maybe morality is only partially objective

[Chrawnus]

Hi Chrawnus,
Here are a few general principles of our shared moral code:
Not harming others
Being fair
Being loyal to a group
Respect for legitimate authority
Exalting what's pure, clean, and holy

When one examines the list it's easy to see how they can come into conflict. There can be objective agreement about each principle but a subjective feeling about which is more important.

Asserted, but not shown. I for one do not use my feelings when weighing between two choices, as that would be quite catastrophical.

You're making an assumption that general moral principles change from right to wrong. This is incorrect. What actually happens is that over time, or in different cultures, or with additional information, we shift the weighing of moral rights. One right gains importance over the other which used to be dominant.
The principles I listed above haven't changed a bit over time. What has changed is how important each is in comparison to the others.

This is simply not true. The view on homosexuality is changing right now from being regarded as something wrong, to something that's more and more acceptable in society right now.

Could you {or anyone) accept that something was morally right if every human on the planet agreed it felt wrong? I've never heard anyone argue for an objective moral right that didn't already agree with the vast majority of human emotion.

As I wrote before, I don't usually let my emotions decide moral matters for me. If they're in agreement with what I find to be morally good, then that's great, but I'm not letting me subjective feelings and fallen nature decide what's morally right for me to do.

I see. So parents don't have automatic emotional attachments to their children; they have to think it through first?
Domestic animals can display the same sort of overt affection (or hostility) as humans do. I presume they do so without complicated philosophical deliberations.

I'm not that sure that parents form emotional bonds because they feel that it's somehow morally good to do so, rather they just do. You're begging the question by assuming that there's a moral component there.

There's a famous moral question where a train is coming down a track towards 5 people. You have just time enough to pull a lever and shift the train to another track which has just 1 person on it. Do you do it? Sacrifice 1 to save 5? Most say "yes".
Now, a train is coming down a single track towards 5 people. You and a very large man are on an overpass above the track. You can stop the train by pushing the man off the overpass onto the track. Would you do it? Sacrifice 1 to save 5? Most say "no".
Logically, the two questions are the same. It all adds up to sacrificing 1 to save 5. But the emotional reactions differ greatly which leads to different answers.

All this shows is that you're going to have some serious problems if you base your morality on your feelings. To me it seems pretty clear that if you answer yes in the first situation then you'd have to answer yes in the other situation too or you'd be inconsistent.

Emotions play a big part in ethics and morals.

Unfortunately.

A faith-based statement is a subjective statement because faith is a strong subjective feeling of what's true. Can an objective morality be derived from a subjective feeling which is not shared by the vast majority of mankind?

Speak for yourself, because that's not what faith is at all. Faith is trusting a person who has given evidence that he can be trusted and relied upon, and not "a strong subjective feeling of what's true". I put my faith in God because I think that there's sufficient reason and evidence for me to do so, not because I have a "strong subjective feeling of what's true". The fact that the majority of humankind does not share my faith has nothing to do with whether or not it or anything I base upon it is objective or not.

avalon

Chrawnus (Who's faith is bit stronger than just a subjective feeling)

[psif]

You misunderstood me so much that there's nothing for me to reply to.

[psif]

I meant "nature" in the sense it is used in the natural law theory of morality. Perhaps you don't believe in natural law.

[Chrawnus]

I meant "nature" in the sense it is used in the natural law theory of morality. Perhaps you don't believe in natural law.

This is what you wrote:

Part of morality is acting in consonance with our nature (i.e. our God-given nature as humans and individuals). When our nature doesn't fully determine what is right and wrong, our own subjective feelings may fill in the gap, resulting in both our nature and our subjective feelings and choices, together, determining moral facts. So morality is always real, but not always, ontologically, fully objective.

Any sensible person would assume that you meant our nature as human being because you in no way implied that you meant it in the context of natural law. Perhaps you should be more clear in what you write.

But then I have to ask, in what way does appealing to natural law not hurt your case? It would seem to me that it only makes the case for a wholly objective morality even stronger.

What other parts did I misunderstand? Did I misunderstand the part where you incorrectly conflated a question of taste with a moral dilemma?

Regarding natural law. If you by natural law mean the part of the eternal law that we as humans can reason ourselves too, then yes, I believe that there is a natural law. If you mean somehing else, I don't know.

[psif]

Any sensible person would assume that you meant our nature as human being because you in no way implied that you meant it in the context of natural law. Perhaps you should be more clear in what you write. .

First of all, it's kind of annoying that you won't let me define what I meant; it's not like I'm lying to you, my friend. Secondly, you're confused. In natural law "nature" means nature as a human being. In natural law, things that are consonant with our objective human nature --our objective nature as human beings -- are considered moral. But, "nature" doesn't mean "what comes naturally to me" which may be how you are getting confused. Read up on it. I don't think I can carry on the conversation with you until you do.

Edit: added

[Chrawnus]

First of all, it's kind of annoying that you won't let me define what I meant; it's not like I'm lying to you, my friend.

I'm not saying that you're lying. I'm saying that you need to define your terms before you write something.

Secondly, you're confused. In natural law "nature" means nature as a human being. In natural law, things that are consonant with our objective human nature --our objective nature as human beings -- are considered moral. But, "nature" doesn't mean "what comes naturally to me" which may be how you are getting confused. Read up on it. I don't think I can carry on the conversation with you until you do.

I did misunderstand you then. I can't say you made it very clear what you meant by nature though, so I had to take my best guess. And from the way you wrote it seemed as though you meant nature as in "that which comes naturally to us." I apologize for misunderstanding. That being said, I still don't understand how it helps your case.

Perhaps you mean something (not necessarily exactly) like this?

I don't really know if objective morality requires there to be actions that are always good/bad, but rather that there exists certain moral values that are always the same. From a Christian perspective these moral values spring from God's nature and his purpose for the universe. These moral values gives a basis for when an action is good, or bad. Whenever an action goes against what God intended for the universe it is a bad/evil action and whenever an action works towards it it is a good action.

So no, I don't think there are that many actions that are always good, or evil. Instead I think that the circumstances decides. Worshipping God for example wouldn't be wrong, since we're supposed to do it, while worshipping false gods would be wrong, since that would go against the purpose of why God created us. There might be actions that are always good or bad regardless of circumstances, but I can't think of any right now.

[psif]

Perhaps you mean something (not necessarily exactly) like this?

Sorry for getting annoyed. That may be a way to rephrase it though I do think some things are indeed always right/wrong independent of subjective factors. All I'm saying is that among the circumstances that may make an action right/wrong are subjective factors.

I don't think whom you marry is just a matter of taste and non-moral. If you were to somehow randomly marry, I think that would be wrong. Or if you thoughtlessly married. And I think if you were strongly opposed to arranged marriages, it may be really wrong for you to agree to one; but for someone who is not so opposed, it may be really right. So even though morality is sometimes partly determined by subjective considerations, there are still robust moral facts in every case.

Morality concerns how we relate to one another and marriage certainly involves greatly how we relate to one another. Ice cream consumption choices don't involve that directly.

[Chrawnus]

Sorry for getting annoyed. That may be a way to rephrase it though I do think some things are indeed always right/wrong independent of subjective factors. All I'm saying is that among the circumstances that may make an action right/wrong are subjective factors.

Fair enough.

I don't think whom you marry is just a matter of taste and non-moral. If you were to somehow randomly marry, I think that would be wrong. Or if you thoughtlessly married. And I think if you were strongly opposed to arranged marriages, it may be really wrong for you to agree to one; but for someone who is not so opposed, it may be really right. So even though morality is sometimes partly determined by subjective considerations, there are still robust moral facts in every case.

You're certainly correct in your assesment that the choice of your marriage partner has a degree of morality to it, that's not what I'm contending. I also agree that it would be wrong to marry thoughtlessly. I even agree that a person who's opposed to arranged marriages shouldn't agree to one. But I still think that arranged marriage in and of itself is not wrong, only that someone who has moral qualms about it (whether they're justified or not) should not agree to go along with a arranged marriage, as per Romans 14. If however, they changed their view on arranged marriage (such as realizing that it is not wrong) then they would not do something morally wrong by agreeing to arranged marriage, even if they did not do it willingly (Doing something unwillingly does not mean the act itself would be wrong.) So I think the only case where it would be wrong would be when the person really believes arranged marriage is wrong, and not just dislikes the notion. I think you would agree on this, though I'm not sure.

I'm beginning to suspect that our views aren't that much different, I think it's more a case of using different terminology. I wouldn't for example, say that morality is subjective only because we decide on certain moral actions subjectively. For me, saying morality is subjective is saying that moral values are decided subjectively, which I hope you agree is not true.

Morality concerns how we relate to one another and marriage certainly involves greatly how we relate to one another. Ice cream consumption choices don't involve that directly.

You're of course correct in that regard. It was rather silly of me to compare it to the act of choosing between ice cream.

[JimL]

There are two kinds of people in the end James, those who receive justice personally, and those whom Christ has received justice on their behalf.

If you should commit a murder, and someone else is executed in your stead simply because they are willed by your father to do so, even though that someone would prefer not to drink from that cup, then that is not justice unless you are redifining the term to suit your own agenda. It may be merciful unto you, but it is not just to the scapegoat who unwillingly pays your debt for you. Even should you argue that he was willing you could hardly call that justice.

[Angra Mainyu]

Angra, it is quite simple. If God exists His moral law exists independently of mankind. It is not subjected to man's whims or cultural mores. It exist objectively. So apart from God how would the non-theist ground ethics objectively? Plato's forms? Where would they exist in a non subjective state?

No, Craig's attack to what he calls “atheist moral realism” is a strawman. I've never seen an atheist realist defending such belief. Craig says it's absurd – well, that's true; Platonic forms metaethics is nonsense.

But that said, what would it mean to talk about “grounding”?

If I ask you for the “grounding” of objective color, or objective bipolar disorder, what would you say?

The question is whether statements such as “it's immoral to torture people for fun”, or other statements like “X is immoral”, “X is morally obligatory”, etc., are true, independently of who makes the statement – what else would you need?

That, in turn, is a matter of the meaning of the words.

If morality is objective, what you need is a species-wide human trait, a moral sense of sorts that tracks some property in the world around us – not in the speaker, but in those being judged - , and then the usage of moral terms will track whatever property that moral sense tracks – like color statements will track the perception of color vision -, usage determines meaning, so you will have that everyone mean the same by moral statements.

According to many atheist objectivists, that moral sense is probably an evolutionary adaptation - much like color vision is -, though the atheist need not be committed to any particular stance on the etiology of the moral sense; it's enough to point out that theists who claim that atheism entails no objective morality have not shown so.

P.S: As I mentioned, I'm not sure I'll have time to engage many posters here. If you don't want a formal debate, I propose a one-on-one discussion in the “Communication Studies 101” on the subject of metaethical arguments for theism, and specifically the claim that atheism entails no objective morality.

[avalon]

Hi Chrawnu,

I for one do not use my feelings when weighing between two choices, as that would be quite catastrophical.

Interesting. So in the case of abortion you consider the logical consequences of overpopulating a planet with limited resources? China's one-child policy would seem to be a logical thing to do; but does it feel morally right to you? Same with euthanasia? Why expend valuable resources on the elderly if they contribute nothing of value to society?
How about cannibalism? If the soul leaves a body at death then why not use the meat to feed other people? What is logical about treating a dead human body with respect and spending thousands of dollars to dispose of it?

The view on homosexuality is changing right now from being regarded as something wrong, to something that's more and more acceptable in society right now.

Good example! What moral good was being accomplished in the past by discriminating against gays? Could it be they were considered a threat to society (being loyal to a group -heterosexuals vs being fair and not harming others)? The good of protecting society from homosexuals was once considered more important than the good of being fair and not harming gays.
In Uganda today there is a bill pending in parliment that would make homosexuality punishable by death. They believe (incorrectly) that gays prey on children to 'convert' them, so they favor protecting their children more than being fair to others. They don't claim it's 'right' to kill gays, they claim it's right to protect children and society.
The UN resolution that passed a few days ago is a response to that bill in Uganda. The resolution "expressed "grave concern at acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity." That is, the UN claimed a moral right.
"The prospect of having their laws scrutinized in this way went too far for many of the council's 47-member states". "We are seriously concerned at the attempt to introduce to the United Nations some notions that have no legal foundation," In other words, in response some nations said it is their right as a sovereign nation to determine what laws to pass and what type of society to have. One moral right (equality of individuals) vs another moral right (self-determination of nations). Which is more right? Which outweighs the other? Boris Dittrich of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights program at Human Rights Watch said, "It's up to civil society to name and shame those governments that continue abuses," But this is the wrong approach. How can you shame a nation that believes it's protecting it's children and society? How much shame will they attach to the right of self-determination? To solve this issue both sides need to understand that there's two or more moral rights in conflict; not just one moral right being denied.

As I wrote before, I don't usually let my emotions decide moral matters for me. If they're in agreement with what I find to be morally good, then that's great, but I'm not letting me subjective feelings and fallen nature decide what's morally right for me to do.

Then I'm sure you wouldn't mind taking a few tests to prove that:

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/morality_play.php

http://moral.wjh.harvard.edu/

Let me know how it works out for you...

I'm not that sure that parents form emotional bonds because they feel that it's somehow morally good to do so, rather they just do.

Yes, exactly! The emotional bonds form naturally and THEN it is felt to be morally good.

avalon

[seer]

No, Craig's attack to what he calls “atheist moral realism” is a strawman. I've never seen an atheist realist defending such belief. Craig says it's absurd – well, that's true; Platonic forms metaethics is nonsense.

I'm not defending Craig's position. Just stating my own.

But that said, what would it mean to talk about “grounding”?

If I ask you for the “grounding” of objective color, or objective bipolar disorder, what would you say?

In the case of ethics, God law would be the source or ground for human ethics.

[quote]The question is whether statements such as “it's immoral to torture people for fun”, or other statements like “X is immoral”, “X is morally obligatory”, etc., are true, independently of who makes the statement – what else would you need?

Well is it true independently of who makes the statement? From the non-theistic view point? How can that be?

If morality is objective, what you need is a species-wide human trait, a moral sense of sorts that tracks some property in the world around us – not in the speaker, but in those being judged - , and then the usage of moral terms will track whatever property that moral sense tracks – like color statements will track the perception of color vision -, usage determines meaning, so you will have that everyone mean the same by moral statements.

Well this I do know, I live in the far east and though the language is different they understand quite well what murder, rape, stealing, fraud, etc... are. And they "track" our understanding almost perfectly.

According to many atheist objectivists, that moral sense is probably an evolutionary adaptation - much like color vision is -, though the atheist need not be committed to any particular stance on the etiology of the moral sense; it's enough to point out that theists who claim that atheism entails no objective morality have not shown so.

Of course you can not offer an objective source for human ethics. The concept itself is foolish. Please, if you think otherwise offer one here and now.

P.S: As I mentioned, I'm not sure I'll have time to engage many posters here. If you don't want a formal debate, I propose a one-on-one discussion in the “Communication Studies 101” on the subject of metaethical arguments for theism, and specifically the claim that atheism entails no objective morality.

We can discuss it here. How about this - we will only respond to each other?

[avalon]

Chrawnu,
More on the gay issue in Uganda and how people weigh rights rather than change their idea of right and wrong:

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePag....php?ID=211415

"A senior member of Parliament has warned that the homosexual community in Ghana may soon be at the receiving end of mounting public anger in the form of physical attacks and outright death if they do not stop what he calls their evil deeds."
(Is it morally right to fight evil?)

“You cannot trace this act to any of the settings in Ghana. So this is foreign and I am I saying that Ghanaians cherish our culture a lot so for anybody to adulterate the cultural setting in Ghana as far as this act is concerned,
(Is it morally right to fight foreign invasions that threaten your society?)

"The Legislator said issues of human rights cannot justify the practice of homosexuality in Ghana, which he according to him, could incur the wrath of God on a “God-fearing nation” like Ghana." (Is it morally right to obey God?)

“I believe that the male organ was created for two things: for passing urine and for releasing spermatozoa which is needed for creating. You can only engage in that activity with a woman. So I believe that a woman when married has a right to the use of the organ and must be concerned about how the organ is used because its usage has a direct bearing on her relationship and her health. So the women, who are interested in keeping their marriages and hoping to have good husbands in future, must help those who are against homosexuality because they really have an interest in the organs being in perfect order and being used for the purpose for which they were created".
(Is it morally right to protect the natural order?)

Nowhere did this man claim it is "good" to kill gays. Instead he claims the moral right to 1) protect his society 2) obey God and 3) defend the "natural" order. He believes these rights outweigh the rights of equality for gays. He may one day decide that equality for gays outweighs those other rights, but this will happen through education, not by shaming him.

avalon

[Chrawnus]

Hi Chrawnu,
Interesting. So in the case of abortion you consider the logical consequences of overpopulating a planet with limited resources? China's one-child policy would seem to be a logical thing to do; but does it feel morally right to you? Same with euthanasia? Why expend valuable resources on the elderly if they contribute nothing of value to society?
How about cannibalism? If the soul leaves a body at death then why not use the meat to feed other people? What is logical about treating a dead human body with respect and spending thousands of dollars to dispose of it?

Uh, no. In the case of abortion I consider the sanctity of life espoused by the Bible. I'm undecided about China's one-child policy. Even euthanasia falls under SoT. Simply by using one principle from the Bible. I can logically conclude that some things are wrong even if they under an atheistic view would seem perfectly permissible when looking at it logically. Eating a dead body would mean defiling someone who has been created in the image of God, so that would be wrong too.

Good example! What moral good was being accomplished in the past by discriminating against gays? Could it be they were considered a threat to society (being loyal to a group -heterosexuals vs being fair and not harming others)? The good of protecting society from homosexuals was once considered more important than the good of being fair and not harming gays.
In Uganda today there is a bill pending in parliment that would make homosexuality punishable by death. They believe (incorrectly) that gays prey on children to 'convert' them, so they favor protecting their children more than being fair to others. They don't claim it's 'right' to kill gays, they claim it's right to protect children and society.
The UN resolution that passed a few days ago is a response to that bill in Uganda. The resolution "expressed "grave concern at acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity." That is, the UN claimed a moral right.
"The prospect of having their laws scrutinized in this way went too far for many of the council's 47-member states". "We are seriously concerned at the attempt to introduce to the United Nations some notions that have no legal foundation," In other words, in response some nations said it is their right as a sovereign nation to determine what laws to pass and what type of society to have. One moral right (equality of individuals) vs another moral right (self-determination of nations). Which is more right? Which outweighs the other? Boris Dittrich of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights program at Human Rights Watch said, "It's up to civil society to name and shame those governments that continue abuses," But this is the wrong approach. How can you shame a nation that believes it's protecting it's children and society? How much shame will they attach to the right of self-determination? To solve this issue both sides need to understand that there's two or more moral rights in conflict; not just one moral right being denied.

Uh, you completely missed my point. My point was that homosexuality itself was considered morally culpable years ago, but that view is now changing. Ergo, the view is changing from homosexuality being wrong, to homosexuality being ok. Don't try to confuse the issue with red herrings.

Then I'm sure you wouldn't mind taking a few tests to prove that:

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/morality_play.php

http://moral.wjh.harvard.edu/

Let me know how it works out for you...

The tests were useless. They wouldn't let me base my decisions on biblical grounds.

Yes, exactly! The emotional bonds form naturally and THEN it is felt to be morally good.

avalon

That wasn't all I wrote. You're begging the question by assuming that there's a moral component in the emotional bonding process. What you're stating above is a another issue. Your original standpoint was that people decide upon moral issues based upon their feelings and gave as an example the emotional bonding between child and parent. The only problem is that you haven't shown that there's a moral part in the process of bonding, which means you're begging the question.

[avalon]

Hi Chrawnus,

Uh, no. In the case of abortion I consider the sanctity of life espoused by the Bible. I'm undecided about China's one-child policy. Even euthanasia falls under SoT. Simply by using one principle from the Bible. I can logically conclude that some things are wrong even if they under an atheistic view would seem perfectly permissible when looking at it logically. Eating a dead body would mean defiling someone who has been created in the image of God, so that would be wrong too.

And the "sanctity of life" has nothing to do with our emotions?
If the soul has left the body isn't the true person gone? Jesus didn't see much need for respecting the dead and giving them a proper burial (Matt 8:21).
As for trying to get objective moral values from the bible, it seems impossible when literally no one agrees on interpretation.

Uh, you completely missed my point. My point was that homosexuality itself was considered morally culpable years ago, but that view is now changing.

No, you missed my point. There is no single issue involved, it is always weighing a number of moral issues (as I have shown is happening in Uganda). To say this was once a single issue is to blind yourself to the other moral values involved.

Ergo, the view is changing from homosexuality being wrong, to homosexuality being ok. Don't try to confuse the issue with red herrings.

.Look at Uganda. The same things that are happening there used to happen most everywhere. The MP from parliament clearly stated what more issues OUTWEIGH the gay rights issue. The gay rights activist tries to focus on a single issue and tries to RELABEL it. He'll have no luck because the Ugandan isn't labeling issues, he's weighing issues. Morals is rarely one single issue; and when it is you'll find that most everyone agrees.

Your original standpoint was that people decide upon moral issues based upon their feelings

Emotions are part of it, but not all of it. Our moral standards are much more complicated than that.

The only problem is that you haven't shown that there's a moral part in the process of bonding, which means you're begging the question.

There isn't a moral part to bonding, they're two separate issues. When a parent doesn't bond properly to a child those who have that strong emotional attachment feel the uncaring parent is morally wrong. This doesn't happen by reasoning logically, it's because of the natural emotional attachment most have towards children. The moral judgement wasn't a part of bonding, it's a natural result of bonding.

avalon