Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Morality or Obedience?

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

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    "benefit" is a relative term.
    I don't think this is an insurmountable objection. For example, we could imagine a jury of people selected from every race and culture in the history of the world, who were observing the people's lives and actions, and they could vote as to whether they saw the action as 'beneficial' / 'harmful' / 'neither', and if there was a significant majority of them in agreement we could consider that to be the theoretical 'unbiased external observer judgement as to the benefit of the action'.

    I like this quote from this book in which Cultural Anthropologists discuss the ways in which cultures can be beneficial vs harmful:
    I believe that the vast majority of the planet's people would agree with
    the following assertions:

    Life is better than death.
    Health is better than sickness.
    Liberty is better than slavery.
    Prosperity is better than poverty.


    Increasingly, a great deal of international surveys and research into values, happiness, etc has been done and the differences between cultures in terms of what they value can be quantified and qualified. Though some cultures have their quirks, what actually shows up is an immense amount of commonality in terms of the underlying values. A serious attempt at a classification produced these 24 internationally shared values:

    I find such ongoing scientific research into cross-cultural values quite interesting. The work of Jonathan Haidt on the general subject is also quite interesting if you want to look into it.

    But from the point of view of judging the morality of a person's actions, I think it is usually more useful to simply consider the view held by the person taking the action. Does the person taking the action believe they are bringing benefit or harm (or both in some combination, or neither) to others via their actions? For reasons of pragmatic convenience, if nothing else, I think that single question is the most useful definition of morality.

    By locating the definition of 'benefit' or 'harm' in the mind of the person undertaking the action, it neatly sidesteps the need for theoretical impartial juries comprised of all nations of history, or of knowing the results of detailed international scientific analyses about cross-cultural values. It cuts right to what we usually want to know about an action: Was the person intending to hurt others, or intending to help others, or neither, or both? In this conception, "morality" is nothing but the question of whether any given interpersonal interaction was positive or negative in intent toward others in the mind of the actor.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      So you don't need true premises but subjective premises, that can change on a dime.
      Some premises are absolutely true or false - for all of us. Mathematics is an example. Some premises are subjectively true. Both can be logically, rationally used. You are assuming (and have not shown) that morality has to be the former and declared it irrational when someone says it is the latter. I am pointing out that it is not irrational - it is perfectly rational - merely a different worldview.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      This is why you can not logically make the case that something like wife rape is morally wrong, except to say that you/we don't like it.
      This is why I cannot say that wife rape is absolutely/eternally/objectively/universally wrong - true. Because there is no absolute/eternal/objective/universal metric against which to make that claim. But that is (again) just another way of saying subjective/relative moral frameworks are not absolute/eternal/objective/universal, which is just repeating the definition of the term (i.e., a tautology), not an argument.

      I CAN point out that the moral code "wife rape" is wrong is held by most of us humans. It is baked into most society's moral frameworks, and even legal systems. Measured against what most of us hold to be right/wrong, it is wrong. And I can tell you it is morally wrong in my more framework. But I cannot make the statement "it is absolutely wrong for all people in all times and places." I can only make the statement, "I believe it to be wrong for all people in all times and places."

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      You have successfully reduced all ethics to mere preference.
      And there's that other approach you take: ridicule and diminishment. I've taken the liberty of highlighting the words you use to do that. Yes, moral frameworks are a form of preference - because what we value is a form of preference. Yours is no different. You prefer to love your god. If you didn't, you wouldn't. You prefer to submit your moral framework to the one you perceive coming form him. If you didn't you wouldn't. It is not "mere" preference - it is deeply held, religious preference. I would not demean your choice because I do not agree with it. I have to wonder why you feel a need to demean preferences when they do not agree with yours?

      What we value is deeply rooted in all of us. It begins with what we learn in our families, grows as we interact with our communities, and becomes fairly well established by the time we are adults. But even as adults, a significant event can significantly alter what we value - and what we value drives our moral code. But yes - it is preference. It is not the same level of "preference" we use to choose our dinner, or the movie we will watch. It is not even the same level of preference we use to choose our spouse. Not all preference is whimsical. As with many things in life, there is a continuum of preference - with "which pants do I like most" on one end and "Do I find value in life and liberty" on the other. Some preference is "mere." That does not make all preference "mere."

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Kind of like what happened with you and Matt on the Philosophy board...
      Me and Matt on the philosophy board? As far as I know, Matt and I were exchanging fairly well. Unfortunately, Matt has a tendency to descend into philosophical language that is dense beyond my understanding. I may have a bachelors degree in philosophy, but it is almost 40 years old and I have to admit I never enjoyed the discussions that drifted into such arcane language. It's like trying to parse Rahner. So when Matt goes there, I am left behind and I have little/no interest in spending the time it would take to try to get on top of the language. There are other things that take higher priority in my life than becoming an expert in dense philosophical langauage for the sole purpose of engaging in a discussion with Matt. So, when he goes there, my choice is to disconnect. Otherwise, I either have to spend an enormous amount of time/energy trying to parse the language, or I end up posting meaningless nonsense. Neither is my cup of tea.
      Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-03-2018, 07:42 AM.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        The problem with your position, Jim, is that "benefit" is a relative term. You cannot assess a benefit without knowing the circumstance involved and what would improve it. I think that you are trying to argue against a moral absolute - while clinging to moral absolutes. I'm not sure how you can sustain that position.
        When you take everyone involved in the interaction, or in the moral system, into consideration, then "benefit" is not a relative term. Morality is that which is most beneficial to the whole of a system, because if it is beneficial to the whole of the system, then ultimately it is beneficial to the individual members as well. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." If there is only one individual involved, then there is no such thing as morality.
        So, the moral absolute, rule or law, would be that which is in the best interests of, or of most "benefit" to, the whole of a system. We don't have to know what that is, but it must obviously exist, it must obviously be true that certain moral systems are more beneficial than others and that there must then always be one that is the best, or most beneficial of all.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          When you take everyone involved in the interaction, or in the moral system, into consideration, then "benefit" is not a relative term. Morality is that which is most beneficial to the whole of a system, because if it is beneficial to the whole of the system, then ultimately it is beneficial to the individual members as well. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." If there is only one individual involved, then there is no such thing as morality.
          We'll tackle the first part of this below. I want to focus on the last sentence (emphasized). I do not think I can agree. Morality is about classifying classifying actions as "ought do" and "ought not do." As such, and because it is individuals that act, it is highly individual. One person can and does have a moral code. You seem to want to give the society the pre-eminent role is developing a moral framework, but I do not see it that way at all - and I do not experience it that way at all. My family, my society, my culture, my country, and even the world at large can influence my moral code, but I am the one that forms it and I am the one responsible for it because it is my attempt to categorize possible actions.

          In other words - my moral code is pre-eminent (to me) as yours is to you. Those moral codes we hold in common become accepted moral codes by the society/community/group and get expressed in social norms and even laws. Those we do not hold in common become the basis for discord and contention.

          Originally posted by JimL View Post
          So, the moral absolute, rule or law, would be that which is in the best interests of, or of most "benefit" to, the whole of a system. We don't have to know what that is, but it must obviously exist, it must obviously be true that certain moral systems are more beneficial than others and that there must then always be one that is the best, or most beneficial of all.
          You seem to be proposing the existence of a moral absolute that no one can possibly know, which raises the question of its utility. And I question the broad-based approach. I can think of nothing that benefits "all of society," without exception. A society is made up of individuals. What is a benefit to one member of that society may not be a benefit to another member.

          We seem to be approaching this from opposite directions. You seem to be giving the society primacy, and the individual moral code is somehow bound to the moral primacy of the society. I give the individual moral primacy, and the society's moral code is the collective expression of the moral codes held in common by its individual members. There is certainly a feedback loop - but since the individual is the actor, the individual has moral primacy, IMO.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post

            Me and Matt on the philosophy board? As far as I know, Matt and I were exchanging fairly well. Unfortunately, Matt has a tendency to descend into philosophical language that is dense beyond my understanding. I may have a bachelors degree in philosophy, but it is almost 40 years old and I have to admit I never enjoyed the discussions that drifted into such arcane language. It's like trying to parse Rahner. So when Matt goes there, I am left behind and I have little/no interest in spending the time it would take to try to get on top of the language. There are other things that take higher priority in my life than becoming an expert in dense philosophical langauage for the sole purpose of engaging in a discussion with Matt. So, when he goes there, my choice is to disconnect. Otherwise, I either have to spend an enormous amount of time/energy trying to parse the language, or I end up posting meaningless nonsense. Neither is my cup of tea.
            Carp, Matt's points were not arcane, and for the most part neither was his language. You just basically threw up you hands and said you don't do philosophy any more - on a philosophy board! There is a reason why, as Matt said, and as I said earlier in that discussion, philosophy in general is moving away from subjectivism and towards moral realism. And he made a pretty clear case that subjectivism is self-refuting.
            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


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              What behavior are you suggesting that it can be both moral and immoral. Remember, we can only have subjective opinions concerning morals, and they can be either right or wrong opinions, not both. Just because a particular society is of the opinion that "wife rape" is a moral good, doesn't make it a moral good in reality.
              Jim, that makes no sense unless there is an objective moral rule or standard. Without such a rule, there only is opinion...
              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


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                We'll tackle the first part of this below. I want to focus on the last sentence (emphasized). I do not think I can agree. Morality is about classifying classifying actions as "ought do" and "ought not do." As such, and because it is individuals that act, it is highly individual. One person can and does have a moral code. You seem to want to give the society the pre-eminent role is developing a moral framework, but I do not see it that way at all - and I do not experience it that way at all. My family, my society, my culture, my country, and even the world at large can influence my moral code, but I am the one that forms it and I am the one responsible for it because it is my attempt to categorize possible actions.

                In other words - my moral code is pre-eminent (to me) as yours is to you. Those moral codes we hold in common become accepted moral codes by the society/community/group and get expressed in social norms and even laws. Those we do not hold in common become the basis for discord and contention.
                If a persons behavior effects no one but himself, then in what sense is it immoral? I don't think that it can be argued successfully that ones own personal moral code has any meaning at all with respect to themselves alone. You can't do unto others, nor can they do unto you, if only one of you exists.


                You seem to be proposing the existence of a moral absolute that no one can possibly know,
                Such as does theism. The difference being that the non-theistic absolute, or right behaviors, are not dependent upon an external source, but are contingent upon the nature and circumstances of the very world they modify.

                which raises the question of its utility. And I question the broad-based approach. I can think of nothing that benefits "all of society," without exception. A society is made up of individuals. What is a benefit to one member of that society may not be a benefit to another member.
                Being murdered, raped, robbed, etc etc. are not benificial to any one in society, ergo that they be understood to be immoral behaviors is a benefit to society as a whole.
                We seem to be approaching this from opposite directions. You seem to be giving the society primacy, and the individual moral code is somehow bound to the moral primacy of the society. I give the individual moral primacy, and the society's moral code is the collective expression of the moral codes held in common by its individual members. There is certainly a feedback loop - but since the individual is the actor, the individual has moral primacy, IMO.
                I guess I'm not seeing how morality, i.e. ones moral behavior, has any meaning if his actions effect no one but himself.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Jim, that makes no sense unless there is an objective moral rule or standard. Without such a rule, there only is opinion...
                  I think you're just stuck on the presupposition that "good" and "evil" are realities that come from an external source. You also seem to be of the opinion, that opinions can't be either right or wrong, that they can only be opinions. Sometimes opinions are right, and sometimes opinions are wrong.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    If a persons behavior effects no one but himself, then in what sense is it immoral? I don't think that it can be argued successfully that ones own personal moral code has any meaning at all with respect to themselves alone. You can't do unto others, nor can they do unto you, if only one of you exists.
                    Generally speaking, morality is about dividing our tasks into what we should and should not do. I can still have a moral proscription against suicide without a surrounding society. I can have a moral procription against self-harm. Indeed, if "health" is part of what I value I may have a moral proscription against any number of things. I do agree, however, that many of our moral codes have to do with the dynamics between individuals.

                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    Such as does theism. The difference being that the non-theistic absolute, or right behaviors, are not dependent upon an external source, but are contingent upon the nature and circumstances of the very world they modify.
                    I'm not sure that's a fair representation of theism. Most theists believe their moral code has been "documented" by god in the inspired writingas of their particular faith, so they believe their moral absolutes are knowable. As an atheist, I see those books as the writings of men/women, so no more moraly binding than the writings of any other men/women.

                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    Being murdered, raped, robbed, etc etc. are not benificial to any one in society, ergo that they be understood to be immoral behaviors is a benefit to society as a whole.
                    I think you're mixing terms here a bit. Murder is defined as an illicit killing, so to call it immoral is a bit of a tautology. Robbery has no meaning in a society that does not have the concept of "personal property." Rape is like murder - it is defined as "sexual activity forced on another person." A society that has been decimated and is struggling to recover its population may well see rape as a "good" for the survival of that society. You're making somewhat sweeping statements, and I am not sure they can be supported.

                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    I guess I'm not seeing how morality, i.e. ones moral behavior, has any meaning if his actions effect no one but himself.
                    See above. But the "solo person" is a rare case. The person in society is more common, and much of our moral code has to do with our interaction with others in that society. But the individual is still the source of the moral framework. As I said, I give the individual moral primacy, and I think that is what we see all around us.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Carp, Matt's points were not arcane, and for the most part neither was his language. You just basically threw up you hands and said you don't do philosophy any more - on a philosophy board! There is a reason why, as Matt said, and as I said earlier in that discussion, philosophy in general is moving away from subjectivism and towards moral realism. And he made a pretty clear case that subjectivism is self-refuting.
                      We will have to agree to disagree on Matt's jargon. My impression was as I offered it. If you feel you can parse his language and make his points more linguistically clear (i.e., for the lay person), have at it and I will read. As for what philosophy is doing, I am not exactly of the herd mentality. If an idea seems in error to me, it doesn't really matter to me how many people are in support of it. I will see it as in error until someone provides an argument that suggests it is not. So far, I have not seen that. What I HAVE seen is a persistent return to the same themes in trying to refute moral subjectivism/relativism (which Matt apparently wanted to call "descriptive morality," whatever that means): an appeal to a tautological argument, an appeal to ridicule/diminishment, or an appeal to outrage. None of those appear to work - they are all classified as errant ways of framing a philosophical argument - so I remain a moral relativist/subjectivist - because it is what I observe around me every hour of every day.

                      Indeed, I have asked you several times if you can provide an argument to refute moral subjectivism/relativism that does NOT devolve into one of those three approaches - and I still have seen nothing.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        I think you're just stuck on the presupposition that "good" and "evil" are realities that come from an external source. You also seem to be of the opinion, that opinions can't be either right or wrong, that they can only be opinions. Sometimes opinions are right, and sometimes opinions are wrong.
                        Jim you again are not making sense. What makes a moral opinion right or wrong? Again, if a culture allows wife rape, what makes that wrong? Because you don't particularly like it?
                        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


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Jim you again are not making sense. What makes a moral opinion right or wrong? Again, if a culture allows wife rape, what makes that wrong? Because you don't particularly like it?
                          I have not seen you give an answer to this yourself, seer. You seem to go for whatever a god you cannot prove the existence of would like or not like according to a revelation that cannot be proven to be right. How does that even come close to being moral?
                          "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            I want to focus on the last sentence (emphasized). I do not think I can agree. Morality is about classifying classifying actions as "ought do" and "ought not do." As such, and because it is individuals that act, it is highly individual. One person can and does have a moral code
                            Your definitions here seem overly narrow and would seem to rule out quite a few people's views of morality (e.g. mine included). Quite a few people like to think of morality as being about interpersonal behaviors (as such, one person alone, could not perform any moral or immoral action because they would have nobody to perform it toward), evolutionarily coming from humanity's herd-membership. Also your focus on 'classifying actions' seems unduly narrow as it at least implicitly seems to rule out those views of morality that focus on intent (e.g. my view), or internal virtue (e.g. see virtue ethics), rather than behavior.
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Charles View Post
                              I have not seen you give an answer to this yourself, seer. You seem to go for whatever a god you cannot prove the existence of would like or not like according to a revelation that cannot be proven to be right. How does that even come close to being moral?
                              Having argued with Seer for many 60-page threads on this subject, it has become abundantly clear to me that he himself has no reasonable or valid answers on the subject. I would describe his view as "Something, something, God" and it not even come remotely close to being a reasonable moral view. All he does is pretends his own moral view is objective while asking constant questions about everyone else's, and refusing to acknowledge even basic facts about their views.
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                Your definitions here seem overly narrow and would seem to rule out quite a few people's views of morality (e.g. mine included). Quite a few people like to think of morality as being about interpersonal behaviors (as such, one person alone, could not perform any moral or immoral action because they would have nobody to perform it toward), evolutionarily coming from humanity's herd-membership. Also your focus on 'classifying actions' seems unduly narrow as it at least implicitly seems to rule out those views of morality that focus on intent (e.g. my view), or internal virtue (e.g. see virtue ethics), rather than behavior.
                                I had to think about this a bit. First of all, there is no question that a great deal of morality has to do with inter-person actions - because the vast majority of us do live in society. That being said, what we seem to be doing is taking the things we value, identifying actions that nurture/support those things and actions that denigrate or subvert those things, and expanding them to others. In other words, we are answering the question "what actions, if performed by everyone, would most ensure the things I value are safe and nurtured?

                                Intent is not forgotten - because it is what we intend by our actions that dominates our assessment. So you are right that I overly emphasized action and failed to include in my description the intent of those actions.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                204 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X