Objective morality

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair
**
On what basis do you deny that they do so, since Jesus Christ actively preached, according to the Gospel texts, that the Jewish scriptures were to be followed, to the letter and beyond?**

Can you provide the exact quote where Jesus said this? Context is everything.

 

[Sair]

im using moral as an adjective. i dont doubt atheists and theists can share in this context, but this is beside the point for me. im only talking about objective morality, or moral objectivity. there are actually many atheists who believe in objective morality also.

In my experience, many of the atheists who do thus claim to believe in objective morality tend to be Randians, whom I have seen do little more than simply assert that morality exists as a set of rules for human flourishing.

Perhaps there is a subtle yet important distinction to be drawn between ‘objective morality’ and ‘moral objectivity’. In the one sense, if ‘morality’ exists as an objective entity, that means it is there to be discovered, not something we invent or something that arises from our subjective nature. On the other hand, if ‘moral’ is simply a description of certain kinds of behaviours in certain situations, then it’s quite possible to consider such behaviours objectively - after all, if ‘objective’ means simply ‘mind-independent’, then the behaviours and feelings of others are, from my perspective, an object, independent of my consciousness.

Thus, one could say it is an objective fact, as far as I am concerned, that my neighbour would prefer not to be murdered. Thus far, I have no (name removed by moderator)ut into this state of affairs. However, once we get to consideration of whether I share my neighbour’s preference for not being murdered, and whether that shared preference is a compelling enough reason for me not to murder my neighbour, now we have entered the realm of subjectivity.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

**Unless there is a real objective fact as a standard or guide for evaluating actions, values and/or objecitve morality can change whenever someone has a different feeling about humanity. **

The Nazi view of morality, based as it is on hate, is a perfect example of morality based on feeling rather than reason.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

**Thus, one could say it is an objective fact, as far as I am concerned, that my neighbour would prefer not to be murdered. Thus far, I have no (name removed by moderator)ut into this state of affairs. However, once we get to consideration of whether I share my neighbour’s preference for not being murdered, and whether that shared preference is a compelling enough reason for me not to murder my neighbour, now we have entered the realm of subjectivity. **

I would have said just the opposite … now we are getting into an area of objectivity. The subjective is intensely personal, whereas the objective is more universal. The more people who agree about something being an evil act, the more likely it is that it is an evil act. What the Nazis did to the Jews was abhorrent to nearly all … except the Nazis and maybe some Muslims.

What the Muslims did to the Twin Towers was abhorrent to the world and was regarded as evil … except by some militant Muslims.

But the fact that some people found it good, and some people found it evil … is no ground for saying that the act could not be objectively evil.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, Jesus laid the foundation for universal objective morality when he said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” What was done to the Twin Towers was not what the militant Muslims would have had done to themselves.

 

[grannymh]

If a complete stranger walked up to you and stabbed you in your chest, then took your money … how would you describe this as anything less than objective evil? Are you going to say it’s only an evil by appearance, rather than in reality … and therefore is only subjective?

This example would serve as an interesting exercise in objective and subjective terminology found in a dictionary of your choice.

asdatoz.com/Documents/Website-%20Objective%20vs%20subjective%20ltr.pdf

atheism.about.com/od/philosophyphilosophers/a/ObjectiveSubjective.htm

The second link refers to philosophy. The first link is necessary basic information.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

This example would serve as an interesting exercise in objective and subjective terminology found in a dictionary of your choice.

I certainly wouldn’t go to an atheist website for definitions.

Jesus is my dictionary of choice. The rule he laid down, which applies to all (including those who stab others in the chest) is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” A violation of that universal rule of morality is an indulgence in the monster of subjectivity … that is … intensely personal sin!

 

[hazmat]

granny: that humans are worthy of profound respect isnt a fact.

charlemagne: i wouldnt call it objectvely evil; i would simply describe it as it was, being stabbed and robbed. that doesnt mean i wouldnt be angry, and wanting revenge, and/or wanting to stop that person from threatening me again.

sair: that morality exists is an objective fact. i dont disagree with that–just like i dont disagree with the objective fact that favorite tv shows exist. but thats not to say morality or preference for tv shows is objective.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hazmat

charlemagne: i wouldnt call it objectvely evil; i would simply describe it as it was, being stabbed and robbed.

Well then, we are at an impasse. You are denying the obvious.

 

[grannymh]

granny: that humans are worthy of profound respect isnt a fact.

I am capable of either kicking you or kissing you. You are a person, what are you worthy of? A kiss or a kick? Let me think this over.

You claim that humans being worthy of profound respect is not a fact. Therefore, I am free to perform either action and you will not mind since profound respect is not a fact. Which part of your body do you want me to kick?

 

[grannymh]

granny

This example would serve as an interesting exercise in objective and subjective terminology found in a dictionary of your choice.

Jesus is my dictionary of choice. The rule he laid down, which applies to all (including those who stab others in the chest) is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” A violation of that universal rule of morality is an indulgence in the monster of subjectivity … that is … intensely personal sin!

Jesus is a very good choice.

However, you did mention a philosophy dictionary. I did find a philosophy explanation.
I also found a basic guide to the differences between objective and subjective.
You may have missed these since I added them after I posted.

For the sake of general knowledge, would you mind taking a look at post 124?
Please.

atheism.about.com/od/philosophyphilosophers/a/ObjectiveSubjective.htm

asdatoz.com/Documents/Website-%20Objective%20vs%20subjective%20ltr.pdf

The above are links to objective vs. subjective

 

[Sair]

Sair

Thus, one could say it is an objective fact, as far as I am concerned, that my neighbour would prefer not to be murdered. Thus far, I have no (name removed by moderator)ut into this state of affairs. However, once we get to consideration of whether I share my neighbour’s preference for not being murdered, and whether that shared preference is a compelling enough reason for me not to murder my neighbour, now we have entered the realm of subjectivity.

I would have said just the opposite … now we are getting into an area of objectivity. The subjective is intensely personal, whereas the objective is more universal. The more people who agree about something being an evil act, the more likely it is that it is an evil act. What the Nazis did to the Jews was abhorrent to nearly all … except the Nazis and maybe some Muslims.

What the Muslims did to the Twin Towers was abhorrent to the world and was regarded as evil … except by some militant Muslims.

But the fact that some people found it good, and some people found it evil … is no ground for saying that the act could not be objectively evil.

What you are talking about here is intersubjectivity, not objectivity. Of course people share preferences - that does not mean that a mass preference for a particular state of affairs makes that state of affairs objectively right and other states objectively wrong. A moral fact is the same as a statement of preference for one state of affairs over another. How can it be anything else? Even if a god is cited as the source for these preferences, they are still a matter of preference, and that is subjective.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, Jesus laid the foundation for universal objective morality when he said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” What was done to the Twin Towers was not what the militant Muslims would have had done to themselves.

I’m not so sure about that - one never knows with fanatics who are willing to commit suicide for their cause. But the very essence of the golden rule is subjective - treat others the way you wish to be treated. This is simply an encapsulation of the ethic of reciprocity. Not to forget, either, the fact that people are always seeking excuses to treat others differently, by considering those others to be different and inferior to themselves. Furthermore, there are plenty of people to whom self-reflection simply doesn’t come naturally, who may not even consider what it would be like if someone treated them the way they treat others. Are these people to be considered objectively evil?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I will try not to bother you again.

What I am trying to figure out is – What is the standard upon which this objective morality is based? I’m thinking that maybe the word “standard” is more recognizable than foundation.

Hmmm…I personally don’t use the adjective “objective” when talking about issues of morality (semantic issues). A similar question might be “Why is there some consistency across cultures for some moral behaviours?”

I’m pretty darn sure the answer is rooted in empathy. Factors that impact one’s ability or likelihood to feel empathy for another person have often been shown to have in impact on how one person treats another. Some conditioning/teaching/messages/biological factors may increase or decrease the empathy that one is able to feel for another. Ever been watching a movie with a group of people and in the movie a male character gets hit in the groin? Ever noticed a lot of the male audience members groan when they see it? To some level that’s a reaction that could be said to be coming from empathy.

 

[Sair]

sair: that morality exists is an objective fact. i dont disagree with that–just like i dont disagree with the objective fact that favorite tv shows exist. but thats not to say morality or preference for tv shows is objective.

Quite so. It’s obviously a fact that certain behaviours and decisions are considered to be moral behaviours and decisions. My contention is and always has been that if we were not subjective beings, morality would not exist, simply because nobody would care what anyone did - behaviours that we consider matters of morality would be nothing more or less than matters of practical action.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

However, you did mention a philosophy dictionary. I did find a philosophy explanation.
I also found a basic guide to the differences between objective and subjective.

atheism.about.com/od/philosophyphilosophers/a/ObjectiveSubjective.htm

I enjoyed that! My favourite part of it was this:
About.com:

…]On the other hand, since people aren’t very familiar with these concepts, you may end up sending more time explaining the basics than debating the higher-level issues. That’s not objectively a bad thing, but it may be subjectively disappointing if it’s not what you were hoping to do.

We see a lot of that going on in this forum! But I am personally all for providing full(er) explanations for the sake of being better understood.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmmm…I personally don’t use the adjective “objective” when talking about issues of morality (semantic issues). A similar question might be “Why is there some consistency across cultures for some moral behaviours?”

I’m pretty darn sure the answer is rooted in empathy. Factors that impact one’s ability or likelihood to feel empathy for another person have often been shown to have in impact on how one person treats another. Some conditioning/teaching/messages/biological factors may increase or decrease the empathy that one is able to feel for another. Ever been watching a movie with a group of people and in the movie a male character gets hit in the groin? Ever noticed a lot of the male audience members groan when they see it? To some level that’s a reaction that could be said to be coming from empathy.

This is an interesting position, TS.

Christianity, then, seems to condition its members to be the best conduits of empathy, no? Given that we are all created in the image and likeness of God, and what happens to the least of our brothers happens to us, and we are one body…it does appear that the best way to develop empathy is to follow the Christian paradigm.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair
**
Furthermore, there are plenty of people to whom self-reflection simply doesn’t come naturally, who may not even consider what it would be like if someone treated them the way they treat others. Are these people to be considered objectively evil? **

No. They are to be considered subjectively ignorant or subjectively perverse.

This is why people go to jail. They have denied the objective value of treating others as they wish to be treated.

What thief wants to be stolen from?

What murderer wants to be murdered?

What chronic liar wants to be lied to?

For the above three characters you can bet that being treated the way they have treated others is an objective evil.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

**What you are talking about here is intersubjectivity, not objectivity. **

When ten people in a room agree that 2 plus 2 equals 4, are they stating an objective fact, or are they just being intersubjective?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

This is an interesting position, TS.

Christianity, then, seems to condition its members to be the best conduits of empathy, no?

I’m sure you’ll not mind me going down the philosophical rabbit hole of how one decides what is “best.”

Depends…, there’s a broad range of groups that call themselves “Christian.” Where I grew up those people could include some incredibly generous people to people promoting rather cruel propositions (ex: the Klu Klux Klan used to (past tense) have members outside the boundaries of popular places such as malls handing out flyers to promote some rather unfriendly suggestions. An extreme but very real example). Given a random group of people if I know nothing more about the people other than they all label themselves as Christian I wouldn’t say that I knew enough to make a guess how they had been conditioned (though given a local church with which I’ve got familiarity I may know about the members of the church being conditioned to be more sensitive to some things than others).

I could agree that some groups/churches promote more empathy/better conduct than others though.

 

[Sair]

Sair
**
Furthermore, there are plenty of people to whom self-reflection simply doesn’t come naturally, who may not even consider what it would be like if someone treated them the way they treat others. Are these people to be considered objectively evil? **

No. They are to be considered subjectively ignorant or subjectively perverse.

This is why people go to jail. They have denied the objective value of treating others as they wish to be treated.

What thief wants to be stolen from?

What murderer wants to be murdered?

What chronic liar wants to be lied to?

For the above three characters you can bet that being treated the way they have treated others is an objective evil.

For the most part, what happens to such people is because they do treat people in ways they would not wish to be treated, they spend their time expecting others to treat them that way, which is a miserable way to live. People absorb the kinds of behaviours they experience - that is why child abusers are often found to be the children of child abusers themselves. These are still subjective evils, however - if we were not subjective beings, as I said, we would not care - therefore it wouldn’t matter in anything other than a practical sense if we were stolen from, lied to or even murdered. These would just be things that happened that we had to deal with, rather like antelope have to deal with the persistent threat of being eaten by lions.

 

[hazmat]

Quite so. It’s obviously a fact that certain behaviours and decisions are considered to be moral behaviours and decisions. My contention is and always has been that if we were not subjective beings, morality would not exist, simply because nobody would care what anyone did - behaviours that we consider matters of morality would be nothing more or less than matters of practical action.

we would be slaves to truth, crippled by facts.