What does it mean if morality does not objectively exist?

[Vera_Ljuba]

Hey Vera_Ljuba, sorry if we are overwhelming you with posts. You are handling it quite well

Very kind of you. But I see absolutely NO malice in the differing opinions, so there is no problem. And I always keep in mind the wise saying: “if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen”…

 

[neophyte]

We are talking about opinions here.

We’re talking about statements of fact.

Even if they accept that Jesus founded the church, it is comprised of fallible human beings. And there is no sign that the “holy spirit” would correct the members if and when they veer off the correct path

It’s really very simple. Having accepted that Jesus is God, and knowing that he promised that his Church would never teach false doctrine, the logical conclusion is that it will never teach false doctrine.

I hate to rub your nose into it, but the whole church hierarchy defended the pedophile members,…

Total, unadulterated nonsense, so lacking in foundation that it calls your powers of observation into question.

So we are back to blind obedience.

You’re back to that again? You appear to not be listening.

 

[Peter_J]

It all depends what you mean by the word “faith”. It is one of the most abused words. In Hebrews 11:1 it says: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” That is the description of “blind” faith, and it is categorically contradictory to reason.

You see that as a description of blind faith? It sounds to me more like what you said next,

One can use faith in the sense: “to accept something for which we have LESS than Cartesian evidence”.

 

[Ender]

I only say that mercy and justice cannot be fulfilled at the same time in the same relation. No approval or disapproval was implied.

Surely if we do something unjust, if we shade justice to achieve another end, we must be saying either that there are times when we may do what is unjust, or that what causes us to behave unjustly is a vice. Which is your position: that we can justify doing what is unjust, or that mercy is a vice?

Ender

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You see that as a description of blind faith? It sounds to me more like what you said next,

It is not simple. “Less” than Cartesian certainty could be represented by a number between “0” and “1” (where certainty would be “1”). Somewhere between these values we select an arbitrary point and declare that below that point it is faith, and above that it is a reasonable assumption. The available evidence could even contradict the belief, and that would be “blind” faith.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It’s really very simple. Having accepted that Jesus is God, and knowing that he promised that his Church would never teach false doctrine, the logical conclusion is that it will never teach false doctrine.

And what evidence do you have that Jesus is god, and that he established the church? Only the teaching of the church, nothing else. It is the usual circular reasoning. The church teaches that the church is infallible.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Surely if we do something unjust, if we shade justice to achieve another end, we must be saying either that there are times when we may do what is unjust, or that what causes us to behave unjustly is a vice. Which is your position: that we can justify doing what is unjust, or that mercy is a vice?

As usual, questions like this need to enumerate the exact circumstances. It cannot be answered in the abstract.

 

[Ender]

As usual, questions like this need to enumerate the exact circumstances. It cannot be answered in the abstract.

The circumstances are irrelevant. You have asserted that mercy and justice are incompatible, and cannot coexist in the same instance, presumably because to the extent that someone is merciful he is to that extent unjust. You have set the condition that mercy is unjust, so if you can create a circumstance where mercy is an appropriate response then either you are justifying being unjust…or mercy and justice are not opposed to one another. You can’t have it both ways, but if believe otherwise then try to invent whatever circumstances you can imagine to justify being merciful.

Ender

 

[neophyte]

And what evidence do you have that Jesus is god, and that he established the church?

The historical evidence proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Only the teaching of the church, nothing else. It is the usual circular reasoning

You either don’t know what the evidence is, don’t know what circular reasoning is, or both.

As for the OP, if there is no objective morality then words such as “right” and “wrong” are meaningless.

 

[Ender]

And what evidence do you have that Jesus is god, and that he established the church? Only the teaching of the church, nothing else. It is the usual circular reasoning. The church teaches that the church is infallible.

There are two basic ways a conclusion can be wrong: an assumption on which it is based is wrong, or the logic behind it is flawed. It is reasonable to argue that the assumptions behind Christianity are wrong, but once those choices are made there is nothing irrational or illogical about the conclusions it reaches.

Just as Christianity is based on the belief that God exists, so is atheism based on the belief that he does not. You have pointed out that there are any number of Catholics who disagree with this or that particular teaching. What this represents is an unwillingness to accept the implications of what they claim to believe, but while this is true of a lot of Christians, it is also true of virtually all atheists.

You believe morality exists even if only subjectively, yet that belief is not logical. I’ve challenged you several times to explain why Oskar Schindler’s actions can be considered morally better than “El Chapo” Guzman’s, and you have no explanation. You intuitively know that Schindler was moral while Guzman was not, but your belief leaves you no means of reaching such a conclusion.

You have said that justice and mercy are mutually exclusive, but you are unwilling to call either of them a vice and are unable to explain when we are justified in being unjust in order to be merciful.

Make what assumption you will about God’s existence, but once you have made that choice you should be willing to accept the logical consequences of that decision. So far you’ve been unwilling to do that. Regardless of the accuracy of your assumption about God, what you believe is wrong because the logic behind your conclusions is not supportable.

Ender

 

[PseuTonym]

So: can we behave morally if there is no such thing as an objectively true moral standard? Ignore for a bit the question of whether we can agree on what that standard might be, and just deal with the question I raised above.

Most people think of themselves as moral individuals: pretty much everyone has a moral code of some kind. The question is, is there any rational reason for having such a standard if morality exists only subjectively? As a practical matter it certainly makes sense to appear to follow the law and to be a “good” person, but appearing to be good and being good are not the same thing, especially if “good” itself is a meaningless attribute.

It appears to me that if right and wrong have no objective meaning then there is no reason to behave as if they did, which means that it makes no sense to have a moral standard. Why would I conform my behavior to a standard that doesn’t actually exist? Instead why shouldn’t I do whatever I perceive to be in my best interest, regardless of what that entails? As a practical matter I would want to appear like Dr. Jekyll, but in actuality I would want to act like Mr. Hyde.

Ender

First, it’s not clear how you reach the conclusion that acting like Mr. Hyde (a character from a work of fiction by Robert Louis Stevenson) would be acting in your best interest.

However, let’s suppose that you have reached the conclusion that it is in your best interest. Is there an objectively true standard of what is in your best interest? If there isn’t then we have to distinguish again between what appears to be and what actually is.

It appears to be in the interest of the fish to take the bait, but the hook and the inability to breathe outside of water changes the opinion of the fish.

Perhaps there should be a separate thread for the question: “Is there an objectively true standard of what is in your best interest?”

However, it might be difficult to create a coherent discussion on that topic. The problem is that any given participant (“P”) in the discussion – in the process of trying to describe an objectively true standard of what is in his or her own best interest – is likely to impose the requirement that P’s personal moral code be adhered to.

 

[Ender]

First, it’s not clear how you reach the conclusion that acting like Mr. Hyde (a character from a work of fiction by Robert Louis Stevenson) would be acting in your best interest.

Perhaps you can answer the question I posed to Vera_Ljuba: if morality does not objectively exist on what basis can you differentiate between the actions of Oskar Schindler (who saved thousands from the death camps in WWII), and Joachin “El Chapo” Guzman (who ran one of the most vicious drug cartels in Mexico)?

If your criterion is merely “do what’s in your best interest” then while we might debate whether this or that action really is in my best interest, that choice is a practical one, not a moral one. It puts deciding whether to murder and rob a stranger on the same level with choosing chicken salad for lunch over a burger and fries. This is the problem, and what it points out is that if you believe morality does not objectively exist then it is irrational to believe one can behave morally.

There are inevitable consequences for such a belief, as one very rational choice is that might makes right, and that if something benefits me there is no reason not to do it regardless of how harmful it is to others.

Ender

 

[PseuTonym]

Perhaps you can answer the question I posed to Vera_Ljuba: if … does not objectively exist , then] on what basis can you differentiate between the actions of … and the actions of … ?

The phrase “objectively exist” isn’t clear to me. Perhaps we can begin with an example that has nothing to do with your strategy for arriving at a particular answer to a particular question. If the phrase “objectively exist” is meaningful, then it should be possible to understand it without being confined to one particular question or one particular topic.

If somebody complains of an ache or pain, then there are various professional specialists who might be consulted, such as a dentist, or a physician who is a general practitioner. If the pain corresponds to a recognizable physical problem in some part of the body, then there is an objectively existing medical condition. However, is the ache or pain itself something that objectively exists?

 

[MarkInOregon]

Why don’t you ask all those Catholics, who disagree with the official line that contraception is wrong, that women should not be ordained, etc… ? They are commanded to accept these teachings, even if they disagree, even if that disagreement comes from thoroughly investigating the question at hand.

Vera,

You’re not really hearing what I am saying, or you’re ignoring it on purpose–I’ll trust you’re just not hearing it. All these Catholics you refer to–if they disagree – do not believe the Church is what it claims to be and that is the root of the problem. For whatever reason they evidently do not believe the Church was founded by Christ and that it is protected by the Holy Spirit when teaching on maters of faith and morals. That’s a fundamental problem, and it’s not really the Churches problem. After deciding whether Jesus rose from the dead and what that means–it all starts with: is the Church what it says it is–until you’ve answered that question–I’m not sure the other questions matter. In a way if the Church is not what it says it is–the questions you’re so worked up about are irrelevant.

When you have problems with something the physics teacher says, you can research the problem independently and find out if the teacher was right or wrong. There is no way to verify many of the teachings of the church, so you ether accept or deny the teachings. You are unable to verify them.

Once again you’re not hearing what I am saying. It’s not that the students have a problem with something the physics professor is saying–i.e. they thought it might be wrong–he is simply teaching physics and they know the concepts are true, but just can’t understand them, just can’t grasp them. Their inability to grasp the physics doesn’t invalidate physics and they don’t let their inability to grasp the physics cause them to denounce physics as a pseudo science and propose changes to it that they can grasp.

If one doesn’t believe the Church is what is says it is–then it is beyond me why one would want to remain in that Church. On the other hand if one has come to believe the Church is indeed what it claims to be–then one does not really disagree with Church teaching they find hard to understand–like the physics student who can’t grasp the concept, but knows it is true–they accept the teaching and seek better understanding.
If I didn’t believe the Church was what it claims to be I wouldn’t be Catholic and I wouldn’t waist my time worrying about Church teaching.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[PseuTonym]

If your criterion is merely “do what’s in your best interest” then while we might debate whether this or that action really is in my best interest, that choice is a practical one, not a moral one. It puts deciding whether to murder and rob a stranger on the same level with choosing chicken salad for lunch over a burger and fries.

You could say, “this question is an academic one, not a practical one”, and you would be using the word “practical” in a manner that I recognize and can find referenced in dictionaries.

You could say, “this service is so inexpensive that it’s practically free”, and again I would recognize your usage, and can find it in a dictionary.

However, I am not familiar with your usage of the word “practical” as excluding moral considerations.

It seems to me that choosing a particular option could be both immoral and impractical. Another option could be both moral and practical. If those were the only two options, then your choice would have both practical and moral significance.

You can probably find a realistic example of a choice that is both immoral and impractical, such as a so-called “Darwin Award” for people who were attempting to commit crimes.

 

[PseuTonym]

If your criterion is merely “do what’s in your best interest” then while we might debate whether this or that action really is in my best interest …

The issue isn’t disagreement on examples that might manifest itself in a debate, but the objectivity of the standard.

Beginning with the following …

It appears to me that if right and wrong have no objective meaning then there is no reason to behave as if they did, which means that it makes no sense to have a moral standard. Why would I conform my behavior to a standard that doesn’t actually exist? Instead why shouldn’t I do whatever I perceive to be in my best interest, regardless of what that entails?

… it seems possible to copy the structure to arrive at …

If “in your best interest” has no objective meaning, then there is no reason to behave as if it did, which means that it makes no sense to have a practical* standard. Why would I conform my behavior to a standard that doesn’t actually exist? Instead why shouldn’t I do whatever I perceive to be a moral choice, regardless of what that entails?

• Note that I am attempting to use the word “practical” as you used it.

 

[Ender]

The phrase “objectively exist” isn’t clear to me.

I don’t have some unique and unusual definition for that phrase.
objective existence is the notion that something exists objectively; that is, independently of one’s perception.
Yes, I am sure there things about which their objective existence can be debated, but that’s not the point here. Unless you have a different definition for objective existence I don’t think we need to get too far into the weeds over this.

Ender

 

[Ender]

You could say, “this question is an academic one, not a practical one”, and you would be using the word “practical” in a manner that I recognize and can find referenced in dictionaries.

You could say, “this service is so inexpensive that it’s practically free”, and again I would recognize your usage, and can find it in a dictionary.

However, I am not familiar with your usage of the word “practical” as excluding moral considerations.

Pick a problem, anything at all. If you and I are both trying to resolve the issue to the maximum benefit of everyone, yet we disagree about what should be done, is there any moral issue involved? I don’t see any moral difference in trying to help my neighbor figure out why his car won’t start, and in trying to figure out how solve our immigration problems. These are practical issues. Is it better to do A or B? What will happen if we do C? Should we go left or right? Is it the alternator or the battery?

It seems to me that choosing a particular option could be both immoral and impractical. Another option could be both moral and practical. If those were the only two options, then your choice would have both practical and moral significance.

Of course, but the fact that the best solution requires only prudential choices certainly doesn’t mean that a person will necessarily behave morally. (“I know it’s the battery but I’ll tell the rotter it’s his alternator to get back at him for ruining my lawn mower.”) Don’t read more into this than is really there.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The issue isn’t disagreement on examples that might manifest itself in a debate, but the objectivity of the standard.

Define it however you like, it doesn’t matter to me, I just don’t want to play with the meanings of words. How about this: “What is best/good for me is what I believe turns out for the best (is still good) for me after period of time X.” (You get to specify X.)

… it seems possible to copy the structure to arrive at …

If “in your best interest” has no objective meaning, then there is no reason to behave as if it did, which means that it makes no sense to have a practical* standard. Why would I conform my behavior to a standard that doesn’t actually exist? Instead why shouldn’t I do whatever I perceive to be a moral choice, regardless of what that entails?

• Note that I am attempting to use the word “practical” as you used it.

I don’t know what this question means. What are you asking when you question whether “in your best interest” has an objective meaning? Whether it is the same for everyone? Whether we can ever know that what we do today will turn out for the best 50 years later?

We’re dealing with a definitional concept on the one hand versus a question of fact on the other. Asking whether a moral law objectively exists is the same as asking if international law applies to aliens; these are yes or no questions. My point is that if you answer “No, there is no such thing” then it is irrational to act as if there was. This is fundamentally different than asking if I think I can act in my own best interest.

Ender

 

[PseuTonym]

I don’t have some unique and unusual definition for that phrase.
objective existence is the notion that something exists objectively; that is, independently of one’s perception.
Yes, I am sure there things about which their objective existence can be debated, but that’s not the point here. Unless you have a different definition for objective existence I don’t think we need to get too far into the weeds over this.

Ender

Does pain that you would be experiencing if surgery were performed on you without anaesthetic exist independently of your perception of the pain?

There is also a minor problem regarding your use of the present tense: can you say that the past exists (present tense) objectively?

I would distinguish between reality and our ability to gain access to information about it. That somebody is experiencing pain – physical pain – seems to me to be an aspect of reality. We can imagine a device that simultaneously inflicts the same kind of pain in the same part of the body on a number of people. How many people have to be in pain for it to go beyond subjective?