Objective Morality

[grannymh]

I don’t think someone wants to kill me. We were using the phrase as an example. :coffeeread:

Sorry to be so cranky. I do need my morning Pepsi.

This is the example which can stand independently.

From post 74 “I am of the opinion that someone wants to kill me” = “I think someone wants to kill me”.

This is a fact claim. Just like any other fact claim, it could be wrong.

It would be quite a different thing to say that I *feel *like someone wants to kill me. This would not be a fact claim, of course.

My question regarding important whats and/or whys of the example is similar to the question I posed in Post 75. “Shouldn’t someone, pro or con, be able to tell me what a “morality” is and what a “moral” is?”

Obvioulsy, I have no patience with ivory tower discussions regarding how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. In my humble opinion, leaving out the what and why results in a non-practical example similar to counting athletic angels and discounting uncoordinated angles.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not referring to all the wonderful discussions about how the mind and brain work together, etc. etc. and how thoughts are formed and concepts processed and images retained, etc., etc

What I am referring to are the skills needed to refute relativism which is more damaging than mere subjectivism. This may be shocking, but subjective reasoning can seek truth just as objective reasoning can seek truth. The operative words are can seek. Speaking as an outsider, in my humble opinion, a glaring problem in some discussions is the inability to discern the use of the arguments known as either/or and both/and. Also missing are some old analytical skills which were used in the days when a taxi was called to deliver a “breaking news story” to the media.

I really do need to get my morning Pepsi.

 

[dskysmine]

“morality - a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behavior and character, or the quality of being right and honest” – Cambridge

I’m saying that it is an abstraction for a set of thoughts, decisions and actions. There is no need to postulate a “moral center” in our minds, although neuroscience may give us an answer. Personally, I find the homosexual act repulsive but not immoral, exactly the same as for Japanese opera. I am not disconnected from some moral cosmos in those decisions but am simply making a value judgment based on my experiences and beliefs. Morality is not an object, it is a collection of instincts and learned responses that we lump together after the fact.

If we disagree about the morality of Japanese opera then we need to collectively look at it from all angles and then make personal decisions in love.

According to such reasoning we can’t admit that Hitler was “objectively” bad… only that we didn’t like what he did or that we find it repulsive. What makes us right and nazis wrong? Only the fact that we beat them in a war… So in your “opinion”, “might makes right” which makes our entire law system an “Ochlocracy”, or a “tyranny of the majority”.
Is my understanding of what you are saying correct?

 

[inocente]

What I am referring to are the skills needed to refute relativism which is more damaging than mere subjectivism.

It is afternoon here and the temperature is above 40 C (> 100 F) so my googling skills are not top notch. However, I believe myself to be a very hot partly relativistic slightly scientist objectivist Baptist on my second carton of orange juice. Enjoy the Pepsi.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wanstronian

Objective morality, to me, means a code of morals that is immutable, universal, and holds true even if there are no sentient beings around to conform to it. The sort of code that God, if he existed, would put in place and say, “This is it. No deviations. No loose interpretations.”

Except for the bold part, I would agree to your definition. How could an objective morality exist if there was no one around to exercise it? In effect, what you are saying is that objective morality must be materialistic, or it cannot exist. That is, it must be composed of detectable atoms and molecules, and it must be possible to examine it under a microscope even if there were no humans in existence to examine it. If you insist on this part of your definition being valid, I would have to stop the discussion at this point, because there is no way I can make a case for objective morality if you insist that such a morality must be materialistically visible.

In point of fact, morality as an attribute of humans, and humans only. Only with that concession would it be possible to prove the existence of objective morality … or even subjective morality for that matter.

 

[inocente]

According to such reasoning we can’t admit that Hitler was “objectively” bad… only that we didn’t like what he did or that we find it repulsive. What makes us right and nazis wrong? Only the fact that we beat them in a war… So in your “opinion”, “might makes right” which makes our entire law system an “Ochlocracy”, or a “tyranny of the majority”.
Is my understanding of what you are saying correct?

No. (I resisted the temptation to add exclamation marks in this heat - what’s it like in Porto?).

We went to war in self defense against the barbarism and to stop the tyranny. Even if Hitler had won, those of us in our right minds (just about everyone else) would have defeated the Nazis eventually. We’ve always done that kind of thing throughout history, it’s who we are. We may be a long way from perfect but we can have faith in humanity as well as in God.

 

[dskysmine]

wanstronian

Objective morality, to me, means a code of morals that is immutable, universal, and holds true even if there are no sentient beings around to conform to it. The sort of code that God, if he existed, would put in place and say, “This is it. No deviations. No loose interpretations.”

Except for the bold part, I would agree to your definition. How could an objective morality exist if there was no one around to exercise it? In effect, what you are saying is that objective morality must be materialistic, or it cannot exist. That is, it must be composed of detectable atoms and molecules, and it must be possible to examine it under a microscope even if there were no humans in existence to examine it. If you insist on this part of your definition being valid, I would have to stop the discussion at this point, because there is no way I can make a case for objective morality if you insist that such a morality must be materialistically visible.

In point of fact, morality as an attribute of humans, and humans only. Only with that concession would it be possible to prove the existence of objective morality … or even subjective morality for that matter.

If you don’t agree that morality can exist without humans you cannot assert that God exists without humans because they are both metaphysical, then I would ask you how are you Catholic…?

No. (I resisted the temptation to add exclamation marks in this heat - what’s it like in Porto?).

We went to war in self defense against the barbarism and to stop the tyranny. Even if Hitler had won, those of us in our right minds (just about everyone else) would have defeated the Nazis eventually. We’ve always done that kind of thing throughout history, it’s who we are. We may be a long way from perfect but we can have faith in humanity as well as in God.

I’m sorry if I understood you incorrectly but you are not making sense. Who says that Hitler was barbaric and a tyrant other than people who don’t agree with him? Why do you say that the Nazis weren’t in their right mind? Many psychiatrists examined Nazis and found no “mental disease” that could explain their behaviour. If you have “faith” in “humanity” you must “know” something I do not because I only have faith in God. People can and will do whatever they “feel like” doing. You can no more call Hitler a barbarian without the acknowledgment that he is in fact evil and that Evil is real and objective, and that it doesn’t exist only in our minds. Is that how you think?

 

[grannymh]

“morality - a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behavior and character, or the quality of being right and honest” – Cambridge

Interesting dictionary site. Thank you. I did a bit of exploring.

The operative word or lynch pin or keystone in the above definition is standards. Without knowing the standards, morality in practical life falls apart.

As you can tell in post 81, I am not a fan of ivory tower discussions. Standards for me means real standards which are based on ? The “what” is necessary to understand the word standards.

I’m saying that it is an abstraction for a set of thoughts, decisions and actions. There is no need to postulate a “moral center” in our minds, although neuroscience may give us an answer. Personally, I find the homosexual act repulsive but not immoral, exactly the same as for Japanese opera. I am not disconnected from some moral cosmos in those decisions but am simply making a value judgment based on my experiences and beliefs. Morality is not an object, it is a collection of instincts and learned responses that we lump together after the fact.

Morality has many different senses. As I prefer the real life both/and I can accept the idea that morality is not an object per se; but this does not mean I automatically rule out other uses of the word.

In the old days of journalistic analytical skills, these questions must be answered – What is this collection of instincts based on? What is the fact? What are the learned responses? What do the learned responses lead to? Is any of this connected to the standards mentioned in the definition for morality and how so?

My apology – but the posts are flying too fast for me to respond properly.

One good thing is that I am observing why people can’t deal with Hitler-type situations and also why theists and non-theists have trouble with discerning right from wrong.

In post 85, you commented: “We may be a long way from perfect but we can have faith in humanity as well as in God.”

Not only are you right, you have personally inspired me to try another approach to this discussion. Nonetheless, please continue the thought of faith in humanity as well as in God.

The current problem is that I may not be able to post for awhile due to traveling and my procrastination in getting a laptop computer. And, unfortunately, another thread has priority.

Blessings,
granny

The search for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[grannymh]

It is afternoon here and the temperature is above 40 C (> 100 F) so my googling skills are not top notch. However, I believe myself to be a very hot partly relativistic slightly scientist objectivist Baptist on my second carton of orange juice. Enjoy the Pepsi.

I may have to switch to partly, slightly left-over orange juice. I’m running out of Pepsi.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*If you don’t agree that morality can exist without humans you cannot assert that God exists without humans because they are both metaphysical, then I would ask you how are you Catholic…? *

God can easily exist without humans, and certainly did so before the creation of the human race. Right? I believe that is the Catholic point of view.
*
Why do you say that the Nazis weren’t in their right mind? Many psychiatrists examined Nazis and found no “mental disease” that could explain their behaviour. *

If you can get a copy, try reading a secret wartime report titled The Mind of Adolf Hitler, by psychoanalyst Walter C. Langer. It was finally released for publication in 1972, and reveals Hitler to be a complete and predictable lunatic. A man is judged by his deeds, don’t you think? He tried to destroy all religions and is the only person in history who came rather close to doing it.

 

[edwest2]

For me, this discussion either starts with man or it starts with God, Here, there is a primary interest in finding a “man only” version of objective morality. A generic, one size fits all morality.

Right now, from a particular point of view, no such morality exists. However, all versions begin with a worldview. One current, heavily marketed worldview is radical individualism. “No one can tell me what to do.” It sometimes purposely seeks out “new” ideas from self-defined experts. And it is sometimes obsessed with Change, as if change were the only reason for living. It sometimes opposes old ideas simply because they are old. The error there is that ‘great literature’ and ‘the wisdom of the ages’ did not acquire such special titles for nothing. Man has been around for a while. That’s why we can read ancient Greek plays and relate to them. The fundamental man has not changed.

So, at various points along the way, man has come up with a few good ideas to help all of us live together in a more fair and equitable way. Problems occur when “new” and sometimes really bad ideas get created by people with much education but little real wisdom. Sometimes experiments occur out of intellectual boredom and/or a desire to simply move the social furniture around. Example: “I know. Let’s create bussing! That way we can help desegregation.” Didn’t work.

Here, the Catholic Answer is simpler, but sometimes difficult to put into practice because of pride, ego and a lot of negative encouragement from the world around us. God has revealed our authentic humanity to us. We need to accept Him as Lord and Savior and acknowledge our fallen, sinful natures. This, of course, sounds ridiculous to those who think the human mind is the only source of real knowledge about anything, but the Christian faith is not just about faith and morals. Catholics are encouraged to get a solid education in obvious world issues as well.

So even if you don’t believe in God, there is much wisdom in the Christian tradition.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ed West

*For me, this discussion either starts with man or it starts with God, Here, there is a primary interest in finding a “man only” version of objective morality. A generic, one size fits all morality. *

The one-size-fits-all morality is a virtual impossibility. That is because men have conflicting interests, and if allowed to create their own morality (absent God) they will invariably create a thousand moralities. The curse of moral relativism will follow, which is where we are today. Ayn Rand hoped for an objectivist morality without God, and she argued that such a morality could be found in the power of human Reason. However, the world has seen over and over how much of a trickster Reason can be. When Reason, without God, becomes the ultimate arbiter of truth and morality, we can be sure the Devil is in the details. Satan is of all things a divider, and by dividing he conquers. This is why the force of Christianity has been diminished in modern times. Every man wants to set up himself, rather than God, as the ultimate decider of truth and morality.

 

[dskysmine]

*If you don’t agree that morality can exist without humans you cannot assert that God exists without humans because they are both metaphysical, then I would ask you how are you Catholic…? *

God can easily exist without humans, and certainly did so before the creation of the human race. Right? I believe that is the Catholic point of view.

If your argument is only that morality didn’t exist before Humans were created and no “evil” or “good” existed, accordingly anyone can argue that God was not “good” nor “evil” and hence it makes no sense to assert that the “Catholic God” exists… understand?

Why do you say that the Nazis weren’t in their right mind? Many psychiatrists examined Nazis and found no “mental disease” that could explain their behaviour. *

If you can get a copy, try reading a secret wartime report titled The Mind of Adolf Hitler, by psychoanalyst Walter C. Langer. It was finally released for publication in 1972, and reveals Hitler to be a complete and predictable lunatic. A man is judged by his deeds, don’t you think? He tried to destroy all religions and is the only person in history who came rather close to doing it.

I wasn’t talking about Hitler specifically… I was talking about the Nazis in general. Of course some of them had mental diseases but the “Nazi” ideology isn’t a mental disease… or a biological disease that was spread at that time. People made “reasonable”
assertions about what was right and what was wrong.
I advise you to read this book:
apa.org/monitor/2009/03/nazi.aspx
It isn’t a particular easy read, but it deals very specifically with this subject.

 

[grannymh]

Here’s a different thought, you all can ponder over the weekend.

The reason or basis for morality is that in his own nature, the human being unites the spiritual and material worlds.

We are in the Image of God because we, alone, are called to share through knowledge and love in God’s own life. Being in the Image of God, the human individual possesses the dignity of a person who is not just some casual thing. That fact places the human person as the pinnacle of creation and is sufficient reason that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

People who have difficulty with the concept of a transcendent, supernatural being can use natural science to arrive at the conclusion that the human species is different in kind from all other species. Consequently, being the pinnacle of creation with a rational/corporeal nature, the human species is worthy of profound respect. Due to the current ban, it is not possible for me to present this argument in full. Furthermore, there is no “burden of proof” for me to prove the existence of God.

Back to human life. The nature of human life is what makes human life intrinsically valuable. Part of the intrinsic value is the use of reason and the ability to choose from different options. Briefly, this means that 1) each individual is in herself and himself worthy of profound respect. But, at the same time, 2) each individual is free to respect human life or not respect human life through a personal choice of actions. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to spot the possible clashes between these two concepts.

Before one can even address issues of morality, one has to be clear on how the two above concepts interact because they do interact often in a variety of ways both good and not so good.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Back to human life. The nature of human life is what makes human life intrinsically valuable. Part of the intrinsic value is the use of reason and the ability to choose from different options. Briefly, this means that 1) each individual is in herself and himself worthy of profound respect. But, at the same time, 2) each individual is free to respect human life or not respect human life through a personal choice of actions. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to spot the possible clashes between these two concepts.

Well put!

 

[wanstronian]

By which, you mean that the two mean exactly the same thing, right? To express a value is simply to say that you prefer something to be a certain way.

But then, I think it’s a bit unhelpful – in a serious conversation like this – for a subjectivist to say that they have an *opinion *about a moral claim. Rather, you might say, “I prefer that, too.”

Huh?

“I am of the opinion that someone wants to kill me” = “I think someone wants to kill me”.

This is a fact claim. Just like any other fact claim, it could be wrong.

It would be quite a different thing to say that I *feel *like someone wants to kill me. This would not be a fact claim, of course.

No, you’ve missed the point, which is that while conflating opinion and preference for a value claim is valid (or can be), conflating them for a fact claim isn’t.

 

[grannymh]

No, you’ve missed the point, which is that while conflating opinion and preference for a value claim is valid (or can be), conflating them for a fact claim isn’t.

Are you able to describe what a value claim is and the process involved in arriving at that designation?

Are you able to describe what a fact claim is and the process involved in arriving at that designation?

Are you able to describe what is meant by a claim, that is, who, how, what, when, where, why, cost?

Thank you.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No, you’ve missed the point, which is that while conflating opinion and preference for a value claim is valid (or can be), conflating them for a fact claim isn’t.

Huh?

When I say “It’s my opinion that the Earth revolves around the sun,” this is exactly translated by my **assertion **“The Earth revolves around the sun.” If not, then what has the former statement got that the latter statement doesn’t have?

To assert something means to say that it is true – in other words, to say that, in my opinion, it is true.

 

[inocente]

I’m sorry if I understood you incorrectly but you are not making sense.

This is an edit of a post I made today on the other thread that may explain.

First, I’m worrying that we are getting into Romans 14 territory. We are clearly both astonished at each other, and if timeless moral truths are part of the Catholic faith then I’m not trying to undo them, just argue a position.

There’s also a possible issue in the difference between objectivity and collective subjectivity, which is fertile ground for misunderstandings. The latter says that there are universal concepts that are only to be found inside our heads, and much of what we take to be objective cannot be found outside our heads.

God is love. I’m saying that through love God gave us a process to decide what is good and bad. We may have a few moral instincts such as don’t bite the hand that feeds you, and much of our morality doesn’t change much, giving the appearance of being timeless.

The Rom 14 issue is that you can say I’m whittling away at the reasons why we should believe, and I can argue that science may eventually cause you a minor upset by locating morality in dynamic processes in the brain.

For me, the moral teaching of the Gospel is an exploration of love. We come closer to God not by rigidly following laws but through a deeper revelation of love. We sin when we don’t act in love. 1 Cor 13 may be chocolate box, it may be simplistically (and accidentally?) paraphrased in All You Need Is Love, but even by itself, even for an atheist, it’s a mighty fine moral code.

We are fallen, but there are secular democracies that don’t rely on God to make people do the right thing, and many atheists, humanists, etc. who don’t go around doing evil. My position is that through love God equipped all of us to overcome our inclinations, and it is the only timeless moral truth we need. That’s what I mean by faith in humanity.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

We are fallen, but there are secular democracies that don’t rely on God to make people do the right thing, and many atheists, humanists, etc. who don’t go around doing evil. My position is that through love God equipped all of us to overcome our inclinations, and it is the only timeless moral truth we need. That’s what I mean by faith in humanity.

It’s certainly true that not all atheists are busy doing evil.

Your faith in humanity is touching. Please point us to a successful secular democracy that doesn’t rely on God to make people do the right thing.

I’d remind you that the great tyrannies of the 20th Century came from countries whose leaders chose to persecute religion: Hitler, Stalin, Mao. All atheists.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Objective morality, if it exists, should refer to actions that are always good or evil, without exception. To say that no such actions exist requires that one be able to prove that there are exceptions to the rule. For examples: What exception is there to the rule that it is wicked to punish the innocent? What exception is there to the rule that a woman should never be raped? What exception is there to the rule that love is always a moral, rather than an immoral act? I could go on with thousands of such questions, for which I think any subjectivist would be hard pressed to find an exception.