at work. Right is still right even if no one is doing it, wrong is still wrong,even if everyone is doing it. Just because the majority jump the bandwagon (A logical fallacy btw), doesn’t mean that it is any less or more right.

I want you to answer my above questions, and think about it, I mean logically its a no brainer…

 

[mymamamary]

Some will do this from empathy. Some from others encouraging the action. Some because it can be an effective PR move (or even to seem “good” to close associates). Some will argue it’s socialism, some will argue that by feeding the poor you are removing their incentive for trying to put themselves in a better position in life. I share this not in disagreement with you. But to illustrate that there seem to be a variety of views on this relatively simple issue of whether or not to be charitable to the less fortunate. There are some equally diverse views on to do for the sick.

But there is still something inside of the human heart that drives us to do so, under whatever political term you want to classify it…

 

[Brendan]

What’s objectively right and wrong?

And I ask again - who’s objective morality?

Sarah x

Objective morality is time and location independent. What is wrong is always wrong, no matter who does it, when it is done or where it is done.

In Subjective morality, an act can be moral or immoral depending on the situation.

For example, genocide.

In an objective morality system, that is always wrong. One cannot be voted the power to exterminate a population, nor was it acceptable when Romans did it, but not acceptable when Nazis did it. It is always and forever wrong.

In a subjective system, genocide may or may not be wrong, depending on who does it and when.

Atheism requires a subjective morality, as there is no external source of moral truth. ‘Human rights’ only exist because people agree ( essentially voted) that they exist, but could change if people change their minds. There can be no objective distinction between what the Nazis did in their camps and what Mother Theresa did in her shelters, it only falls on how people perceive it and when. There is no absolute right and wrong in subjective morality.

 

[mymamamary]

I dont think you can give me a convincing, conclusive answer on how Moral Relativism would benefit society.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I dont think you can give me a convincing, conclusive answer on how Moral Relativism would benefit society.

I’ve not seen that any one has tried to argue that “Moral Relativism would benefit society.” (note: I thought this thread was on “subjectivism”, not “relativism”). What I’ve seen thus far presented is that (1) there have been many inhumane and cruel acts/laws implemented by what has been labeled as “objective morality” and that (2a) there hasn’t yet been a reliable way of “discovering” this objective morality and (2b) different groups have come to different conclusions on what is objectively moral, all claiming to have gotten their morality for the source for morals (3) The evaluation of the morality of an action isn’t always independent of the conditions under which that action was performed. From the outside looking in how does some one determine the truth value of the statements of any of these groups?

There are two threads going on right on Objective Morality. Last week I thought someone made a post that illustrated 2b rather well. I know you were a participant in the thread and have already seen the post. But I’ve decided to re-post a section of it since others in this thread may be interested.

…]Consider the difference in the morality of a Catholic and an observant Jew, for instance.

Observant Jew: “the consumption of pork is against the commandment of God and is intrinsically immoral.”

Catholic: “I believe the consumption of pork is neither moral, nor immoral. Our religion believes that all meats are clean. Whether or not to consume pork is not a matter of morality at all, but of subjective preference.”

Observant Jew: “circumcision is commanded by God, as per the Bible.”

Catholic: “circumcision is neither moral nor immoral. It is a matter of subjective preference for parents, whether they want to circumcise their male children, or not.”

From the perspective of the observant Jew, the Catholic may indeed seem rather relativistic in his thinking. In reality, however, the Catholic does have an objective morality – quite rigorous, in its own terms – simply one that is different than the objective morality of the observant Jew. …]

See the original post for the full content.

 

[atheistgirl]

It doens’t matter if we change it, it is still objectively true.

I happen to agree it was never morally acceptable to own another human being. However, in the past, many faith institutions and social institutions would have disagreed with me.

I happen to agree it was never morally acceptable to drive my ancestors from their land and steal it from them, forcing thousands to die of sickness and starvation, but many Christian institutions and government institutions would have disagreed with me.

I happen to agree it was never morally acceptable to deny women work, a vote, education, but many Christian institutions and government institutions would have disagreed with me.

And it is thanks to many great humanist and secularist women and men, and some men and women of faith, that these things changed, very slowly, over time, to the point where they were enshrined in law.

But your morality doesn’t protect me.

There are still plenty of folk about who would see me as nothing but a diminutive sexy squaw, who’d happily use me as a play thing, deny me an education, use me as slave labor, treat me as a rabbit for breeding, and deny my most basic human rights. Oh yes, plenty of those folks about still.

It’s the law that protects me from them. Not your objective morality.

Now, please answer this:
If we were to implement Moral Relativism on a grand scale, would we need lawyers, judges, courts, and policemen?
If we were to implement Moral Relativism on a grand scale, would there be any peace, or just more chaos??

You now seem to be talking about anarchy. Of course we need lawyers and police and courts. That’s because as a society, we’ve decided what’s acceptable, degrees of acceptability, and what’s not acceptable.

We’ve arrived at these conclusions, which are fluid, from our understanding of the sciences, mental health, biology, psychology, and our understanding and experience of human empathy and what makes for a healthy, productive, co-operative society.

That’s why we don’t send people who are seriously mentally ill, who kill, to the death chamber any more. That’s why we don’t always send someone who kills accidentally to prison for life, and don’t charge them with murder in the first degree.

That’s why we distinguish now between theft, and kleptomania. We didn’t always do so.

All relative, see?

Really, just think about it, we cannot logically have moral relativism at work.

We can, and we do, and I’m glad for it.

If the judiciary were to just adopt the absolute position that theft is theft, regardless of the circumstances, we would still have starving families sent to a penal colony in Australia for stealing a loaf of bread to stave off death, and little old women suffering from psychological disorders and kleptomania would have their hands cut off for stealing a tin of beans.

Sarah x

 

[mymamamary]

I happen to agree it was never morally acceptable to own another human being. However, in the past, many faith institutions and social institutions would have disagreed with me.

I happen to agree it was never morally acceptable to drive my ancestors from their land and steal it from them, forcing thousands to die of sickness and starvation, but many Christian institutions and government institutions would have disagreed with me.

I happen to agree it was never morally acceptable to deny women work, a vote, education, but many Christian institutions and government institutions would have disagreed with me.

And it is thanks to many great humanist and secularist women and men, and some men and women of faith, that these things changed, very slowly, over time, to the point where they were enshrined in law.

But your morality doesn’t protect me.

There are still plenty of folk about who would see me as nothing but a diminutive sexy squaw, who’d happily use me as a play thing, deny me an education, use me as slave labor, treat me as a rabbit for breeding, and deny my most basic human rights. Oh yes, plenty of those folks about still.

It’s the law that protects me from them. Not your objective morality.

You seem to be talking about anarchy. Of course we need lawyers and police and courts. That’s because as a society, we’ve decided what’s acceptable, degrees of acceptability, and what’s not acceptable.

We’ve arrived at these conclusions, which are fluid, from our understanding of the sciences, mental health, biology, psychology, and our understanding and experience of human empathy and what makes for a healthy, productive, co-operative society.

That’s why we don’t send people who are seriously mentally ill, who kill, to the death chamber. That’s why we don’t always send someone who kills accidentally to prison for life, and don’t charge them with murder in the first degree.

That’s why we distinguish now between theft, and kleptomania. We didn’t always do so.

All relative, see?

We can, and we do, and I’m glad for it.

If the judiciary were to just adopt the absolute position that theft is theft, regardless of the circumstances, we would still have starving families sent to a penal colony in Australia for stealing a loaf of bread to stave off death, and little old women suffering from psychological disorders and kleptomania would have their hands cut off for stealing a tin of beans.

Sarah x

I realise all this. However, The topic of this thread shifted from subjectivism to Relativism. Anyway, Relativism is wrong

Also, just because people want to take a subjective stance on objective moral issues that still doesn’t mean that there are objective morals. Like I have said before, There is an objective moral code. Now, the cirumstances in which one violates it are subjective, e.g., killing in defense, stealing because your poor etc, however the code itself is objective. Human law is highly subjective though, not something I would want to place my peace of mind in. Hitler had human laws, which were subjective and relative only to a certain people. So did stalin, pol pot etc.

It cannot be all relative. Our understanding of an objective moral law changed, so the only thing I see being relative and subjective is our perception of the objective moral code.

 

[Brendan]

I happen to agree it was never morally acceptable to own another human being. However, in the past, many faith institutions and social institutions would have disagreed with me.

I happen to agree it was never morally acceptable to drive my ancestors from their land and steal it from them, forcing thousands to die of sickness and starvation, but many Christian institutions and government institutions would have disagreed with me.

I happen to agree it was never morally acceptable to deny women work, a vote, education, but many Christian institutions and government institutions would have disagreed with me.)

But now you have to ask yourself, WHY are those things always immoral. By what authority?

Was it human agreement that such activities are immoral ( because, if so, you have rendered your argument invalid by your own points)

If it was not human agreement how are those acts are forever immoral? Where is the extra human moral authority coming from?

 

[mymamamary]

But now you have to ask yourself, WHY are those things always immoral. By what authority?

Was it human agreement that such activities are immoral ( because, if so, you have rendered your argument invalid by your own points)

If it was not human agreement how are those acts are forever immoral? Where is the extra human moral authority coming from?

Thank You!!

 

[atheistgirl]

Human law is highly subjective though, not something I would want to place my peace of mind in.

I’ll take my chances with human law every time, rather than any kind of theocracy.

I’ve got my getaway money stashed for if and when things ever turn real bad

Our understanding of an objective moral law changed, so the only thing I see being relative and subjective is our perception of the objective moral code.

Your moral objectivity, isn’t someone elses moral objectivity.

See the posts about the Orthodox Jews and pork

Sarah x

 

[mymamamary]

I happen to agree it was never morally acceptable to own another human being. However, in the past, many faith institutions and social institutions would have disagreed with me.

I happen to agree it was never morally acceptable to drive my ancestors from their land and steal it from them, forcing thousands to die of sickness and starvation, but many Christian institutions and government institutions would have disagreed with me.

I happen to agree it was never morally acceptable to deny women work, a vote, education, but many Christian institutions and government institutions would have disagreed with me.

And it is thanks to many great humanist and secularist women and men, and some men and women of faith, that these things changed, very slowly, over time, to the point where they were enshrined in law.

But your morality doesn’t protect me.

There are still plenty of folk about who would see me as nothing but a diminutive sexy squaw, who’d happily use me as a play thing, deny me an education, use me as slave labor, treat me as a rabbit for breeding, and deny my most basic human rights. Oh yes, plenty of those folks about still.

It’s the law that protects me from them. Not your objective morality.

You now seem to be talking about anarchy. Of course we need lawyers and police and courts. That’s because as a society, we’ve decided what’s acceptable, degrees of acceptability, and what’s not acceptable.

We’ve arrived at these conclusions, which are fluid, from our understanding of the sciences, mental health, biology, psychology, and our understanding and experience of human empathy and what makes for a healthy, productive, co-operative society.

That’s why we don’t send people who are seriously mentally ill, who kill, to the death chamber any more. That’s why we don’t always send someone who kills accidentally to prison for life, and don’t charge them with murder in the first degree.

That’s why we distinguish now between theft, and kleptomania. We didn’t always do so.

All relative, see?

We can, and we do, and I’m glad for it.

If the judiciary were to just adopt the absolute position that theft is theft, regardless of the circumstances, we would still have starving families sent to a penal colony in Australia for stealing a loaf of bread to stave off death, and little old women suffering from psychological disorders and kleptomania would have their hands cut off for stealing a tin of beans.

Sarah x

You are also wrong, it is because of my morality, which transcends the law, that protects me from you so to speak. It is because of my morality and the objectivenss that I don’t see you as an object, someone to degrade, enslave or mistreat. It is because of my morality that I see you as a Child of GOD and thus, respect You incredibly for it. It is because of my Love for GOD that I love You as well, as I love all human being. I even try to love those who hate me. Now that is a standard of morality that no earthly human law could even hope to approach…

 

[Julia_Mae]

Hm, then let me change my stance. Until the LORD returns, injustice and bad leadership is going to be ruling king in this world. No monarch or government is any good. My government is CHRIST JESUS and HIS Church.

Well, I think it’s a cop-out, but whatever.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Well then, forget murder. Any breaking of the law. Is that not an imposition of an objective value upon another? Don’t You see what I am getting at? Morality in general, even societial, has objective moral values. Relativsim just does not work, …

It doesn’t have objective moral values, it has specific definition that’s relative and subjective in terms of what the culture believes.

Different cultures define “wrongness” under the law differently. In the past, a Pope killed a bunch of Franciscans because they disagreed with him about Jesus owning property. I think if the Pope did this to SSPX “Bishops” today, we’d think he was wrong.

 

[mymamamary]

I’ll take my chances with human law every time, rather than any kind of theocracy.

I’ve got my getaway money stashed for if and when things ever turn real bad

Your moral objectivity, isn’t someone elses moral objectivity.

See the posts about the Orthodox Jews and pork

Sarah x

Dietray laws, Not Concsience.

I cannot equate eating Pork, even for Orthodox Jews, with mass genocide and abortion. Plus, that is a biblical law, which at one time was legal and valid. Not a trandscdenent human moral law, for eg. killing WITH ABSOLUTLEY NO USE or PURPOSE aka Murder.