Morality Does Not Exist

[MrFrankZito]

With respect to today’s subject, I am in the minority even among atheists. Few non-believers—no matter how strongly they reject traditional Christian morality—are willing to call moral issues strictly matters of opinion. However, I remain a steadfast moral relativist despite the rarity of my breed. Morality is, at its heart, a subject about which no facts exist. Murder is bad…Altruism is good…Theft is bad – These are nothing more than statements of opinion and expressions of personal taste. Although this bold assertion might seem shocking and offensive to some, I hope to explicate my position by way of two pertinent analogies: weather and movies.

Weather conditions can be classified as “good” or “bad” (or somewhere in between those). Personally, I enjoy the heat. My ideal weather would be 90 degrees and blazingly sunny. If I awoke tomorrow and those were the conditions, I would classify the weather as “good.” However, nothing intrinsically is good about those conditions. Given alternate preferences (for example, preference for snow and wind), the aforementioned conditions would be considered “bad” weather. To me, 90 degrees is “good.” To hypothetical individual A, 90 degrees is “bad.” There is no method by which to discern the intrinsic “goodness” of weather—no existing scientific instrumentation is up to the task. And so, we must conclude that no weather intrinsically is either good or bad. Those concepts are coherent only in the eyes of the beholder, and one opinion is just as good as any other, since none could be considered objectively correct.

Movies can be classified as “good” or “bad” (or somewhere in between those). Personally, I enjoy slasher movies. My ideal flick would be a gory slasher story on the order of Friday the 13th or Texas Chainsaw Massacre. If I went to the multiplex on Saturday night and saw a movie similar to the one I just described, I would classify that film as “good.” However, nothing intrinsically is good about that hypothetical film. Given alternate preferences (for example, love stories or historical dramas), the aforementioned flick might well be considered “bad.” To me, slasher movies are “good.” To hypothetical individual A, slasher movies are “bad.” There is no method by which to discern the intrinsic “goodness” of films—no existing scientific instrumentation is up to the task. And so, we must conclude that no movie is either good or bad. Those concepts are coherent only in the eyes of the beholder, and one opinion is just as good as any other, since none could be considered objectively correct.

Morality (the study of “good” versus “bad”) is precisely the same as my two examples. Morality cannot be gauged, measured, quantified or tested in the scientific sense. There are no measurable units of morality comparable to inches, ounces, volts or calories. Unless, and until, a reliable “morality meter” is invented by an enterprising scientist, moral claims must be recognized for what they truly are: statements of unsubstantiated opinion masquerading as universal standards to which we should submit.


_________________________________

My Case Against God

 

[Rasmus]

That's why I only have ethics. And whilst "good" and "bad" are not easily assigned here, I can still work well with "better" or "worse".

 

[Merko]

I agree, except I prefer dystopian movies rather than slasher films. Romantic tragedies can be very good too. These films make me appreciate the great luck I'm having in my own life much more.

If you don't mind reading a few hundred rather boring pages, I would recommend Max Stirner's The Ego and its own from 1844. I haven't found anything that improves on it, though it shouldn't really be that hard because it's almost unreadable in large parts (actually it wouldn't surprise me if he made the first few hundred pages boring on purpose, in hope that the censor would give up halfways).

 

[Zygar]

I'm not convinced either way. This is why we expect a Planet X option.

 

[Huntster]

.......Morality cannot be gauged, measured, quantified or tested in the scientific sense.

It can, however (and despite bleats otherwise), be legislated.

There are no measurable units of morality comparable to inches, ounces, volts or calories.

Yes there are.

They are called "crimes."

Unless, and until, a reliable “morality meter” is invented by an enterprising scientist, moral claims must be recognized for what they truly are: statements of unsubstantiated opinion masquerading as universal standards to which we should submit.

They're more like "statements of what we'll put up with" than anything else.

And if you don't "submit", we'll put you down.

And I find that very "moral."

 

[Merko]

They are called "crimes."

So, are you telling me that it is immoral for a Cuban to be un-revolutionary?

 

[hammegk]

Morality is evidenced by behavior, so what position on anything would a dead Cuban hold?

 

[SezMe]

I think the words "good" and "bad" when evaluating movies or the weather have a slightly different meaning than when used to judge human behavior. These words, when used in the latter situation can be somewhat measured by the harm (or pain) that is caused whereas in your analogies there is no corresponding measure. Thus, I find your analogies to be unhelpful.

 

[athon]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'exist'. Sure, there is no quantifiable unit of 'moral', yet that's true for any form of behaviour, and yet I dare to say you can't say behaviours don't exist.

Morality can be defined as a group of behaviours based on social expectation. The fact they are relative to a social group again doesn't make them either purely subjective nor none-existant, any more than any other cultural activity. The sense of behaviour modification in relation to one's fellow citizens, together with the anticipation of how they will feel (empathise) towards your actions, is a very real phenomena.

So how can you say morality doesn't exist?

Athon

 

[Merko]

Morality is evidenced by behavior, so what position on anything would a dead Cuban hold?

The Cubans don't really execute people for being unrevolutionary though. Losing your job or house arrest would be more likely.

 

[Merko]

Morality can be defined as a group of behaviours based on social expectation. The fact they are relative to a social group again doesn't make them either purely subjective nor none-existant, any more than any other cultural activity. The sense of behaviour modification in relation to one's fellow citizens, together with the anticipation of how they will feel (empathise) towards your actions, is a very real phenomena.

So how can you say morality doesn't exist?

If one argues, as I do, that what people consider 'moral' is entirely subjective, then I think this goes contrary to what is generally understood by the term. Of course we can do as Huntster and say that 'moral' is only a synonym for 'law-abiding', but I don't believe this is what people actually mean by that word.

Let me make some statements:
There is no objective or universal 'right' or 'wrong', 'good' or 'evil'.
No motive, outcome or action is inherently or objectively 'better' than any other.
There is no 'moral' force.
People have no 'moral sense' that is not merely an aggregate of various instincts that many people may find to be 'moral'.
If you do something 'moral' or 'immoral', it has no consequences beyond what could equally be described as 'wise' and 'unwise'.

 

[Merko]

Oh, and I could add something which I feel is of some importance:
Expecting people to be 'moral' is completely pointless (if you want them to behave in a certain way, you have to affect them somehow, and 'morality' plays no part in this).

 

[UserGoogol]

I think happiness has intrinsic value. I'm not entirely sure whether happiness has value in the egoist way (my happiness has value, but screw everyone else) the utilitarian way (everyone happiness is equally valuable) or some other way of adding it up, but it seems to be the case. I mean... by definition, everyone likes being happy. If you don't like being happy, either you're not really being happy, or you're just insane.

Of course, "happiness is good" is not really a moral code, but rather an ethical princple. To get "morals" from that you'd have to try to answer the question "How should people act in order to promote happiness?" Which is a hard question.

 

[athon]

Then again it comes down a matter of strict definition.

Excluding perhaps strict adherents to the philosophies of Ayn Rand, I'm not sure what percentage of the population would have a non-religious objective view of morality. Yes, religious people attribute morality to spirituality, however I don't think it's fair that we also apply that definition. By doing that we most surely argue that morality does not exist, which I personally find offensive (afterall, I'm not spiritual and yet I am surely moral).

Dismissing a phenomena simply because there is no direct objective law to account for it is, I feel, short sighted. Behaviours of any sort result from an interplay of objective laws; dismissing them would be to blind yourself to how most of the universe works.

Athon

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
They are called "crimes."

So, are you telling me that it is immoral for a Cuban to be un-revolutionary?

If that what his society says.

 

[athon]

Oh, and I could add something which I feel is of some importance:
Expecting people to be 'moral' is completely pointless (if you want them to behave in a certain way, you have to affect them somehow, and 'morality' plays no part in this).

I disagree. Indeed, there is no objective force called 'morality', as it is a description of a set of behaviours. There's no such force called 'short temper' either, but the display of this behaviour most definitely influences the behaviour of others.

Why the need to have a direct metaphysical 'force' behind something to label it as real?

Athon

 

[pchams]

Oh, and I could add something which I feel is of some importance:
Expecting people to be 'moral' is completely pointless (if you want them to behave in a certain way, you have to affect them somehow, and 'morality' plays no part in this).

Morality or ethical conduct is set within tangible boundaries.
The global world makes this less clear, as it has yet to set it's boundaries.
A tribe or population will set arbitrary (from an outside perspective) boundaries for the way one should act.
My assumption is that this enaction has something to do with the survival of the tribe/culture.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

With respect to today’s subject, I am in the minority even among atheists. Few non-believers—no matter how strongly they reject traditional Christian morality—are willing to call moral issues strictly matters of opinion. However, I remain a steadfast moral relativist despite the rarity of my breed. Morality is, at its heart, a subject about which no facts exist. Murder is bad…Altruism is good…Theft is bad – These are nothing more than statements of opinion and expressions of personal taste. Although this bold assertion might seem shocking and offensive to some, I hope to explicate my position by way of two pertinent analogies: weather and movies.

Weather conditions can be classified as “good” or “bad” (or somewhere in between those). Personally, I enjoy the heat. My ideal weather would be 90 degrees and blazingly sunny. If I awoke tomorrow and those were the conditions, I would classify the weather as “good.” However, nothing intrinsically is good about those conditions. Given alternate preferences (for example, preference for snow and wind), the aforementioned conditions would be considered “bad” weather. To me, 90 degrees is “good.” To hypothetical individual A, 90 degrees is “bad.” There is no method by which to discern the intrinsic “goodness” of weather—no existing scientific instrumentation is up to the task. And so, we must conclude that no weather intrinsically is either good or bad. Those concepts are coherent only in the eyes of the beholder, and one opinion is just as good as any other, since none could be considered objectively correct.

Movies can be classified as “good” or “bad” (or somewhere in between those). Personally, I enjoy slasher movies. My ideal flick would be a gory slasher story on the order of Friday the 13th or Texas Chainsaw Massacre. If I went to the multiplex on Saturday night and saw a movie similar to the one I just described, I would classify that film as “good.” However, nothing intrinsically is good about that hypothetical film. Given alternate preferences (for example, love stories or historical dramas), the aforementioned flick might well be considered “bad.” To me, slasher movies are “good.” To hypothetical individual A, slasher movies are “bad.” There is no method by which to discern the intrinsic “goodness” of films—no existing scientific instrumentation is up to the task. And so, we must conclude that no movie is either good or bad. Those concepts are coherent only in the eyes of the beholder, and one opinion is just as good as any other, since none could be considered objectively correct.

Morality (the study of “good” versus “bad”) is precisely the same as my two examples. Morality cannot be gauged, measured, quantified or tested in the scientific sense. There are no measurable units of morality comparable to inches, ounces, volts or calories. Unless, and until, a reliable “morality meter” is invented by an enterprising scientist, moral claims must be recognized for what they truly are: statements of unsubstantiated opinion masquerading as universal standards to which we should submit.


_________________________________

My Case Against God

MFZ,

It's difficult to know where to start with what you say. Still, let me try.

1. You assert in the thread title that morality does not exist.

If by morality you mean a set of practices including courses of conduct and discussion and dispute about courses of conduct, you are obviously wrong.

In fairness, I must add that the thread title is often meant to be eye-catching, so I shan't complain if you say that it isn't meant to encapsulate your argument.


2. You go on to suggest that "moral issues are strictly matters of opinion" [ emphasis mine]. Indeed they are. Strictly. As are matters of opinion about, say, the sphericity of the Earth. Some opinions are true: others are false.


3. You liken moral differences to:

differing preferences about the weather and differing tastes in films.

Fair enough. There are similarities. But you ought to pay attention to the dissimilarities. For example:

(i) Smith says " Cool weather is better than warm" and Jones says " Warm weather is better than cool."

(ii) Smith says " Abortion is always wrong" and Jones says " Sometimes abortion is not wrong."

In (i) you can paraphrase the difference between Smith and Jones in the words " I prefer..." No contradiction follows from their different preferences.

In (ii) you can't. They can't both be right.

Evidence? Look at what is routinely said by you and your friends when you are using moral language instead of theorizing about it.


4. You suggest that morality is a subject about which no facts exist.

I couldn't agree more, if what you mean is that no statement of fact can do the work of moral assertion. But I suspect ( please tell me if I have got this wrong) that you mean that moral utterances have no point because there is no fact-of-the-matter by virtue of which they could be true or false.

In that case, I have to say that belief in the existence of commands, requests, questions and the like is based on some sort of metaphysical delusion. For reasons that will probably occur to you, I reject the conclusion and, consequently, the argument that leads to it.

You may want to have a look at this:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=schick_18_4

Regards

 

[Merko]

I think happiness has intrinsic value. I'm not entirely sure whether happiness has value in the egoist way (my happiness has value, but screw everyone else) the utilitarian way (everyone happiness is equally valuable) or some other way of adding it up, but it seems to be the case. I mean... by definition, everyone likes being happy. If you don't like being happy, either you're not really being happy, or you're just insane.

I agree, though I think it is true only in the egoist way. However, the utilitarian principle is one that rational egoists can agree upon as a good basis for common action. For example, as a guiding principle for public expenditure, etc.

Additionally, our happiness usually linked to other people's happiness for emotional reasons such as love, pity, etc. Unless we're some kind of extreme psychopath.

Excluding perhaps strict adherents to the philosophies of Ayn Rand, I'm not sure what percentage of the population would have a non-religious objective view of morality.

I think most types of socialism are definitely based on some concept of objective morality. It expects people to do things for no real reason other than that it's supposedly 'right'. Of course there are also justifications of socialism that simply claim that it is best for everyone involved to agree to organise society according to socialist principles, but I think this is a minority position.

I disagree. Indeed, there is no objective force called 'morality', as it is a description of a set of behaviours. There's no such force called 'short temper' either, but the display of this behaviour most definitely influences the behaviour of others.

Why the need to have a direct metaphysical 'force' behind something to label it as real?

I think you're committing a logical fallacy here. Let's say that someone does not believe in God. Upon visiting a foreign nation, this person spouts her disbelief in God, and promptly gets executed by the authorities.

Does this prove that there is a God? Of course not. That something is a spook does not mean that your attitudes towards it can not have consequences. People are often influenced by beliefs in spooks.

However, we are not influenced by the spooks themselves. We are also not influenced by any such thing as morality.

We are however directly influenced by short-temperedness. Even if for some reason no one would know about this trait, a short-tempered person would still be quick to anger.

 

[Merko]

(i) Smith says " Cool weather is better than warm" and Jones says " Warm weather is better than cool."

(ii) Smith says " Abortion is always wrong" and Jones says " Sometimes abortion is not wrong."

In (i) you can paraphrase the difference between Smith and Jones in the words " I prefer..." No contradiction follows from their different preferences.

In (ii) you can't. They can't both be right.

This is circular logic, you're assuming that morality exists. If morality does not exist, none of them can be 'right', because there is no 'right', and so your statement that "They can't both be right" is void and without meaning.