Answer to the objective morality argument.

[devnull]

As a materialist, I would say that you cannot do other than object, your subjective morality doesn't allow you to.

Nonsense, just because one's morality is subjective doesnt mean they wont defend it or even willfully force it on others.

My morality is subjective. I believe pedophilia is wrong. If I witnessed someone, say, a priest, fondling a child, you can be certain my morality would be fairly swiftly impressed upon him.

And that brings up the resolution to the seeming paradox. Whether morality is subjective or objective, our experience of it can only be subjective anyhow. So, pick either flavor, the practical results are the same.

Objective morality is nonsensical, especially when you consider that most people who claim objective morality base it on some of the most immoral text ever seen (eg, the bible). Fortunately, they then skew it with modern (and subjective!) morality.

Unless you want to argue slavery is ok.

As far as materialism goes, I wouldn't recommend it. It can give you some nice answers, but it's like beer... you have to drink a lot of it to get used to the taste.

You dont like materialism because its hard to swallow? In what way? Just because it is uncomfortable for you doesn't mean its not true - a materialistic view of the universe has *all* the evidence in its favour - why should we discount it?

 

[marplots]

Nonsense, just because one's morality is subjective doesnt mean they wont defend it or even willfully force it on others.

Yes, that's just what I meant. That, as a materialist, I don't think we have a choice in the matter.

You dont like materialism because its hard to swallow? In what way? Just because it is uncomfortable for you doesn't mean its not true - a materialistic view of the universe has *all* the evidence in its favour - why should we discount it?

Not hard to swallow, but doesn't taste good, takes some getting used to. It is exactly the discomfort that makes it so. I think we tend to discount it because the world doesn't readily punish our pleasant fictions. I do not think, for instance, that freewill exists in any real sense, but for those who do, the world seems indifferent to their beliefs.

So, for those able to hold beliefs that are not punished by an uncaring, physical reality, they might as well cling to them as not. While the truth may be otherwise, I do not see any advantage in many cases of being a materialist over a what? I can't think of the diametrically opposed position.

 

[leonAzul]

The objective morality argument for God really gets to me sometimes. It's not that it is a good argument and it is fairly easily answered, but the answers always seem dissatisfying to me.
I am sure everyone knows the argument, but I will state it briefly.
(1) Objective morality can only exist if God exists.
(2) Objective morals do exist.
(3) therefore God exists.

Premise (1) is easily defeated with the Euthyphro Dilemma, but this defeater does not entail that objective morals exist. It only entails that if they do, they can't be grounded in God.
The easiest defeater is to deny (2), but this is where I get tripped up. If moral values are subjective, then I have to admit that I can't really condemn another persons actions. But this seems wrong. From a purely emotional standpoint, I, of course, want to be able to say that torturing an innocent child is wrong, not just that I think it is wrong, but that it really is wrong. If morals are subjective and someone could say that it is morally right to torture an innocent child, it just seems like the words "right" and "wrong" have no meaning in a moral context.

Several points:

"Morals" is not equivalent to "morality" [nor "moralism"]; by analogy "objective morals" is not equivalent to "objective morality" [nor "objective moralism"]. They are rooted in the same etymology yet have come to mean different things in common usage, so if one wishes to build an argument on their equivalency it is necessary to explicitly state so, and in what sense they are to be considered equivalent.

Correct me if I am mistaken, yet it seems that "objective morals", as used in this thread, refers to specific behaviors that can be considered universally right or wrong regardless of context. Examining why this proposition is an epic fail has been done in these fora and elsewhere.

There yet remains the hypothesis that there exist objective criteria, or principles, for correct behavior within a given context. IMHO, this is a more fruitful line of inquiry.

Just the same, even if such an hypothesis should be elevated to a moral theory, this still is not definitive evidence for the existence of God: it could very well be that whatever doesn't behave according to those principles simply doesn't survive long enough to be noticed

 

[Ron Webb]

In a universal sense, morality is clearly subjective and relative. Morality to a bacterium would be very different from ours, for instance. We may (or may not) believe that "cleanliness is next to godliness ", but I'm quite sure that a bacterium would view the use of antibiotics and disinfectants as immoral.

Similarly, an alien race may regard us as little better than bacteria, and may decide to "cleanse" our planet to make it habitable by their own race. Would that be immoral? From our point of view, definitely. From theirs, maybe not.

As human beings, the only way we can talk about "objective morality" is to accept the axiom that humanity as a whole is intrinsically valuable and has special significance in the universe. That, to me, is "humanism", and is fundamental to my own beliefs and morals. I think that all other morals can be logically derived from that first principle. The ultimate test of what is morally right is to ask the question, "What is best for humanity?"

In short, to the extent that "objective" morality can be said to exist, it is derived from humanity, not from God.

 

[pgwenthold]

I've heard the objective morality from Christians before. What is the objective criteria for morality? They usually say "what God says" but, for some reason, everyone has their own subjective opinion of what "god" says.

or which God says it.

If I chose to live my life by Bill and Ted ("Be Excellent to Each Other"), how is that any less objective than someone who choses to follow God and the Golden Rule?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I hadn't intended to leave the other thread where we left off, but the discussion strayed to the Ayn Rand threads. But now it surfaces here so I can take up where we left off after all.

Science can measure morals objectively and establish their grounds, but not in the absolute way you envision. We can study the established brain function of morality. We can compare different moral 'types'. We can examine how brain damage affects morals and how early childhood experiences affect morals and we can make predictions that are testable.

Yes. Agreed.

We can also study the phenomena of dreams in an objective, scientific way. But that still doesn't make dreams themselves objective. They still are nothing but a subjective phenomena, happening inside an individual, and subject to his/her own personal interpretation.

I hope you understand that that is what I'm arguing.

 

[bluskool]

Here's what's important: subjective is not the same as arbitrary.

Moral frameworks seek to be both internally consistent and also consistent with what sounds mostly right. The exercise is like peeling an onion, and ultimately there are some moral axioms that are simply not objectively supportable but feel true. That's what makes them axioms.

Popular unprovable moral axioms:

• a moral framework should be internally consistent
• a moral framework should reduce human suffering
• a moral framework should increase human happiness

You can't say that torturing children is objectively wrong, but you do appear to be aligned with those of us who believe that it's wrong.

You have the right to act on this belief because you're a thinking human being with empathy and a stake in the treatment of yourself and others.

There's no shame in this.

Thanks! This makes a lot of sense. I have had similar thoughts, but you stated them much more clearly than I have been able to.

 

[bluskool]

To be honest, the concept of objective morality scares me.

In fact, dealing with anything "absolute", where no thought is applied, nothing is considered, no intelligence is used... scares the bejeebus out of me.

People should learn to think.

Objective doesn't mean absolute. Objective morality just means mind-independent, but it doesn't mean independent of circumstances. For example, murder could be right in one circumstance and wrong in another with morality still being objective.

 

[Darth Rotor]

First of all, you would have to prove that "morals" exist.

Done!

I hit Billy in the face. Billy gets upset. Hitting Billy is therefore "wrong."

I hit Billy in the face. Billy likes it. Hitting Billy is therefore "right.

I hit Billy in the face. I like it. Therefore, hitting Billy is right. Am I catching on?

Occam's razor ..... morals / ethics / are concepts that are not necessary for reality to exist, or be explained.

Not sure who said they were necessary, but that's a sensible statement.

IMHO, morality and ethics are subjective because they are fiction.

They exist, so they are not fiction, but maybe they are closer to abstraction than the delicious morels.

DR

 

[bluskool]

As far as materialism goes, I wouldn't recommend it. It can give you some nice answers, but it's like beer... you have to drink a lot of it to get used to the taste.

I am a materialist as well, but I definitely would recommend it, just like I would recommend beer. Even if the conclusions of materialism are difficult to work out or deal with, it's worth it for the satisfaction of intellectual honesty. And even though beer taste terrible the first time, the pleasure of drinking a Dogfish Head 90 minute IPA is well worth going through a period of thinking beer tastes terrible.

I've heard the objective morality from Christians before. What is the objective criteria for morality? They usually say "what God says" but, for some reason, everyone has their own subjective opinion of what "god" says.

To be fair to the theist, the question of what is right or wrong is separate from whether or not right and wrong really exist. The latter concerns epistemology and the former ontology.

 

[godless dave]

The easiest defeater is to deny (2), but this is where I get tripped up. If moral values are subjective, then I have to admit that I can't really condemn another persons actions.

Why the hell not?

Love is subjective. Can you say you love your spouse?

 

[rjwould]

This is where I like evolutionary psychology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

And the biological basis for altruism (and other behaviors we call "moral")
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

This interesting article is relevant, too:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?hp

Thanks for those links. Have you read any writings or research of David Sloan Wilson's?

 

[bluskool]

In a universal sense, morality is clearly subjective and relative. Morality to a bacterium would be very different from ours, for instance. We may (or may not) believe that "cleanliness is next to godliness ", but I'm quite sure that a bacterium would view the use of antibiotics and disinfectants as immoral.

Similarly, an alien race may regard us as little better than bacteria, and may decide to "cleanse" our planet to make it habitable by their own race. Would that be immoral? From our point of view, definitely. From theirs, maybe not.

It may be true that morals are subjective, but it is far from clear. The existence of different sets of morality among different cultures or species does not, in any way, mean that objective morality does not exist. Some cultures or species might just be wrong about their morality.

As human beings, the only way we can talk about "objective morality" is to accept the axiom that humanity as a whole is intrinsically valuable and has special significance in the universe. That, to me, is "humanism", and is fundamental to my own beliefs and morals. I think that all other morals can be logically derived from that first principle. The ultimate test of what is morally right is to ask the question, "What is best for humanity?"

In short, to the extent that "objective" morality can be said to exist, it is derived from humanity, not from God.

I like this. It makes a lot of sense.

 

[bluskool]

Why the hell not?

Love is subjective. Can you say you love your spouse?

Well, I only have access to my own subjective experiences. So, yes, I can say that I love my wife. However, I can't really say for sure whether or not it is true that you love your spouse.

 

[bluskool]

Thanks for the links that everyone has provided. You have certainly given me many good starting places to look for answers, which is exactly what I was looking for.

 

[marplots]

I am a materialist as well, but I definitely would recommend it, just like I would recommend beer. Even if the conclusions of materialism are difficult to work out or deal with, it's worth it for the satisfaction of intellectual honesty.

I agree with you, being a materialist myself, but I think there are other ways to go.

I think my stance is along the lines of, "You want the truth?! You can't handle the truth!" (Not you specific, you general.) I mean this in the sense of not all truths are worth knowing and some are actually worth avoiding. I don't advocate intellectual dishonesty but come at if from a pragmatic point of view.

I'll give you an example.

I remember explaining what obstetrical fistula was and how it might be on the uptick in those African communities that proposed sex with a virgin as a cure for AIDS. Perhaps this came from A Walk to Beautiful on Nova, I don't remember.

In any case, the person I was talking to thought it polluted their mind, perhaps ruining some idea that the world was a nice place. I felt I had done some harm by exposing them to this truth, and little, if any good.

From my own experience, there are things I wish I hadn't experienced, that I wish were not in my head. Mostly stuff about man's inhumanity to man and so forth. So, yes. I am advocating that a bit of 'not knowing' or even a nice fiction is better sometimes than raw truth.

I'd even go so far as to say it is healthier for some people to think themselves more handsome, or more intelligent or whatever. I like truth, don't get me wrong. But there is a lot of useless truth on offer. Perhaps the middle ground would be to put it in "warning, some viewers might find this offensive" or "spoiler alert" fashion.

 

[iknownothing]

You are still condemning their actions based on your "feeling" that empath is good or a stable society is one to strive for. Yes, we certainly can (and I do) make these kind of arguments and perhaps that is the best we have. But if that is the case, so be it. Like you said, sometimes the truth hurts.

Morals are subjective, but there's no real harm in that.

The truth is, the majority of people do possess empathy and do value a stable society. That's all you need. People can work it out from there what morals they believe their society needs to reflect empathy and achieve stability.

The evidence is right there in history: we've been doing so all along. What people agree on as morality changes over time. Over the years, people have argued and worked out a progressively more consistent and effective morality.

There will always be a few who disagree with society -- who enjoy killing or whatever. But we can continue doing what we always do -- set the rules based on what the majority wants, and sanction those who deviate. It is who we are as a species that those people will remain a minority.

Christian thought is so soundly based on the idea that people want to do terrible, sinful, violent, debased things all the time, that we have this fear that acknowledging that morality is subjective will lead to chaos and violence. But it's just not true. Most people for the most part do possess some empathy, do internalize the morals of their society, and do desire stability.

It's related to the idea that without belief in God, someone's got no reason to refrain from being an ax murderer. But I have no desire to murder people or even hurt other people, no desire to earn the disapproval of everyone around me, no desire to risk the punishment I could get. I have a strong interest in seeing society continue to be stable and (relatively) peaceful so that I can plan for my future, and so that I can have hopes that my kids will have a secure future.

That's enough for me.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Morals exist if a minimum of two humans agree that they do.
No god is required.

 

[Trent Wray]

I hit Billy in the face. I like it. Therefore, hitting Billy is right. Am I catching on?

Well, to be fair, we still haven't confirmed whether Billy is an *** hole or not.

They exist, so they are not fiction, but maybe they are closer to abstraction than the delicious morels.

DR

Perhaps. And I've had others disagree with me using this analogy before .... but in the same vein I could argue then that the Na'vi and their home-world exist and are not fiction, rather they are in abstraction. Not only can I view them in movie format, but I can go out and buy an action figure representative of them.

At the very minimum, their history exists and is not fiction, but is closer to abstraction.

What do you think? Is this a good analogy, or does it breakdown at some point?

Morals exist if a minimum of two humans agree that they do.
No god is required.

I see your point, but I don't agree. HOWEVER .... the consequences of believing they exist, exist. But this doesn't mean what the consequences are based off of are "real".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

First of all, you would have to prove that "morals" exist.

All we have as evidence are actions and subjective responses to those actions.

I hit Billy in the face. Billy gets upset. Hitting Billy is therefore "wrong."

I hit Billy in the face. Billy likes it. Hitting Billy is therefore "right."

Occam's razor ..... morals / ethics / are concepts that are not necessary for reality to exist, or be explained.

IMHO, morality and ethics are subjective because they are fiction.

This makes no sense. You are denying that certain segments of the brain don't really exist.

Does hunger exist? Thirst?

So why not happiness and sadness?

And if the above all exist, then so does that moral decision segment of the brain.

If you want to argue nothing our brains experience really exists, it seems like a useless way to view the brain.


Now, OTOH, do morals exist outside the mind (of humans and other animals), I see no evidence of that whatsoever. And if that is the definition of "objective moralism" then it also makes no sense.