Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is morality a human construct?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is morality a human construct?

    The moral argument for God goes like this:

    Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

    Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.

    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

    As an atheist I think there are problems with both premises. But I primarily want to ask how Christians might defend the second premise. How do you know that morality is objective in the absolute sense? How did you arrive at that conclusion? I grant that there is a sense in which morality is objective, but in what sense is it objective? Is it objective in the absolute sense, similar to, say, the laws of physics or logic? Or is it objective in the sense that all other human constructs are objective, similar to traffic laws or the laws that govern various institutions? I am interested in both how you answer this question and how you arrived at that conclusion. Because as I observe morality, it seems very much to operate like a human construct, and very much not like an objective fact about reality. What other objective, absolute fact about reality is able to vary so widely depending on the moral framework constructed? Morality seems very much dependent on the subject, which is the very definition of subjective. So I hear Christians make the claim in the moral argument for God that morality is objective in the absolute sense, and I wonder how they support that claim, when everything we observe about morality seems to indicate otherwise.

  • #2
    Objective refers to believing some actions are intrinsically wrong, even if certain people don't believe it is.

    For example: We believe that gassing an entire group of people to commit genocide is evil and wrong, even though the Nazi's believed it to be good when they did it. We look at it and say that it is intrinsically evil. If it were subjective then we would have no argument against it. We could only say that our society thinks it is wrong, but it is not actually wrong, we just don't "like" that it happened. The Nazi's did like it and so for them it was just fine and moral to murder 6 million Jews. Basically do what ever you want as long as YOU think it is right, and I will do whatever I want to do that I think is right. If I eat a baby, that is my business and it is not wrong for me. You might not like it so don't eat babies.

    Comment


    • #3
      From the perspective of science morality is an evolutionary construct.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        Objective refers to believing some actions are intrinsically wrong, even if certain people don't believe it is.

        For example: We believe that gassing an entire group of people to commit genocide is evil and wrong, even though the Nazi's believed it to be good when they did it. We look at it and say that it is intrinsically evil. If it were subjective then we would have no argument against it. We could only say that our society thinks it is wrong, but it is not actually wrong, we just don't "like" that it happened. The Nazi's did like it and so for them it was just fine and moral to murder 6 million Jews. Basically do what ever you want as long as YOU think it is right, and I will do whatever I want to do that I think is right. If I eat a baby, that is my business and it is not wrong for me. You might not like it so don't eat babies.
        Morality is neither subjective nor objective There are subject and objective attributes of morality as social and cultural constraints on behavior.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          oh crap, shunya is here. The thread will now devolve into a mess of incomprehensible nonsense as he spews his esoteric hoogly googly nonsense and keeps repeating himself ad nauseum.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Raul View Post
            The moral argument for God goes like this:

            Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

            Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.

            Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

            As an atheist I think there are problems with both premises. But I primarily want to ask how Christians might defend the second premise. How do you know that morality is objective in the absolute sense? How did you arrive at that conclusion? I grant that there is a sense in which morality is objective, but in what sense is it objective? Is it objective in the absolute sense, similar to, say, the laws of physics or logic? Or is it objective in the sense that all other human constructs are objective, similar to traffic laws or the laws that govern various institutions? I am interested in both how you answer this question and how you arrived at that conclusion. Because as I observe morality, it seems very much to operate like a human construct, and very much not like an objective fact about reality. What other objective, absolute fact about reality is able to vary so widely depending on the moral framework constructed? Morality seems very much dependent on the subject, which is the very definition of subjective. So I hear Christians make the claim in the moral argument for God that morality is objective in the absolute sense, and I wonder how they support that claim, when everything we observe about morality seems to indicate otherwise.
            I disagree with premise 1 even though I am a theist. You can be an atheist and a moral objectivist. They're not incompatible.

            I would say morality is objective not in an absolute sense the way the laws of physics are absolute, but objective in that they're not the result of choice or opinion. Some things are intrinsically bad and other things are intrinsically good. To intentionally cause something intrinsically bad without promoting a greater good or preventing a greater evil would be morally bad. Morality is premised on human life, or something relevantly like human life, so in that sense it's not absolute.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Objective refers to believing some actions are intrinsically wrong, even if certain people don't believe it is.

              For example: We believe that gassing an entire group of people to commit genocide is evil and wrong, even though the Nazi's believed it to be good when they did it. We look at it and say that it is intrinsically evil. If it were subjective then we would have no argument against it. We could only say that our society thinks it is wrong, but it is not actually wrong, we just don't "like" that it happened. The Nazi's did like it and so for them it was just fine and moral to murder 6 million Jews. Basically do what ever you want as long as YOU think it is right, and I will do whatever I want to do that I think is right. If I eat a baby, that is my business and it is not wrong for me. You might not like it so don't eat babies.
              I grant that a subjective morality creates certain problems, such as how we deal with situations where one person's moral actions negatively affect another person. It isn't easy trying to figure out how we resolve that kind of conflict. Some things simplify it, of course, such as certain common moral instincts that, generally speaking, we all have as humans. But still, it is not easy, and I can agree that it would be so much nicer if morality operated more like the laws of physics, which are demonstrably an objective fact about reality. But how do you demonstrate that this is the case? My point is that when we observe morality, it operates very much like we would expect for a human construct to operate, with people able to create their own moral frameworks at will.

              So unless you can somehow demonstrate that morality is in fact objective, in spite of the fact that it operates just like we would expect a subjective reality to operate, then we are forced to do the hard work of thinking through how we live with this reality. It sounds like what you are essentially saying is that you don't like it. But what we prefer the nature of morality might be is irrelevant. Demonstrate that it is what you say it is, or admit that you can't and let's talk about how we deal with the difficulties that a subjective morality presents.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Raul View Post
                So unless you can somehow demonstrate that morality is in fact objective, in spite of the fact that it operates just like we would expect a subjective reality to operate, then we are forced to do the hard work of thinking through how we live with this reality.
                Or morality operates exactly like we would expect with sin thrown into the mix.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Raul View Post
                  I grant that a subjective morality creates certain problems, such as how we deal with situations where one person's moral actions negatively affect another person. It isn't easy trying to figure out how we resolve that kind of conflict. Some things simplify it, of course, such as certain common moral instincts that, generally speaking, we all have as humans. But still, it is not easy, and I can agree that it would be so much nicer if morality operated more like the laws of physics, which are demonstrably an objective fact about reality. But how do you demonstrate that this is the case? My point is that when we observe morality, it operates very much like we would expect for a human construct to operate, with people able to create their own moral frameworks at will.

                  So unless you can somehow demonstrate that morality is in fact objective, in spite of the fact that it operates just like we would expect a subjective reality to operate, then we are forced to do the hard work of thinking through how we live with this reality. It sounds like what you are essentially saying is that you don't like it. But what we prefer the nature of morality might be is irrelevant. Demonstrate that it is what you say it is, or admit that you can't and let's talk about how we deal with the difficulties that a subjective morality presents.
                  I didn't say it was one way or another did I? I just explained what objective morality is.


                  But ask yourself: WHY is something like eating babies for fun actually wrong?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    WLC, as you probably know, deals with questions like these all of the time. Here's a link where I think he helps answer the gist of the OP:

                    Source: Our Grasp of Objective Moral Values

                    What you’re really asking, I think, is, “Why should I think that objective moral values exist rather than that evolution has made me believe in the illusion that there are objective moral values?” And the answer to that question is, “Because I clearly apprehend objective moral values and have no good reason to deny what I clearly perceive.”

                    This is the same answer we give to the sceptic who says, “How do you know you’re not just a body lying in the Matrix and that all that you see and experience is an illusory, virtual reality?” We have no way to get outside our five senses and prove that they’re veridical. Rather I clearly apprehend a world of people and trees and houses about me, and I have no good reason to doubt what I clearly perceive. Sure, it’s possible that I’m a body in the Matrix. But possibilities come cheap. The mere possibility provides no warrant for denying what I clearly grasp.

                    That’s not to say that our senses don’t sometimes deceive us or that some people don’t have physical impairments that prevent them from accurately apprehending the world. But that doesn’t justify total scepticism about the veridicality of my senses. Analogously, our moral sense is not infallible, and in some people, like the Nazis, it is terribly twisted and blunted. But that’s no justification for general moral scepticism.

                    Now, of course, the objector’s claim here will be that we’ve got good evidence that evolution has, in fact, determined our moral perceptions and so gives us a good reason to doubt the deliverances of our moral sense. But is that true? Two issues arise with respect to this claim.

                    First, to infer that because evolution has programmed us to believe in certain values, therefore those values are not objective is a logical fallacy. This was the point I made in the article against Michael Ruse...

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    He goes on, of course, and it's well worth reading if you really are curious about this topic. Unfortunately over the years I've simply read too many skeptics who are not actually interested in answers, but only in asking questions. I imagine this is more of the same.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Objective refers to believing some actions are intrinsically wrong, even if certain people don't believe it is.

                      For example: We believe that gassing an entire group of people to commit genocide is evil and wrong, even though the Nazi's believed it to be good when they did it. We look at it and say that it is intrinsically evil. If it were subjective then we would have no argument against it. We could only say that our society thinks it is wrong, but it is not actually wrong, we just don't "like" that it happened. The Nazi's did like it and so for them it was just fine and moral to murder 6 million Jews. Basically do what ever you want as long as YOU think it is right, and I will do whatever I want to do that I think is right. If I eat a baby, that is my business and it is not wrong for me. You might not like it so don't eat babies.
                      Also, the only way an absolute standard is required in order for the atheist to be justified in condemning the actions of Hitler, is if morality is indeed objective in nature. If, on the other hand, morality is subjective in nature, and operates similar to how other human constructs operate, then no absolute standard is required. This is why you must first demonstrate that morality is objective, because your critique of atheistic morality rests on that premise.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        I didn't say it was one way or another did I? I just explained what objective morality is.


                        But ask yourself: WHY is something like eating babies for fun actually wrong?
                        Actually wrong according to what standard? Because we understand the subjective nature of morality, and that people have the ability to create their own moral framework, then it goes without saying that to the person who doesn't value the life of innocent children it is right, and to the person that does value the life of innocent children it is wrong. Now how that works out in the real world is another question. What percentage of the human population actually eats babies, what the rest of the world thinks of that, what people who disagree with it are willing to do to stop it, how consistent it is with the predominant pro-social and empathetic moral intuition of human nature, and many other considerations are all factors that influence how subjective morality applies in this case. But if we're just talking about what we can demonstrate about the nature of morality, aside from the question of its application in the real world, then it depends on what moral framework you are judging the action by. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate otherwise, and that, in spite of everything we observe about how morality actually operates, it is objective in nature similar to the laws if physics or logic or mathematics.
                        Last edited by Raul; 11-03-2016, 04:34 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          oh crap, shunya is here. The thread will now devolve into a mess of incomprehensible nonsense as he spews his esoteric hoogly googly nonsense and keeps repeating himself ad nauseum.
                          No, just the facts you choose to ignore to justify your 'objective morality agenda.'

                          Raul made good points also.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            WLC, as you probably know, deals with questions like these all of the time. Here's a link where I think he helps answer the gist of the OP:

                            Source: Our Grasp of Objective Moral Values

                            What you’re really asking, I think, is, “Why should I think that objective moral values exist rather than that evolution has made me believe in the illusion that there are objective moral values?” And the answer to that question is, “Because I clearly apprehend objective moral values and have no good reason to deny what I clearly perceive.”

                            This is the same answer we give to the sceptic who says, “How do you know you’re not just a body lying in the Matrix and that all that you see and experience is an illusory, virtual reality?” We have no way to get outside our five senses and prove that they’re veridical. Rather I clearly apprehend a world of people and trees and houses about me, and I have no good reason to doubt what I clearly perceive. Sure, it’s possible that I’m a body in the Matrix. But possibilities come cheap. The mere possibility provides no warrant for denying what I clearly grasp.

                            That’s not to say that our senses don’t sometimes deceive us or that some people don’t have physical impairments that prevent them from accurately apprehending the world. But that doesn’t justify total scepticism about the veridicality of my senses. Analogously, our moral sense is not infallible, and in some people, like the Nazis, it is terribly twisted and blunted. But that’s no justification for general moral scepticism.

                            Now, of course, the objector’s claim here will be that we’ve got good evidence that evolution has, in fact, determined our moral perceptions and so gives us a good reason to doubt the deliverances of our moral sense. But is that true? Two issues arise with respect to this claim.

                            First, to infer that because evolution has programmed us to believe in certain values, therefore those values are not objective is a logical fallacy. This was the point I made in the article against Michael Ruse...

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            He goes on, of course, and it's well worth reading if you really are curious about this topic. Unfortunately over the years I've simply read too many skeptics who are not actually interested in answers, but only in asking questions. I imagine this is more of the same.
                            I actually am interested in answers. I want to know how Christians account for this. Here are some questions that might clarify what I'm looking for. What is it about subjective realities that make them them subjective realities? Does morality possess these characteristics? What is it about objective realities that make them objective realities? Does morality possess these characteristics?
                            Last edited by Raul; 11-03-2016, 08:14 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Raul View Post
                              Also, the only way an absolute standard is required in order for the atheist to be justified in condemning the actions of Hitler, is if morality is indeed objective in nature. If, on the other hand, morality is subjective in nature, and operates similar to how other human constructs operate, then no absolute standard is required. This is why you must first demonstrate that morality is objective, because your critique of atheistic morality rests on that premise.
                              again, you don't bother to read what I wrote and just assume I was arguing that morals are objective. I explained what objective morality is. I think Adrift is right. You seem to have some agenda here and don't really care what anyone writes, and just use whatever as a launching board for your next post. If you want a blog, I am sure you can find nice free blog sites elsewhere. This site is not a blog.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              160 responses
                              508 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X