Griggsy

Originally posted by Griggsy

Subjectivity underpins objective morality!
I take that paradox from John Beversluis's "C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion." To quote:" The Golden Rule [ I add and the Silver One, g.] is not a substantive moral rule from which we can deduce specific duties: it is a formal rule that requires impartiality.Its substantive moral is provided by are preferences; not as Lewis would have us believe, in the sense of whatever we happen to like and dislike, but in the very different sense of our judgements of approval and disapproval-judgments that often are at odds with what we personally like or dislike and based on the insight that, as a rational being , I cannot reasonable ask people to treat me in certain ways unless I am willing to treat them in the same ways.Such judgments are subjective in the sense that they originate in the feelings of the people making them. But they are also objective in two important ways; first, they are universal and apply to everyone; second, they are based on the principles of equity and equal treatment. So from the fact that moral judgments are subjective, it follows neither that they vary from person to person nor that they are just " private ideas" in people's minds."
Here , I derive the paradox: that subjectivism relies on our evolved moral sense of empathy that we have to extend globally, noting the consequences as noted in my first post here in this thread.
Beversluis takes Lewis to task for emphasizing global acceptance of the same morality but interpreting it differently from a disagreement about fact in order to overcome moral relativism However, these disagreements are about values. Also, the differences about bigamy and monogamy and homosexuality and heterosexuality vary.
Quinten Smith in his book on ethics and religion, notes there are many moral notions that we all do indeed follow: we don't slap people when they pass us , we don't spit on others,etc. .
We reason together to find a consensus for laws, reflecting morality. We urge others to see what we see as the consequences of actions: we humanists and others in favor of bi- and homosexual rights, show how their acts are not evil. We use facts. We appeal to the empathy of the anti-bi- and homosexual people..
This is how we can overcome relativism.
I call this notion of subjectivism wide-reflective subjectivism as opposed to the simple one of Lord Russell and Michael Ruse ,based on mere feelings [ Now their personal morality is quite good.] as opposed to considered judgment . It is that of Hume and
Hobbes.
From consequences, we make rules.
So. morality binds us all, even a god!
So, Fr. Griggsy unites teleological [ consequentialism] and deontological [rules] and virtue ethics. There are difficulties with each considered alone. He unites subjectivism and objectivism in ethics. He unites free will with determinism - causal free will as opposed to the contra-causal one of indeterminism.
So, theists should not call people practical atheists as we atheists have decent morality! A " practical atheist" would indeed have one!
Zorathruster and my other friends here, what say you?
What is the morality of adult incest? Is that wrong? Are the consequences wrong that we should have a rule against it or is it moral as based on no bad consequences?
Oh, from the acceptance of bi-and homosexual marriage, one should not make the slippery slope fallacy and the non sequitur that therefore one can have plural marriages; that requires argument in itself.

Richard Carrier in " Sense and Goodness without God: a Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism" advocates the goal theory, which is similar to mine.