Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[carpedm9587]

At least you are consistent.

Hopefully

[carpedm9587]

I think my point is clear. Whether one finds homosexuality disgusting or immoral on its face, with no other rationale, is just as substantive (or not) as one who accepts the behavior as moral just because he happened to be born in a particular culture at a particular time. Throwing out the idea that a rationale is necessary does not change that, since reasons are often just as subjective and culturally relative.

You clearly have a problem with things being culturally relative, Seer, that much has been clear from the outset. The problem I see is two-fold.

1) First, as an atheist, there is essentially no other choice. Even if you COULD make the case that a god's (such as the one you believe in) moral code is universal and absolute, you would then have to show that this god actually exists. From the perspective of a belief that there is no such being, and yet experiencing the sense of "right" and "wrong" we call conscience, I am left to look for its source. I find that source in basic reasoning colored by cultural, communal, and familial influences.

2) You have not really made the case that an "objective" or "universal" or "absolute" moral framework is better than a subjective one. From what I can see, most of your posts amount to, "a subjective/relative/individual moral framework is not better than an objective/universal/absolute moral framework because it is not objective/universal/absolute." Hopefully you can see the circularity of assuming that objective/universal/absolute is the metric against which all moral frameworks are to be measured, and then finding any other framework "less."

I mentioned this at the start of our discussion. Your OP, as best I could tell, was looking for how someone without a theistic approach could form a rational ethical framework. I have provided one. From start to pretty much end, your assessment has almost continually been an attempt to judge that framework from the perspective of your own, rather than to assess it for internal consistency. If you are going to understand an opposing point of view, you have to start my "accepting" its presuppositions.

On a practical note, I would also like to point out that there does not seem to be a lot of effective difference between our two approaches. I see wide variation between cultures and groups in the moral code that is followed by both religious and nonreligious people. I see wide disagreement about what is and is not moral in both groups. Functionally, there is not a lot of difference between groups that have differing moral codes based on cultural/communal/familial influences, and groups that have differing moral codes based on differing interpretations of the "absolute" moral code they claim exists.

[seer]

1) First, as an atheist, there is essentially no other choice. Even if you COULD make the case that a god's (such as the one you believe in) moral code is universal and absolute, you would then have to show that this god actually exists. From the perspective of a belief that there is no such being, and yet experiencing the sense of "right" and "wrong" we call conscience, I am left to look for its source. I find that source in basic reasoning colored by cultural, communal, and familial influences.

Carp, there are a lot of well thought out arguments for the existence of God, you don't find them compelling, I do.

2) You have not really made the case that an "objective" or "universal" or "absolute" moral framework is better than a subjective one. From what I can see, most of your posts amount to, "a subjective/relative/individual moral framework is not better than an objective/universal/absolute moral framework because it is not objective/universal/absolute." Hopefully you can see the circularity of assuming that objective/universal/absolute is the metric against which all moral frameworks are to be measured, and then finding any other framework "less."

Well no, the bottom line, like I explained, is that if universal moral truths don't exist, no behavior or ethical system is objectively (and I will use objective in this instance) better or more valid than its opposite. We either ultimately live in a just and moral universe or an unjust and amoral universe. And like I also mentioned this also bears on what man is by nature, the haphazard by product of the forces of nature or do we have an objective worth and purpose.

I mentioned this at the start of our discussion. Your OP, as best I could tell, was looking for how someone without a theistic approach could form a rational ethical framework. I have provided one. From start to pretty much end, your assessment has almost continually been an attempt to judge that framework from the perspective of your own, rather than to assess it for internal consistency. If you are going to understand an opposing point of view, you have to start my "accepting" its presuppositions.

But internal consistency is meaningless when it comes to ethics, that does not tell us what is right or wrong or even why. The Nazis were consistent on their views of the Jews, the Communists were rational concerning their view on dissidents and how to deal with them Both views lead to the slaughter of millions. So consistency is not, and can not, be the arbiter of what is good or not.

On a practical note, I would also like to point out that there does not seem to be a lot of effective difference between our two approaches. I see wide variation between cultures and groups in the moral code that is followed by both religious and nonreligious people. I see wide disagreement about what is and is not moral in both groups. Functionally, there is not a lot of difference between groups that have differing moral codes based on cultural/communal/familial influences, and groups that have differing moral codes based on differing interpretations of the "absolute" moral code they claim exists.

I generally agree with this. There is a difference between ontology and epistemology. Do these universal moral truths exist and how do we know them.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, there are a lot of well thought out arguments for the existence of God, you don't find them compelling, I do.

This I know, Seer. I do not, as you well know. Perhaps a discussion for another time.

Well no, the bottom line, like I explained, is that if universal moral truths don't exist, no behavior or ethical system is objectively (and I will use objective in this instance) better or more valid than its opposite. We either ultimately live in a just and moral universe or an unjust and amoral universe. And like I also mentioned this also bears on what man is by nature, the haphazard by product of the forces of nature or do we have an objective worth and purpose.

You really don't see it, do you? You do not see how you continue to assess subjective morality from within an objective framework. You cannot seem to help yourself. Correcting your statement to reflect what you are actually saying, it is: if universal moral truths don't exist, no behavior or ethical system is objectively (and I will use objective in this instance) better or more objectively valid than its opposite. My moral framework is more valid than any other to me. Someone else will find their's more valid to them than mine. They are, after all, subjective. You continue to try to measure them against an objective worldview - which is not rational - IMO. You cannot determine the inconsistency of a worldview without first accepting its presuppositions. Now if you want to object to the presuppositions, that is the discussion aluded to above.

But internal consistency is meaningless when it comes to ethics, that does not tell us what is right or wrong or even why. The Nazis were consistent on their views of the Jews, the Communists were rational concerning their view on dissidents and how to deal with them Both views lead to the slaughter of millions. So consistency is not, and can not, be the arbiter of what is good or not.

Consistency within a personal framework can. It cannot (yet again) from some objective framework because such a thing does not exist, or at least has not been shown to exist in this discussion.

I generally agree with this. There is a difference between ontology and epistemology. Do these universal moral truths exist and how do we know them.

Apparently - poorly. Or, as I believe, they actually do not exist and what they are is actually cultural/religious norms projected on a supreme being to lend them authority. If I were to do what you are doing, and assess your moral framework from within mine - that is what I see.

[Tassman]

Carp, there are a lot of well thought out arguments for the existence of God, you don't find them compelling, I do.

Only metaphysical arguments, none supported by scientific knowledge.

Well no, the bottom line, like I explained, is that if universal moral truths don't exist, no behavior or ethical system is objectively (and I will use objective in this instance) better or more valid than its opposite. We either ultimately live in a just and moral universe or an unjust and amoral universe. And like I also mentioned this also bears on what man is by nature, the haphazard by product of the forces of nature or do we have an objective worth and purpose.

Morals don’t exist for their own sake, as your argument seems to imply, they have a purpose. They were naturally built into us, because they were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals.

But internal consistency is meaningless when it comes to ethics, that does not tell us what is right or wrong or even why. The Nazis were consistent on their views of the Jews, the Communists were rational concerning their view on dissidents and how to deal with them Both views lead to the slaughter of millions. So consistency is not, and can not, be the arbiter of what is good or not.

What works is the arbiter of what is good or not for a particular society.

I generally agree with this. There is a difference between ontology and epistemology. Do these universal moral truths exist and how do we know them.

The natural evolution of human behaviour ensures the survival of the family and community so that the human species survives. Any “universal moral truths” that may be claimed to exist must embody these natural qualities.

[carpedm9587]

Only metaphysical arguments, none supported by scientific knowledge.

How exactly would you submit a proposed metaphysical being to scientific proofs? There are some things science is simply not well suited to, and this would appear to me to be one of them.

Morals don’t exist for their own sake, as your argument seems to imply, they have a purpose. They were naturally built into us, because they were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals.

I'm always nervous about language that seems to subscribe intentionality to a natural process like evolution. But I take your meaning. Most people focus on the "competition" aspect of evolution (i.e., survival of the fittest), but there is more recent research into the coorperative aspect of evolution - not just in the human species, but others as well - where the dynamics of cooperation enhance the survivalbility of the community or species as a whole, thereby enhancing the survivability of its members.

What works is the arbiter of what is good or not for a particular society.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. I'll have to think about that. I'm not sure how I make "what works" explain the phenomenon of self-sacrifice, individually or communally.

The natural evolution of human behaviour ensures the survival of the family and community so that the human species survives. Any “universal moral truths” that may be claimed to exist must embody these natural qualities.

I'm not sure "must" is appropriate here, if you are talking "necessity." The fact is, the most commonly held moral positions within the human community DO embody these principles. They are so widely held, they have been encoded into many religions as "universals" and attributed to their gods. But then, from their perspective, they are universals because their god has imbude humanity with these principles in the phenomenon of conscience.

The argument more or less rests on the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods. If such a being exists, that it would be able to "create" humans with such a psychological construct as "conscience" and code it (much as a programmer codes software) with a particular moral code is not beyond the pale. That this would give this being "moral authority" is a separate question, for reasons discussed previously. If no such being exists, then we need to look elsewhere for the source of "conscience," and the evolutionary process is a fairly obvious candidate.

[Tassman]

How exactly would you submit a proposed metaphysical being to scientific proofs? There are some things science is simply not well suited to, and this would appear to me to be one of them.

You can’t that’s the point. The only arguments for the existence of God are metaphysical arguments, which are not at all “compelling” in my view.

I'm always nervous about language that seems to subscribe intentionality to a natural process like evolution. But I take your meaning. Most people focus on the "competition" aspect of evolution (i.e., survival of the fittest), but there is more recent research into the coorperative aspect of evolution - not just in the human species, but others as well - where the dynamics of cooperation enhance the survivalbility of the community or species as a whole, thereby enhancing the survivability of its members.

Yes, exactly. E.g. the work of Frans de Waal: ““Since altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behaviour, finding them in our fellow mammals suggests that they run deep in our brain biology and did not come about because of moral reasoning or religion. In fact, probably the opposite is true—religion developed because of our innate capacities for caring”.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. I'll have to think about that. I'm not sure how I make "what works" explain the phenomenon of self-sacrifice, individually or communally.

“Self –sacrifice” is usually explained as ensuring the furtherance of the specie by preserving the DNA of one’s own species.

I'm not sure "must" is appropriate here, if you are talking "necessity." The fact is, the most commonly held moral positions within the human community DO embody these principles. They are so widely held, they have been encoded into many religions as "universals" and attributed to their gods. But then, from their perspective, they are universals because their god has imbude humanity with these principles in the phenomenon of conscience.

Why should the phenomenon of consciousness be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being? Why couldn’t it have arisen naturally as has every other phenomenon?

The argument more or less rests on the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods. If such a being exists, that it would be able to "create" humans with such a psychological construct as "conscience" and code it (much as a programmer codes software) with a particular moral code is not beyond the pale. That this would give this being "moral authority" is a separate question, for reasons discussed previously. If no such being exists, then we need to look elsewhere for the source of "conscience," and the evolutionary process is a fairly obvious candidate.

Well yes evolution can do the same, why invoke gods?

[seer]

This I know, Seer. I do not, as you well know. Perhaps a discussion for another time.

OK, fair enough...

You really don't see it, do you? You do not see how you continue to assess subjective morality from within an objective framework. You cannot seem to help yourself. Correcting your statement to reflect what you are actually saying, it is: if universal moral truths don't exist, no behavior or ethical system is objectively (and I will use objective in this instance) better or more objectively valid than its opposite. My moral framework is more valid than any other to me. Someone else will find their's more valid to them than mine. They are, after all, subjective. You continue to try to measure them against an objective worldview - which is not rational - IMO. You cannot determine the inconsistency of a worldview without first accepting its presuppositions. Now if you want to object to the presuppositions, that is the discussion aluded to above.

Well no, I'm just pointing out what logically follows from your position.

Consistency within a personal framework can. It cannot (yet again) from some objective framework because such a thing does not exist, or at least has not been shown to exist in this discussion.

No Carp, consistency does not and can not tell us what is moral. The Nazi or Communist could have perfectly consistent ethical systems - but do they tell us anything about what is right or wrong. Of course they don't. It just tells us they are consistent.

Apparently - poorly. Or, as I believe, they actually do not exist and what they are is actually cultural/religious norms projected on a supreme being to lend them authority. If I were to do what you are doing, and assess your moral framework from within mine - that is what I see.

And from my worldview I would say that sin has clouded our moral judgement and understanding.

[carpedm9587]

OK, fair enough...

Well no, I'm just pointing out what logically follows from your position.

No - you are continually harping on something I have already acknowledged multiple times: a subjective moral framework has no basis for universally/objectively declaring any one moral framework moral valid than another. The validity is individual: my moral framework will be more valid to me than yours - yours will be more valid to you than mine. Unless I can persuade you to see validity in my argument, your moral framework will not change. Unless you can persuade me to see validity in your moral framework, mine will not change.

But you keep coming back to the absence of a lack of "absolute" validity, as if it's a problem - a shortcoming. It's only a shortcoming to you because you have already decided (without actually showing) that an absolute/universal moral framework is "better." So you keep repeating it, over and over - without ever showing it to be true. This is what I mean when I note you are assessing the subjective moral framework from within the bounds of the objective world - and you are making assertions you have not supported.

No Carp, consistency does not and can not tell us what is moral. The Nazi or Communist could have perfectly consistent ethical systems - but do they tell us anything about what is right or wrong. Of course they don't. It just tells us they are consistent.

They tell us about what is right or wrong for them, not for me and not for you. MY moral framework tells me what is right or wrong for me. To do that, it must be internally consistent. If it is not, it is irrational and, like all other irrational statements, doesn't tell us anything about anything.

Again, Seer - you are objecting to the subjective moral framework because it's not objective - you are not, IMO, arguing rationally.

But I'm beginning to think this is not something you are going to be able to see.

And from my worldview I would say that sin has clouded our moral judgement and understanding.

I find that a bit circular - or maybe it's a tautology? Sin is "acting immorally," as far as I know. So you are saying, "acting immorally is clouding our moral judgment." That doesn't say a lot to me. It's sort of self evident. If we are acting against our own moral framework, then our moral judgment is either clouded, or we're ignoring it altogether.

The fact is that, if there is a single absolute moral framework, there are apparently a lot of very devout people out there with opposing moral positions. They all think they are aligned on the "absolute." So how am I to determine which of you is aligned to the "right one?" In fact, how are you to determine that? You believe YOU are aligned correctly, probably to the core of your being. But other very devout people are just as convinced as you are that THEY are acting and choosing morally and you have taken a bad turn.

Amazing how, even with a supposed "absolute" to provide guidance, we end up with subjective moral frameworks. Yours is simply your interpretation of the "absolute" you think exists. Mine simply does not have the absolute that requires interpretation.

[seer]

No - you are continually harping on something I have already acknowledged multiple times: a subjective moral framework has no basis for universally/objectively declaring any one moral framework moral valid than another. The validity is individual: my moral framework will be more valid to me than yours - yours will be more valid to you than mine. Unless I can persuade you to see validity in my argument, your moral framework will not change. Unless you can persuade me to see validity in your moral framework, mine will not change.

Right but that does mean there are no right answers, just preferences. You prefer lobster, I prefer steak. The Nazis prefer gassing Jewish children, you don't. Ethics are thus reduced to individual or collective preferences. I think most people would intuitively reject that concept.

But you keep coming back to the absence of a lack of "absolute" validity, as if it's a problem - a shortcoming. It's only a shortcoming to you because you have already decided (without actually showing) that an absolute/universal moral framework is "better." So you keep repeating it, over and over - without ever showing it to be true. This is what I mean when I note you are assessing the subjective moral framework from within the bounds of the objective world - and you are making assertions you have not supported.

I'm not sure what you mean - where did you demonstrate that ethics are only relative or parochial or non-universal? Carp, you too are making an unprovable claim.

They tell us about what is right or wrong for them, not for me and not for you. MY moral framework tells me what is right or wrong for me. To do that, it must be internally consistent. If it is not, it is irrational and, like all other irrational statements, doesn't tell us anything about anything.

Right so gassing Jewish children was right for them. Got it.

I find that a bit circular - or maybe it's a tautology? Sin is "acting immorally," as far as I know. So you are saying, "acting immorally is clouding our moral judgment." That doesn't say a lot to me. It's sort of self evident. If we are acting against our own moral framework, then our moral judgment is either clouded, or we're ignoring it altogether.

I don't see how that is circular. There is something in man, selfishness, pride, fear (in short sin) that cause us to ignore or minimize the good moral ideals we instinctively know.

The fact is that, if there is a single absolute moral framework, there are apparently a lot of very devout people out there with opposing moral positions. They all think they are aligned on the "absolute." So how am I to determine which of you is aligned to the "right one?" In fact, how are you to determine that? You believe YOU are aligned correctly, probably to the core of your being. But other very devout people are just as convinced as you are that THEY are acting and choosing morally and you have taken a bad turn.

Again, the fact that we can get some things, or many things, wrong does not bear on the fact of whether such universal truths exist or not

Amazing how, even with a supposed "absolute" to provide guidance, we end up with subjective moral frameworks. Yours is simply your interpretation of the "absolute" you think exists. Mine simply does not have the absolute that requires interpretation.

And we end up with the Nazis being right in gassing Jewish children according to their worldview. Nice that...

[seer]

They tell us about what is right or wrong for them, not for me and not for you. MY moral framework tells me what is right or wrong for me. To do that, it must be internally consistent. If it is not, it is irrational and, like all other irrational statements, doesn't tell us anything about anything.

Let me ask you a personal question Carp, have you ever done something that violated your own moral code? Or is your code so malleable that you could include any behavior?

[carpedm9587]

Right but that does mean there are no right answers, just preferences. You prefer lobster, I prefer steak. The Nazis prefer gassing Jewish children, you don't. Ethics are thus reduced to individual or collective preferences. I think most people would intuitively reject that concept.

There are no right "absolute" answers - already acknowledged. Also noted that morality is not preference in the same way food tastes are - and explained why. I also explained how personal moral norms combine to become social moral norms - and noted the wide similarity between them due to common frameworks. So you're not saying anything here except, "it's not universal" or "it's not absolute" - again...

I'm not sure what you mean - where did you demonstrate that ethics are only relative or parochial or non-universal? Carp, you too are making an unprovable claim.

That has basically nothing to do with my observation - which is that you keep returning to the same complaint: "it's not universal" or "it's not absolute," as if you are actually saying something more than I have already said. So the implication is, it's not functional or good or valid BECAUSE it's not universal/absolute/objective. Yet you have not shown that universal/objective/absolute is a) better, or b) existent.

Right so gassing Jewish children was right for them. Got it.

I have no idea if it was, or if they were ignoring their own moral code for another purpose. Only they know that. But it IS possible that someone will see it as moral, as noted, usually by denying the humanity of the people in question OR by emphasizing the "perfect" humanity of themselves and those like them (i.e., the master race).

Likewise, someone with a declared allegiance to an "absolute moral authority" can believe it is moral to visit the grave site of gay soldiers screaming "god hates fags" or to torture people to "save their souls" or to blow themselves up in a crowded market to "destroy the infidels."

I do not see a lot of difference, Seer.

I don't see how that is circular. There is something in man, selfishness, pride, fear (in short sin) that cause us to ignore or minimize the good moral ideals we instinctively know.

We all compromise the moral ideals we hold, Seer. It's a fact of life. We lie under some conditions - we cheat under some conditions - we steal under some conditions. Human nature. Immediate gratification trumps moral code. You folks call it sin. But it's not just this activity I am referencing, Seer. I am referencing the fact that your "universal absolute" is nowhere to be seen. Yes - there is wide acceptance of basic norms - but they are pretty much the same norms a subjective moral framework sees widely accepted. Meanwhile, there is ENORMOUS variation in the actual moral codes (not just the actions) of religious sects, even within the same religion. So your absolute/universal does not appear to provide any more (or less) consistency than the social norms that arise from the combination of individual moral codes. The difference, to me, is room for change. In your world - I doubt you will ever closely re-examine your position on homosexuality - because "god told you." I, on the other hand, will listen to those around me, and look for places where my reasoning is not sound - where I am letting "disgust" drive my moral code instead of thought and reason.

Again, the fact that we can get some things, or many things, wrong does not bear on the fact of whether such universal truths exist or not

You have not shown that it DOES exist, Seer - and the evidence around me strongly suggests it does not. An allpowerful, allknowing, omnipresent being should be more obvious - and the impact of their moral code more obvious. Instead I see around me, in and out of religions, exactly what a subjective moral framework predicts I will see: enormous variation at the individual level - with some widely held common views, and social groups arranging themselves out of members that share a high degree of commonality in their moral code.

And we end up with the Nazis being right in gassing Jewish children according to their worldview. Nice that...

Yes- according to their worldview, it is right. That is exactly what they (apparently thought) and apparently acted on. It is NOT right to the vast majority of humans, cultures, or societies (tghe part you seem to keep ignoring), because it violates a widely held, common framework. So the world went to war to defeat the Nazis - and stands today in opposition to white supremacists and their ilk. But if we are not careful, the politics of hate will take us down the same path Nazi Germany traversed. All it takes is identifying a group of people as "them," emphasizing the danger they pose to the homeland, and targeting them with hateful speech. From hateful speech it is a short leap to harmful action.

And note, Seer - within your absolute framework, we still had people torturing apostates to "save their soul" and believing it is "right." We have all of the attrocities religions have ever committed in the name of their god and their moral absolute. The Mayans. The Incans. Today the treatment of people who are gay, or transgender. Slavery has been defended in the name of god. Mixed race marriages prohibited in the name of god. Many of these things are no longer true - so apparently the moral "absolute" is not as "absolute" as you think. You point to some absolute moral framework - the interpretation of which keeps changing. I point to individual moral norms aggregating to social moral norms, which keep changing.

The end result is essentially the same. I just don't claim an "absolute" I cannot show or demonstrate to exist.

[carpedm9587]

Let me ask you a personal question Carp, have you ever done something that violated your own moral code? Or is your code so malleable that you could include any behavior?

I have absolutely violated my own moral code. Moral codes are not "malleable," much as universalists like to portray them as such. It takes a significant paradigm shift to change a personal moral code. It takes an "awakening" of sorts - a "conversion" of sorts. Until those moments happen - the moral code stays fairly static through life.

But, as with all people, I do not consistently follow my own moral code.

[seer]

I have absolutely violated my own moral code. Moral codes are not "malleable," much as universalists like to portray them as such. It takes a significant paradigm shift to change a personal moral code. It takes an "awakening" of sorts - a "conversion" of sorts. Until those moments happen - the moral code stays fairly static through life.

But, as with all people, I do not consistently follow my own moral code.

So in essence you "sin" against your own code. But why the disconnect? Where do these ideals, that you at times fail to live up to, come from? What prevents you from living up to your own standard?

[carpedm9587]

So in essence you "sin" against your own code.

You would use the word "sin." I would not - but the concept is essentially the same.

But why the disconnect? Where do these ideals, that you at times fail to live up to, come from?

I have already traced that in my earlier posts. I'm not sure going around that horn again is going to serve any value.

What prevents you from living up to your own standard?

The same things that "prevent" most of us. I think you would call it "temptation." Some immediate want/need is enticing, or some immediate hurt/discomfort is uncomfortable and we compromise our long-term vision for our short-term gain. So I head downstairs in the night with an upset stomach and want some milk. Wanting to just get back to bed, I grab the jug and swig some milk right out of the gallon instead of getting a glass. Next morning, wife says, "I heard you get up. Not sleeping well?" I tell her I had an upset stomach and wanted some milk. She fixes me with that steely glare and says, "you didn't drink right out of the gallon did you?"

That steely glare is enough to get any man to compromise his moral code...