T
tonyrey
Guest
Then they might as well believe nothing exists outside the mind. That would be more consistent than picking what suits them. Then they could have everything their own way!
- Status
H
hazmat
Guest
how would one distinguish an objective morality from a subjective one?
S
Sair
Guest
That’s actually a mighty fine question.
There are plenty of people out there who mistake their personal beliefs and feelings for “the way things are” in a universal, mind-independent sense; and then seek to impose those beliefs and feelings upon others who don’t share them - often by ascribing their personal feelings to their deity-of-choice.
Certainly, there are things that are objectively harmful and objectively beneficial to living beings, including us. But morality is about finding reasons to do the things that are beneficial and avoid the things that are harmful, in a general sense.
I’ll try to illustrate with the simple example of a decision over whether or not to eat chicken. There’s no doubt that it’s objectively beneficial to me to eat chicken, from a nutritional perspective. But it’s also, undeniably, objectively harmful to the chicken! The factors involved, then, in my decision over whether to eat a chicken have to weigh the benefit to myself against the harm to the chicken, and I think this can only really be done from a subjective point of view.
If I don’t care, one way or the other, about chicken welfare, I will just eat chicken because it’s cheap and tasty (although even the tasty part is getting into the realm of subjective feelings). If I believe human life totally trumps all other life, I might similarly disregard the welfare of the chicken and eat it anyway because it will benefit me (and anyone else for whom I might be catering).
If, on the other hand, I believe the chicken’s life is of comparable value to my own, I would probably avoid eating it on that basis, and seek other, more humane, sources of nutrition in which no suffering is involved on the part of any sentient creature. For many people in Western nations, this is a readily available choice these days, and I’ve met plenty of people who’ve made it.
If I think that the chicken’s welfare matters while it is alive, but also believe it is perfectly natural (and also objectively beneficial) to consume meat, this will also affect my decisions, in the form of compelling me to buy chickens that have been raised in a humane, free-range fashion, and probably less often than I would if I were just unthinkingly guzzling factory-raised birds. There are objective considerations involved here also - it’s more expensive (but also more nutritionally sound) to consume free-range birds - but ultimately, the decision comes down to subjective preferences.
Some religious believers claim that the will of their god provides the basis for ‘objective’ morality, but I’m not sure how the preferences of a personal god are any less subjective than the preferences of a human person, or any other sentient creature. Some would also claim that without a god standing over us, or without the promise of eternal reward or the threat of eternal punishment, we would not feel compelled to act morally - but this is to misunderstand the power of subjective preference. Yes, of course there are objective facts involved in our decision-making. But I think it is the consideration of the subjective preferences of all interested parties - the moral calculus - that sets moral decisions apart from mere practical considerations. The only difference, for religious believers, is that they take into account the subjective preferences of their chosen deity, not just their fellow mortal beings.
S
Sair
Guest
But, as others have pointed out in many places, religious believers pick what suits them as well - why else eschew slavery, the preference of male-female rape over sodomy, the stoning of adulterers and disobedient children, the persecution of ‘witches’ and the belief in demon possession if this were not the case? So many believers claim their religion has a solid, consistent basis, when it has nothing of the kind…
G
grannymh
Guest
If one is talking about real life outside the ivory tower of hypothetical
value situations ------
In the real world, one cannot hope to describe any kind of morality values unless there is a basic, universal, objective truth which serves as a foundation for evaluating moral actions of human beings. The problems rest in the popular confusion between objective and subject terminology.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are confusing believers with Christianity!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
hazmat
how would one distinguish an objective morality from a subjective one?
Either by way of Scripture or by the natural powers of reason.
If one is not religious, the only instrument left is reason or intuition or common sense.
For example, everyone knows that lying is wrong. So is adultery. So is stealing. So is sodomy.
Most of the things we know to be objectively wrong are obviously wrong.
If anyone says they are objectively right, they have entered a subjective judgment; that is, they have decided by various mental excuses to justify wrongdoing.
They have decided to tell themselves a lie … the devil’s own first and favorite method of getting us into the subjective mode … as Adam and Eve discovered when it suited them to believe the serpent’s lie.
how would one distinguish an objective morality from a subjective one?
Either by way of Scripture or by the natural powers of reason.
If one is not religious, the only instrument left is reason or intuition or common sense.
For example, everyone knows that lying is wrong. So is adultery. So is stealing. So is sodomy.
Most of the things we know to be objectively wrong are obviously wrong.
If anyone says they are objectively right, they have entered a subjective judgment; that is, they have decided by various mental excuses to justify wrongdoing.
They have decided to tell themselves a lie … the devil’s own first and favorite method of getting us into the subjective mode … as Adam and Eve discovered when it suited them to believe the serpent’s lie.
G
grannymh
Guest
Lying to someone or even to oneself is disrespectful of the inherent value of the human person. Adultery is disrespectful of the human person’s worthiness to procreate. Stealing is disrespectful of the person’s responsibility for her or his possessions. Sodomy is disrespectful of the human person herself or himself.
Thus reason or intuition or common sense leads to the fact that the human person is worthy of profound respect.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
granny
**Thus reason or intuition or common sense leads to the fact that the human person is worthy of profound respect. **
As Chesterton said, the Catholic Church is a reservoir of common sense .
**Thus reason or intuition or common sense leads to the fact that the human person is worthy of profound respect. **
As Chesterton said, the Catholic Church is a reservoir of common sense .
G
grannymh
Guest
Yes, indeed!
I have said on CAF that the Catholic religion is logical which is why I like it. Would you believe I heard a priest say the same thing from the pulpit !!! He was telling about his decision to become a priest. He had been worried about studying theology since his background was science. He did great in theology.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
granny
He had been worried about studying theology since his background was science. He did great in theology.
Indeed, there have been a number of great Catholic scientists, contrary to the notion of people like Dawkins who believe that theology is for numbskulls.
He had been worried about studying theology since his background was science. He did great in theology.
Indeed, there have been a number of great Catholic scientists, contrary to the notion of people like Dawkins who believe that theology is for numbskulls.
H
hazmat
Guest
that doesnt answer the question; scripture or “natural powers of reason” could be providing subjective morality. its not enough for you to like a source, and just say it makes things objective. i can flip a coin to make “objective” decisions, but i still made the personal choice to defer to the coin. how do you validate that morality in scripture is objective, what is the criteria used to differentiate objective from subjective?hazmat
how would one distinguish an objective morality from a subjective one?
Either by way of Scripture or by the natural powers of reason.
If one is not religious, the only instrument left is reason or intuition or common sense.
For example, everyone knows that lying is wrong. So is adultery. So is stealing. So is sodomy.
Most of the things we know to be objectively wrong are obviously wrong.
If anyone says they are objectively right, they have entered a subjective judgment; that is, they have decided by various mental excuses to justify wrongdoing.
They have decided to tell themselves a lie … the devil’s own first and favorite method of getting us into the subjective mode … as Adam and Eve discovered when it suited them to believe the serpent’s lie.
G
grannymh
Guest
For fun.
If you are looking for information about which coin to flip.
An objective approach would be to measure the size and weight of the coin.
A subjective approach would be to think back to various coins and try to remember which one had the better odds.
If you want to decide which actions are moral, an objective approach would be to check out the object invovled. What is the object being acted upon. A coin?
H
hazmat
Guest
but youre still making the decision to settle it with a coin flip. if thats satisfactory for you, you can just as well decide whether something is morally right or wrong by flipping a coin, and this would be objective morality.
G
grannymh
Guest
So how did you choose the coin? Was it because of its size and weight in your hand?
Or that you finally remembered that an old worn quarter in a dresser drawer worked the best?
Or something else?
H
hazmat
Guest
this is assuming the coin has no preferred side (50/50).
G
grannymh
Guest
That is not my question. Note: I did some editing of post 74 to make the question easier.
Perhaps you are now basing your choice on your assumption about the coin. Could that be correct? Would you still be interested in the size and weight of the coin in your hand? Or is your assumption that the coin has no preferred side the reason for your choice?
What I am trying to demonstrate is the difference between objective thinking and subjective thinking. Please realize that both kinds of thinking are acceptable in the practical world.
Once one can figure out the difference between objective thinking and subjective thinking, then one can figure out that evaluations of moral actions can be based on objective thinking and subjective thinking. It is acceptable to use both subjective and objective thinking when evaluating moral actions. Then it is not too difficult to understand that if morality is to approach some kind of objective norm, then the evaluation of moral actions have to be based on an universal, objective truth.
Ooops. I keep forgetting that I look at morality as specific actions whereas most posters see morality in value terms.
H
hazmat
Guest
it could be any coin. the person choosing to flip a coin has no preference for which coin. the choice is to flip a coin at all–any coin. i know what is generally accepted as objective (e.g., a coin flip). but if objective morality can be achieved so simply, i imagine it would cheapen the idea of objective morality for those who subscribe to it.
B
Bezant
Guest
Interesting thread topic.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you for your reply.
- Status