Morality or Obedience?

[seer]

Well seer, if the best interests of human existence isn't the purpose of moral codes, then you tell me, what is their purpose? When we say "do unto others as you would have done unto you" do you think that there is no human purpose underlying the moral? Do you think that there is no human purpose for the moral codes against murder, rape, theft, etc etc.?

How about the best interest of the tribe or the individual or the ruling elite? I mean really Jim, you are sounding like a moral realist everyday...

[seer]

...which translates to "your subjective moral code is not objective, ergo it is bad." The first half is true by definition. The second half is an assumption unsupported by the first half.

Well yes, in your world Carp there are no objectively true moral answers. The universe is ultimately unjust and all our moral musings are ultimately fruitless.

[carpedm9587]

Well yes, in your world Carp there are no objectively true moral answers.

This is correct. But what you have just done is repeat the definition of subjective/relative morality. You do that a lot.

The universe is ultimately unjust

As far as I know, the universe is not sentient. Since justice is a categorization of sentient minds about sentient actions, the term "justice" does not seem to apply to the universe as a whole.

and all our moral musings are ultimately fruitless.

The key is the emphasized word - which means you have (again), repeated that subjective/relative morality is not eternal/objective/universal/absolute. That's a definition - it;s not an argument. We already know this is true. What you have not shown is that it's a problem. You just keep reasserting the obvious.

Are you seeing the problem yet, Seer? You're still not making an argument - you're repeating a definition and declaring "bad" by fiat.

[seer]

As far as I know, the universe is not sentient. Since justice is a categorization of sentient minds about sentient actions, the term "justice" does not seem to apply to the universe as a whole.

If there is a God, we live in a just universe.

Are you seeing the problem yet, Seer? You're still not making an argument - you're repeating a definition and declaring "bad" by fiat.

Of course I'm making an argument, if you are correct certain things logically follow. Starlight, for instance, makes an argument for infanticide, and who are you to say that he is wrong? There is no logical way to judge between the two opinions, you must therefore declare your own "fiat" by merely stating your personal preference.

[Charles]

If there is a God, we live in a just universe.

I think you need to explain this further, seer. How does it follow that the universe is just if God exists? How does it even follow that God is just? By what standards is he just and according to whom? According to himself, you or some "revelation"? Let's see you come with a philosophical explanation and not just the dogma stuff.

[carpedm9587]

If there is a God, we live in a just universe.

Perhaps. That depends entirely on the nature of that god. But, of course, wanting something to be so doesn't make it so.

Of course I'm making an argument, if you are correct certain things logically follow. Starlight, for instance, makes an argument for infanticide, and who are you to say that he is wrong?

No, you're not making an argument - you're just repeating the definition of "relative/subjective" morality. It's not an argument.

As for who am I to say he is wrong, I will say he is wrong if his moral code does not align with mine. He will do the same in reverse. I do have several avenues available to me for attempting to bring parity between us. If Starlight values the same things that I do (life, liberty, health, happiness, etc.), then I can try to show him how his reasoning from what he values to his moral conclusion is logically flawed. If he does not, then I would need to find a way to convince him to value those things. If neither of those approaches achieves parity (it may well be we will NOT agree on what is moral - that is normal for a subjective/relative moral framework), then we will fall back to the remaining options: isolate/separate, or contend - depending on the context.

We've been through this before - several times. You just keep ignoring the responses because they don't align with how you think things ought to be.

There is no logical way to judge between the two opinions, you must therefore declare your own "fiat" by merely stating your personal preference.

Seer - you have determined that not being able to arrive at a common agreement on a moral code is somehow "bad." How you determined this, I don't know. We don't agree on common laws, yet multiple countries share this planet. Indeed, multiple states share this country, and multiple counties share the state, and multiple localities share the county, and it appears to be reasonably functional.

Why you would somewhat arbitrarily decide that the same dynamic in morality is "not logical" is beyond me. You appear to have one tool in your tool box: relative/subjective morality is not sobjective/universal/eternal/absolute - so it's bad. It's not, IMO, a very good tool.

[seer]

Perhaps. That depends entirely on the nature of that god. But, of course, wanting something to be so doesn't make it so.

And wishing it otherwise does not make it so either.

No, you're not making an argument - you're just repeating the definition of "relative/subjective" morality. It's not an argument.

As for who am I to say he is wrong, I will say he is wrong if his moral code does not align with mine. He will do the same in reverse. I do have several avenues available to me for attempting to bring parity between us. If Starlight values the same things that I do (life, liberty, health, happiness, etc.), then I can try to show him how his reasoning from what he values to his moral conclusion is logically flawed. If he does not, then I would need to find a way to convince him to value those things. If neither of those approaches achieves parity (it may well be we will NOT agree on what is moral - that is normal for a subjective/relative moral framework), then we will fall back to the remaining options: isolate/separate, or contend - depending on the context.

We've been through this before - several times. You just keep ignoring the responses because they don't align with how you think things ought to be.

Yes Carp, I am repeating the obvious. You and Star can go back and forth for an eternity and you will never come to a resolution, and even if you did, it wouldn't matter because logically there is no right or wrong when it comes to moral questions - just preferences.

Seer - you have determined that not being able to arrive at a common agreement on a moral code is somehow "bad." How you determined this, I don't know. We don't agree on common laws, yet multiple countries share this planet. Indeed, multiple states share this country, and multiple counties share the state, and multiple localities share the county, and it appears to be reasonably functional.

Yet most countries, through out history, have looked to divine sources for their moral inspiration. Our basic human rights in this country are grounded in theological principle.

[carpedm9587]

And wishing it otherwise does not make it so either.

Indeed.

Yes Carp, I am repeating the obvious. You and Star can go back and forth for an eternity and you will never come to a resolution, and even if you did, it wouldn't matter because logically there is no right or wrong when it comes to moral questions - just preferences.

You are absolutely right - we could reach a point where there is no resolution. That's the nature of morality in a subjective/relative framework. You have yet to show why that is bad. States and countries disagree on laws, and we don't get badly bent out of shape about it. When two countries with contradicting laws interact, they work to convince, they work to isolate/separate, or they go to war. That's the way it works.

Yet most countries, through out history, have looked to divine sources for their moral inspiration. Our basic human rights in this country are grounded in theological principle.

That this might have been true historically is irrelevant. Countries have grounded laws in different theologies (China, India, Iran, U.S.) or no theology (Scandanavian countries, Russia, etc.). The fact is, laws are relative and subjective to the country/state/county/locality - and the model is functional. Indeed, it is adopted in every country I know of. Yet, for some reason, you adhere to the notion that moral precepts have to be universal/absolute/eternal/objective - without one iota of rationale for why this must be so, except to repeat over and over again the definition of subjective/relative morality.

You still have not made an argument, Seer, and (despite your name), you don't appear to see it.

[Starlight]

Thanks Carpedm for a particularly interesting discussion. It's given me a lot to think about.

I'm wondering if you're focusing overly much on the process of how people muddle together to arrive at social agreements on morality, that you're ignoring the extent to which such agreement is possible because they share values.

What a lot of modern research has found is that people do share a lot of values and needs. For example, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, or the 24 cross-cultural virtues I posted earlier that have been observed in many different cultures, or the list I gave earlier from the cultural-anthropologist ("life, health, liberty, prosperity") all point to shared values. And we've seen the same thing with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which reflects that internationally there is a very high level of agreement on what people do value.

I would ascribe the fact that we have such a high degree of shared values to three kinds of things:
1. Consciousness / sentience. I would suggest that every being in the universe that is conscious and intelligent is going to value some things like its life, liberty (and prosperity, which is basically increased liberty), happiness, having a sense of meaning.
2. Biological embodiment. We have biological needs that we value being met like food, shelter, excretion, health etc.
3. Herd evolution. We have innate drives to make friends, to seek connections, to value family, to find a life partner etc. We are a social species rather than a hermit one.

Our societies have huge levels of innate agreement in values because we all share those 3 properties and the values that flow out of them. Even before considering any shared cultural values that we might have with the people we are trying to form a social contract with, we are going to share those underlying cross-cultural values because they are fundamental to our existence. Though I don't have any quarrel with what you say about how in practice our communities muddle towards agreements. I wonder if you're overlooking too much the universal values that are shared by everyone. We could even reasonably expect aliens if we met them in future to have similar values (though if they lacked #2 and/or #3 then we might have some problems because we'd be working with greatly reduced shared values).

[carpedm9587]

Thanks Carpedm for a particularly interesting discussion. It's given me a lot to think about.

I'm wondering if you're focusing overly much on the process of how people muddle together to arrive at social agreements on morality, that you're ignoring the extent to which such agreement is possible because they share values.

What a lot of modern research has found is that people do share a lot of values and needs. For example, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, or the 24 cross-cultural virtues I posted earlier that have been observed in many different cultures, or the list I gave earlier from the cultural-anthropologist ("life, health, liberty, prosperity") all point to shared values. And we've seen the same thing with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which reflects that internationally there is a very high level of agreement on what people do value.

I would ascribe the fact that we have such a high degree of shared values to three kinds of things:
1. Consciousness / sentience. I would suggest that every being in the universe that is conscious and intelligent is going to value some things like its life, liberty (and prosperity, which is basically increased liberty), happiness, having a sense of meaning.
2. Biological embodiment. We have biological needs that we value being met like food, shelter, excretion, health etc.
3. Herd evolution. We have innate drives to make friends, to seek connections, to value family, to find a life partner etc. We are a social species rather than a hermit one.

Our societies have huge levels of innate agreement in values because we all share those 3 properties and the values that flow out of them. Even before considering any shared cultural values that we might have with the people we are trying to form a social contract with, we are going to share those underlying cross-cultural values because they are fundamental to our existence. Though I don't have any quarrel with what you say about how in practice our communities muddle towards agreements. I wonder if you're overlooking too much the universal values that are shared by everyone. We could even reasonably expect aliens if we met them in future to have similar values (though if they lacked #2 and/or #3 then we might have some problems because we'd be working with greatly reduced shared values).

Actually, I don't think I'm overlooking it. But I DO think you've done a far better job of articulating it than I have. I have said, in several places, that what we value shows a high degree of correlation, and I believe it is because we a) share a common context (i.e., this planet), and b) share significant common attributes (e.g., sentience, our physical form and it's needs, etc.). Becaise we value similaer things, and we tend to function out of a common sens eof reasoning (e.g., the basic principles of logic, etc.), we end up with both common values AND common moral codes defending what we value. The differences in our moral codes tend to translate to differences in those value structures - but it is hard to know when two people truly differ in moral codes and when the difference is actually the failure of one or both to live out their own moral code (something else we seem to struggle with).

And, for now, I have to call it there. Perhaps I'll be able to return tomorrow - but right now I have to complete this job to fulfill a contract. Best to you.

[Starlight]

You and Star can go back and forth for an eternity and you will never come to a resolution

Actually Carpedm and I are having a great discussion that I feel is giving me great food for thought.

In all my years here at TWeb or in all the years of my life in general I can't really think of a time when I've seen two atheists in really strong and unresolvable disagreement about morality. In my experience, atheists tend to have really strong levels of agreement on moral issues, and if they differ with each other slightly on grey areas (e.g. what week of development to set the abortion cut-off at) are pretty forgiving of each other in terms of tolerating minor differences and listening to each other.

Whereas I have seen plenty of Christians, both in my own life and here at TWeb, in really strong and seemingly unresolvable disagreements with each other about all sorts of moral issues.

In my observation, it is almost always religious people, not non-religious people who cannot reach reasonable levels of agreement about moral issues. So I suggest you stop trying to project the failures of religion onto atheism.

[JimL]

How about the best interest of the tribe or the individual or the ruling elite? I mean really Jim, you are sounding like a moral realist everyday...

You avoided answering my question seer. Do you think that moral codes have nothing to do with the best interests of human beings? Again, the moral that underlies most all moral codes is that one ought to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Do you think there is no human purpose underlying that ought?

[JimL]

Well yes, in your world Carp there are no objectively true moral answers. The universe is ultimately unjust and all our moral musings are ultimately fruitless.

I believe that you continuously confuse objective with absolute seer. A moral, a rule of behavior, can be objectively true, do to it's effect to the good of humanity, and yet not be absolute in the sense that it has some kind of reality in and of itself. The universe is not a being, it is neither just nor unjust. Justice is left up to us to figure out.

[seer]

You avoided answering my question seer. Do you think that moral codes have nothing to do with the best interests of human beings? Again, the moral that underlies most all moral codes is that one ought to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Do you think there is no human purpose underlying that ought?

Jim, that is not the point. Even if I agreed with you it still remains our opinion, nothing more. Morality is simply a system of moral conduct. What that consists of is another story. We may agree with the golden rule, others may agree with the other golden rule: he with the most gold rules...

[seer]

I believe that you continuously confuse objective with absolute seer. A moral, a rule of behavior, can be objectively true, do to it's effect to the good of humanity, and yet not be absolute in the sense that it has some kind of reality in and of itself. The universe is not a being, it is neither just nor unjust. Justice is left up to us to figure out.

You just don't see it Jim, the general good, whatever that is, is a subjective goal.