My objections to an objective morality

[zorathruster]

Stinky:


When I said "maybe objective morality is a myth" the key word is 'maybe,' I never stated that subjective morality is necessarility desirable.

After studying the "subjective" morality alternative, I am not sure how one would prevent delving into either hedonism or egoism or some other form of existentialism. The best I have found so far is to somehow combine non-zero sum gaming theory which forces every player into the economic realm to assert their own interests. This of course would be a difficult assertion for non thinking entities from fetus' to animals to the mentally incapable. While you and I can articulate our desires, others cannot. Any ideas?

Reservist! I just retired a year and a half ago, missed all the deployments to Iraq. There is just no group as close as warriors. Best of luck, keep your head down!

[Stinky]

Hello Octavian!

I'm not sure we disagree as much as you've inferred. I agree with your assertion that infanticide contributed to Roman decline (and Greek decline as well); and I did say that I believe infanticide to be wrong in any form. I'm guessing that you either disagreed with my inferred pro-choice position on abortion (although I didn't expressly state a view), or my statement that "maybe objective morality is a myth." I'm not sure how I'm being pinned as a "naturalist" but I havn't read the book by Shermers and thus am unfamiliar with how Shermers defines rationalists & naturalists. If you would briefly explain I could always use some enlightenment!

I disafree with the statement "maybe objective morality is a myth." I think morality can be objective. Not that it makes anything simple. The abortion issue is a good example. It seems to me, that allowing some abortions is moral, as in when a woman is raped. On the other hand, using abortion as a convient contraceptive is not good for society, and immoral. Where is the line? We may not know, but one must exist. At least if we start with a rational examination of the situation, we have a chance of finding it.

I'm not sure that the example you used "is it OK to steal the next terrorist plan" was particularly relevant. I would argue that stealing the next terrorist plan is self defense rather than stealing, which has always been acceptable to any society I can think of.

What I'm getting at is that we want to say "action X is immoral." It just doesn't work that way. Sometimes Action X will actually be moral. To label an action moral or immoral, we must examine the intent and the consequences, as measured against the objective goal of the wellbeing of mankind.

[Cloud_Walker]

Interestingly enough, it was just last night while writing in my journal that I rejected my only "rational" or "objective" moral: nonviolence. I am now a complete relativist. Granted I still have empathy and want us all to be happy, and I can go from there, but I recognize my base is just a matter of opinion.

Nothing is truly right or wrong. It is like saying the Earth is big or small, when in fact it is both or neither. The distinction is pointless. That is relativity. Hell, we can't even have certainty about the position of a small particle much less about human decisions and actions.

[zorathruster]

Objective morality means that something is wrong no matter what anyone thinks.

"Murder" is wrong no matter what anyone thinks (murder being defined as UNJUSTIFIABLE killing of another human being).

But if there is no objective morality, does this mean that murder CAN be "ok"? (if so, we owe Clifford Olsen a HUGE apology! And we need to necromance Ted Bundy back ASAP )

Although your rants are not really supposed to be here, I will address them.

First: who defines "Justifiable"? If some little baby just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, lets say Hiroshima on August 6 1945, and obviously is innocent by definition, how can you say it is justifiable to kill innocents in this manner? In the eyes of a Japanese citizen, there is no justification in that act. In the eyes of an American who is at war, there is lots of justification. In the eyes of Uday and Kusay Husain there is no justification for America and it's allies to invade Iraq and kill it's citizens (specifically those killed in collateral damage while attacking a valid military target, of which there are always some), in the eyes of George Bush and company, there is justification. Justifiable has been shown to be "subjective" (relative to the perspective of the person) and therefore cannot at the same time be objective.

If you wish to continue this exchange I will look at your posts for the next several weeks and find where you wish to continue, into the future stay out of the intellectual section!

[Rationalist]

Do you believe it is ever right for any people(s) at any place in time in any culture to torture, molest and/or dismember babies just for the fun of it?

Starkman

It is usually okay for an alien to torture a human baby for fun.

Since humans are disgusting pests which carry disease, it is good and proper that they their numbers should be kept low. If making sport of human larvae serves to help reduce their numbers, that is obviously right.

[Bagger_Vance]

I think at best it is wise to assume that an objective morality exists but acknowledge that without all the facts we are walking in the dark. Does morality evolve? Well our perception of what is right has certainly improved with time and knowledge. But the question is simply from a judgemental standpoint was it "wrong" before we thought it was wrong. Was child sacrifice and slaughter of other nations wrong before the collective opinion of it being wrong? I think so which means I do think there is an objective morality independent of time/circumstance/perception. Not to say that time/circumstance/perception shouldn't be taken into account but that at a base level actions are either right or wrong. The only question is do we at this particular time in human evolution have all the answers to proclaim ourselves absolutely right? I don't think we can which is why I will refrain from thinking I have all the answers when I no I don't.

[zorathruster]

I think at best it is wise to assume that an objective morality exists but acknowledge that without all the facts we are walking in the dark. Does morality evolve? Well our perception of what is right has certainly improved with time and knowledge. But the question is simply from a judgemental standpoint was it "wrong" before we thought it was wrong. Was child sacrifice and slaughter of other nations wrong before the collective opinion of it being wrong? I think so which means I do think there is an objective morality independent of time/circumstance/perception. Not to say that time/circumstance/perception shouldn't be taken into account but that at a base level actions are either right or wrong. The only question is do we at this particular time in human evolution have all the answers to proclaim ourselves absolutely right? I don't think we can which is why I will refrain from thinking I have all the answers when I no I don't.

Interesting points. I do believe it is possible to logically say certain things are either true or false in a specific circumstance, because that is opinion of an individual they are not objective. However, that does not make any commitment to an absolute true or false that is implied through the idea of an objective morality. My points are specifically directed at the theistic impression that an "objective morality" is somehow "out there" and is somehow communicated to them through a spiritual medium. A sense of fairness or rightness from a supernatural being (a god). All it takes is insisting on definitions and the whole idea breaks down. Theists find it necessary to invoke unknown mechanisms and unknown methods which "magically" occur or create the sensation of moral "rightness".

[Rationalist]

I believe that the acceptance of infanticide on a global scale would be detrimental to the well being of the human race, and therefore, immoral.

Ok, so how do you justify the assumption that something detrimental to the human race is immoral. Other than you and I agree that it's probably not good, where's your reasoning.

My position (mentioned by Superbug) was that all moral systems like the utilitarian one you propose above are underpinned by basic shared innate values that were the result of evolution.

These basic values are not open to interpretation, subject to easy change or dismissal, and generally cause most human cultures to have very similar (some mistake them for objective) commensurable moral codes.

[Rationalist]

While religious zealots may argue otherwise, the fact is that even religious morality constantly changes. Some religions may try to assert they are the vanguards of an ancient and pure tradition, but in fact even among these type of Christians there has been flux in their morality. Morality is subjective in the sense that it's definition relies much on the social mores of that era and the society defining it. Should morality be subjective? Of course it must be. Technology always changes, our historical knowledge changes, new unforeseen situations present theirself and society must react to it, etc.

Really? What religion recently has changed it's position on murder, or rape, or genocide?

You point out the small number of exceptions and completely ignore the overwhelming number of more or less constant moral values.

If morality were really the result of social mores of an era, we would certainly expect them to vary more than they do from age to age. Instead what we see is slightly more or less sexual permissiveness within a bouded range, slightly more or less tolerance, also within a bounded range.. and many mores which seem to never change regardless of the age or era.

If my position were that morals were completely individually or culturally subjective, I would necessarily need to account for the fact that most morals don't seem to vary that much between cultures or eras or individuals.

[Bagger_Vance]

Interesting points. I do believe it is possible to logically say certain things are either true or false in a specific circumstance, because that is opinion of an individual they are not objective. However, that does not make any commitment to an absolute true or false that is implied through the idea of an objective morality. My points are specifically directed at the theistic impression that an "objective morality" is somehow "out there" and is somehow communicated to them through a spiritual medium. A sense of fairness or rightness from a supernatural being (a god). All it takes is insisting on definitions and the whole idea breaks down. Theists find it necessary to invoke unknown mechanisms and unknown methods which "magically" occur or create the sensation of moral "rightness".

Okay. The idea that we "know" concretely and that we only know because some divine creator let us cheat off of his test. If that is true surely we wouldn't have the moral dilemmas in front of us. Everyday people are challenged with true moral problems. How can that happen if a God exists and is giving out the answers?

As I said it seems logical to assume that there is an objective standard but I don't think we know it yet. Most likely many of the things we take for granted now will be disproven later on. Will there be a time when the truth is known through trial and error and evolution? I think so.

[Conductor42]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: lilpixieofterror

Naturalism 101 is for non theist only. Thanks!

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Bagger_Vance]

BV, why do you use the christian icon if you are not a Christian?

Just a bit of humor on my part. Apparently I'm the only one who thought it was funny. Get this one? I have a Bahai icon so my title says Ba-Humbug! Get it? Anybody? Is this thing on?

[zorathruster]

Most likely many of the things we take for granted now will be disproven later on. Will there be a time when the truth is known through trial and error and evolution? I think so.

But this argument falls on the side of an indiscernable objective morality. The whole idea of an objective morality is that we as humans can discern the exact truth because of our understanding innate or otherwise of what a specific objective moral premise is. We cannot develop this morality because it does not rely on subjective experience which "evolution" would constitute.

I think you are right in saying it needs to be rejected but that equally rejects the overall concept.

[Yakkity Yak]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderator Notice

This area is for atheists only. Please read forum rules before posting. Thanks.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Griggsy]

Our humanist objective morality bases itself on our subjective evolved feelings that we refine. See the thread objective morality. It arises out of our shared experience,depending on rational people.
There is enough evil to discount omnibenifificient God ,but enough goodness to enjoy life!