There is no "ought"

[Cavemonster]

However, if objective morality has in itself damaging qualities, then it should be possible to give examples where a non-religious use of objective morality has done harm - harm being defined as divergence from some aim on which some kind of consensus has been reached.

Russian and Chinese communism. They adhered to a kind of dogmatic utilitarianism that the "greater good" outweighed individuals. I wouldn't enjoy living in China or the USSR for most of the period after their revolutions, and I expect you wouldn't either.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

However, if objective morality has in itself damaging qualities, then it should be possible to give examples where a non-religious use of objective morality has done harm - harm being defined as divergence from some aim on which some kind of consensus has been reached.

Is the concept of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in itself harmful?

What matters here is that

1) There is no such thing as an objective Moral. No such thing as an objective Good nor objective Evil
2) History has proven us that every single attempt from men to indoctrinate a rigid moral system, has caused nothing but trouble

Every single thing has the potential to be harmful in a particular context. That's exactly the point. A good political or moral system is one that allows a flexibility to correct and modify clauses in the future, given the inevitable subtle changes in the society. Any political system that declares itself perfect and unchangeable is by definition Totalitarian, oppressive and inhumane, and will sooner or later be the source of multiple problems.

 

[westprog]

Russian and Chinese communism. They adhered to a kind of dogmatic utilitarianism that the "greater good" outweighed individuals. I wouldn't enjoy living in China or the USSR for most of the period after their revolutions, and I expect you wouldn't either.

I don't agree that communism followed a policy of objective morality. Communist morality is explicitly geared to achieving particular aims. That's why communist regimes always put economic aims ahead of individual human rights - because they don't believe in individual human rights.

A belief that, say, "killing people is just wrong", rational or not, would very likely have improved the situation for communist regimes.

 

[westprog]

What matters here is that

1) There is no such thing as an objective Moral. No such thing as an objective Good nor objective Evil
2) History has proven us that every single attempt from men to indoctrinate a rigid moral system, has caused nothing but trouble

Every single thing has the potential to be harmful in a particular context. That's exactly the point. A good political or moral system is one that allows a flexibility to correct and modify clauses in the future, given the inevitable subtle changes in the society. Any political system that declares itself perfect and unchangeable is by definition Totalitarian, oppressive and inhumane, and will sooner or later be the source of multiple problems.

There's a vast difference between political systems and moral systems. Political systems that permitted slavery were defended on the grounds of better achieving a common aim, and opposed on the grounds that they were an absolute wrong.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

There's a vast difference between political systems and moral systems. Political systems that permitted slavery were defended on the grounds of better achieving a common aim, and opposed on the grounds that they were an absolute wrong.

Political systems are moral systems (to a great extent). On what grounds do you think slavery was permitted and justified at a time? Under the morals of that era and of the particular society that justified them. Politics, Morals, Religion are all interconnected. They are constructs of the human mind, abstract theories of what "ought" to be done, on what is "right" and what is "wrong", of when is it ok to do something and when it isn't. That's why a lot of religious people ask atheists "Where do you get your morals from if there is no God?". They can't believe that there can be any sense of morality without Religion. The same applies to politics, which dictates the "oughts", the "do"s and "do not"s of a particular country.

 

[barrymore]

However, if objective morality has in itself damaging qualities, then it should be possible to give examples where a non-religious use of objective morality has done harm - harm being defined as divergence from some aim on which some kind of consensus has been reached.

You are essentially defining the social contract here as an objective reality. Saying that morality is subjective...as long as it serves the majority.

 

[154]

You are essentially defining the social contract here as an objective reality. Saying that morality is subjective...as long as it serves the majority.

Sieg heil.

"Morality is subjective" with who?

You?

Everybody, right?

Unless there's The Lawgiver.

 

[barrymore]

Sieg heil.

"Morality is subjective" with who?

You?

Everybody, right?

Unless there's The Lawgiver.

You (not you specifically) cannot say that morality is subjective and then claim that it is harmful only when it harms the majority. It is incompatible position.

 

[Complexity]

Sieg heil.

"Morality is subjective" with who?

You?

Everybody, right?

Unless there's The Lawgiver.

Just a point of clarification - I no longer give law away, but my prices are reasonable.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Sieg heil.

"Morality is subjective" with who?

You?

Everybody, right?

Wrong. A lot of people are convinced beyond any discussion that there is an Objective Moral and that they hold it. This, however, is still a subjective perception. Seems contradictory but isn't.

Unless there's The Lawgiver.

The Lawgiver can be anything or anyone. Human consciousness had no limits when it comes to justifying a belief.

 

[Mirrorglass]

It's because I believe that terms such as "quality of life" and "making life better" are objectively meaningful that I find objective morality unavoidable. If one considers "quality of life" an arbitrary measure, such that one can define it to be, say, winning a certain number of Olympic medals, then one can follow measures directed to that outcome, and have an East German-style society. However, I don't accept that "quality of life" is as mutable as that.

I'm not quite sure how most of that follows from my post, but ok.

Anyway, if I'm right, then you're essentially saying "quality of life" is an objectively definable term, and same for all humans. I certainly don't agree with that. If I consider winning Olympic medals the most important goal in my life, then it bloody well is a defining factor of my quality of life. Quality of life means very different things to different people, and that's the way it will always be. The reason we can make social contracts such as laws and moral systems is there are several things practically every human desires, such as safety, food, shelter, health care et cetera. Whatever falls outside those basic needs is not always provided by social contracts, but is still an important factor contributing to quality of life.

Your example about an "East-Germany style society" doesn't really work against my opinion anyway; rather, it's an argument against yours. My idea is that everyone decides what defines their own quality of life, and make social contracts in order to ensure those conditions are satisfied. Your example was of a government deciding for everybody what "quality of life" means. In this case, it meant "a certain number of Olympic medals", which obviously is not to the liking of most people. However, the idea is not ideologically different from imposing any other set of values on others.

When you say you can objectively define what "quality of life" means for all people, you are doing precisely the same thing as the government trying to make everyone into athletes: imposing your values on others, claiming they are better or more "objective" than theirs.

 

[westprog]

You are essentially defining the social contract here as an objective reality. Saying that morality is subjective...as long as it serves the majority.

I'm just indicating what I think the consensus is among the people who don't believe in objective morality - implied in the examples of the supposed "bad" effects that occur when people believe that something can be actually "bad".

 

[westprog]

Political systems are moral systems (to a great extent). On what grounds do you think slavery was permitted and justified at a time? Under the morals of that era and of the particular society that justified them. Politics, Morals, Religion are all interconnected. They are constructs of the human mind, abstract theories of what "ought" to be done, on what is "right" and what is "wrong", of when is it ok to do something and when it isn't. That's why a lot of religious people ask atheists "Where do you get your morals from if there is no God?". They can't believe that there can be any sense of morality without Religion. The same applies to politics, which dictates the "oughts", the "do"s and "do not"s of a particular country.

Political systems may incorporate moral judgements, but for the most part they are a seperate thing. There certainly were people who supported slavery on supposed objective moral grounds, but for the most part - as with, say, Robert E. Lee, they accepted it as a moral evil, but a social necessity. They may not have accepted the theory of subjective morality, but they were certainly ready to override objective moral rules with expedient actions designed to serve a desired end.

It's quite rare for politicians, and public figures generally, to claim that morality is just a matter of choosing a desired end and doing whatever it takes to achieve it. However, it's extremely common for a supposed standard of objective morality to be overridden by a desire to achieve something.