robvalue Wrote:I thought of an analogy which might express my concerns somewhat. Asking which society is "better" is like me asking which of two cars is "better".

Knowing what the answers are is different to whether there are answers at all.

I was searching some, and it would seem that the discussion on objective vs subjective is old and varied. So I thought I would clarify by what I am meaning by objective. When referring to objective; I am referring to something outside of and independent of the subject. This would be something which is either true or false, regardless of the person observing it. For instance the statement "God is real" is objective. We may disagree and point to different reason as to why we think this is true of false, but the statement is true or not regardless of what we think. Conversely "subjective" is dependent on the individual and isolated to the person making the statement. Subjective views are internal and cannot be known by an outsider. Knowledge, tastes, emotions, preferences, and opinions are all subjective. Subjective views are based on the subject, and therefore opposing views can equally be valid as the subject changes.

Part of the difficulty, is there is always a subjective component to our observation of objective reality. In my search, I have found that the view that logic/reason is subjective is more pervasive than I originally thought. Some take a materialist view, and that which cannot be tested by science is subjective. However the problem with this, and if we are speaking of the same terms I defined above, is that view is then subjective, and I am not required to agree.

I do think that the ontology or nature of morality is important in the discussion. It is pointed out that I cannot prove that morality is objective, and I agree. That it is subjective equally cannot be shown. I think that the question is if there are absolute morals, in which something is always wrong, regardless of personal views or preferences. Even after a discussion such as this, do we act as if morals are subjective or do we think that morality is outside of ourselves and something that others should recognize. I think that the answer is in this thread. We appeal to morals similarly as we appeal to logic. We say someone can be incorrect in their logic, and they can be incorrect in the morals. How can this be, if it is subjective.

(October 7, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You're overlaying a schema of utilitarianism on the trolley problem, that what is most moral is that which is most useful.  Besides the fact that this has nothing to do with what makes the trolley problem morally interesting, you're begging the question about what makes something more moral than another thing.  It is not objectively true that what is moral is determined by what is likely to produce the greatest good for the most people.  That's an assumption and one which is lacking support.  You can't just slip utilitarian ethics into the mix and presume you are talking objectively.  You've made a subjective choice about what moral goodness consists of.  I might just as well say that what is moral is that which produces the greatest happiness for women and women alone.  That's equally subjective a view of what makes something 'moral'.  You've committed Moore's naturalistic fallacy by identifying a fellow traveler of moral approval, utility, and relabeled it as your criterion of morality.

I think that's fair enough, and not something I'd considered when I posted initially, so thank you for that. However, I would suggest that moral systems, by virtue of the things that make them run, have certain requirements baked into any and all of them that essentially shackle them to utilitarian ethics in some respects. Morality requires moral actors, I don't think that's a controversial statement- inanimate objects cannot act, much less act on a moral continuum- and this carries with it specific issues that influence the success of a given ethical standard; any moral system that leads to the death of all the actors that practice it would inevitably collapse because, well, all the people willing to accept the propositions it makes will be dead. At that point it becomes moot, though I do recognize that this doesn't necessarily imply anything about the moral status of the system: perhaps it is most moral that people be dead, after all.

However, I don't see any form of rational argument that would lead to that, and I think rational support is the important thing here; any moral idea that lacks justification or evidence is simply arbitrary. Rationally speaking, since we recognize that moral systems concern themselves with the moral actors that move within them, and are exclusively the product of moral actors operating within an objective reality, I think there's an obvious argument to be made that such systems should concern themselves with the survival of those same actors. Utilitarian ethics are the best tool for that purpose, recognizing as I say this that we're imperfect beings and further, better suited ethical structures may exist.

(October 8, 2015 at 7:04 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I think that's fair enough, and not something I'd considered when I posted initially, so thank you for that. However, I would suggest that moral systems, by virtue of the things that make them run, have certain requirements baked into any and all of them that essentially shackle them to utilitarian ethics in some respects. Morality requires moral actors, I don't think that's a controversial statement- inanimate objects cannot act, much less act on a moral continuum- and this carries with it specific issues that influence the success of a given ethical standard; any moral system that leads to the death of all the actors that practice it would inevitably collapse because, well, all the people willing to accept the propositions it makes will be dead. At that point it becomes moot, though I do recognize that this doesn't necessarily imply anything about the moral status of the system: perhaps it is most moral that people be dead, after all.

However, I don't see any form of rational argument that would lead to that, and I think rational support is the important thing here; any moral idea that lacks justification or evidence is simply arbitrary. Rationally speaking, since we recognize that moral systems concern themselves with the moral actors that move within them, and are exclusively the product of moral actors operating within an objective reality, I think there's an obvious argument to be made that such systems should concern themselves with the survival of those same actors. Utilitarian ethics are the best tool for that purpose, recognizing as I say this that we're imperfect beings and further, better suited ethical structures may exist.

I agree with everything you said here; I would add to it a few qualifiers: 1) morality is primarily concerned with happiness, which every person desires, despite the discrepancies that may exist in the various conceptions of happiness. To the extent that these conceptions are mutually exclusive, both cannot be equally correct (which is the usefulness of Harris' landscape analogy). Some people are better situated to understand happiness than others; some may think they are happy, but would acknowledge deficiencies in their state of being were they introduced to something different. 2) Morality concerns intention. I'm not sure in which it is that the greater moral value lies - in consequence or intention - but all else being equal, I'd say these are equally important (at least) in determining an actor's moral responsibility, though not necessarily the situation i.e. a view of the ends of whatever it is that is being sought. Finally, I'm inclined to think that 3) morality necessarily exists where interaction takes place that involves one party in possession of a moral sense. A moral sense, I think, results from brain chemistry that has the wherewithal to recognize some (however vague) notion of justice, justice being something of proportionality or equality, which involves the rudiments of reason. All of these, I think (now I'm talking to you, Rob   ), go towards whatever demonstration one may possibly offer that morality is objective.

Cool!

One example though? Just one teeny tiny example? From anybody?

Surely you can see my scepticism, if not even one hypothetical non-trivial scenario can be presented that in any way suggests "morality is objective" in whatever sense? It must involve some conflict of interest between outcomes, that's what I mean by non trivial. If it can't handle conflicts of interest, then surely it is useless. And if there's an answer but it's impossible for us to know what it is, that is also useless for making any actual decisions.

I'd say "morality is objective" is a claim, which needs demonstrating. I still don't understand what the phrase actually means, and I don't think I will until someone gives me an example. I'm not asking for proof, just one little example of how it would actually work in reality; and why I should care about it if it does.

I won't ask anymore, I'll give up the ghost and go back to my little corner and scrape off some more paint.

Thanks everyone for the contributions, this is most interesting

(October 1, 2015 at 6:01 pm)Cecelia Wrote: Religion is often touted as a good sense of morality.  "If you don't fear god, then you can rape and murder all you want!" some religious people like to say.  Of course this ignores that Atheists aren't killing people in droves, and our jails don't have a disproportionate amount of atheists either.  But that's not the point here.

One can easily look at the Old Testament, and see some of the flaws with the system of morality.  Rape was okay, so long as you paid the girl's father.  Women who weren't virgins were worthless, and were stoned if they married and weren't a virgin.  Many will be quick to argue that "That was just the culture of the time."  And there in lies the problem.  "That was the culture of the time."  If religion is such a good source of morality, these people would have started seeing women as equal human beings. 

Let's move a bit closer, however.  Slavery.  Not the biblical slavery (which is apparently okay because that was the culture of the time too.  And it wasn't THAT bad!  At least not as bad as modern slavery).  First of all if modern slavery is worse, then modern slavery was developed during a period of Christianity.  Which means that these same 'moral' people developed a system of slavery even worse than the goat herders two thousand years ago did.  The same people that were happy to stone a woman for not being married before having sex.

And when slavery came to an end in the United States, religion was used to prop it up.  Racism and Bigotry have been propped up by religion time and time again.  Interracial Marriage, Gay Marriage, Slavery.  And how about Xenophobia?   Christians like Ann Coulter hate Mexicans.  They hate anyone from a different country.  She's certainly not alone either.  And even if you don't consider her a 'true Christian' because you love the no true Scotsman fallacy, she considers herself one.  And their thoughts on the poor?  They consider them 'lazy' and 'moochers', regardless of how well they know any of the individuals.  Sometimes based on a couple of anecdotal pieces of evidence.  There are certainly enough Christians who aren't remotely charitable, and are completely greedy.

But let's not focus just on Christianity.  How about Islam?  Their treatment of women is tantamount to the treatment of second class citizens.  They have their own views on how they aren't mistreating women.  Given a thousand years or so, when it's looked back on, if Islam is still around then I think Muslims of the future will look back on their past much like Christians of today do on some of the terrible things done.  

One can easily point to Atheists who have done bad things as well.  But I don't believe any sense of religion would have made those people more moral.  Not when we have so many people today who look at things like the death penalty, stand your ground, kicking people out of your country, preventing two consenting adults from getting married (Forget Gay marriage, they were against interracial marriage at one point, and even as recently as 10 years ago the religious argument was made against interracial marriage)

So how is religion a good source of morality?  It seems to me that people are either moral, or they are not.  And there is little correlation between religion and good morals.  You have good religious people, but those people don't seem to be the type that would rape, kill, or steal if they didn't believe in a god.  Some will claim they got their idea of their morals from religion.  But again, most people see slavery today as immoral and religious texts do not teach that.  How about equality for women?  Instead of getting their morals from religion, people tend to mold their religion to fit their morals.  Which doesn't make for a good source of morality at all.

am sorry,but am afraid I would have to disagree on this,religion is what brought the world humanity.

We are in fact,have a high morality than the atheist's for example most atheist's,tend to go on pornography were religious people don't.

Yeah, good one.

Obviously, religious objective morality is bullshit. My problem is that all my objections to religious objective morality still apply to any system which claims to do the same thing. I want to know how this system is different, and I can't do that without an example. Sam Harris in the video brought up objections to his own arguments and then basically hand waved them away without explanation, in my opinion. But we'll see I'm ready to get stuck in! This objective morality is seemingly as elusive as a god, in that I still don't even know what it is.

(October 9, 2015 at 9:59 am)robvalue Wrote: This objective morality is seemingly as elusive as a god, in that I still don't even know what it is.

Rock in the pocket, I thought we discussed this?

And you ain't getting into anything with that guy.

Oh, the rock?

Yeah. Maybe I should ask him for some examples Brb...

(October 9, 2015 at 7:33 am)robvalue Wrote: And if there's an answer but it's impossible for us to know what it is, that is also useless for making any actual decisions.

There may be dilemmas in which the correct answer is not entirely clear, but most of the time, for the overwhelming majority of people, something of what it means to treat another rightly or justly is pretty self-evident.

Quote:I'd say "morality is objective" is a claim, which needs demonstrating. I still don't understand what the phrase actually means, and I don't think I will until someone gives me an example. I'm not asking for proof, just one little example of how it would actually work in reality; and why I should care about it if it does.

Some might say that morality involves self-evident, necessary truths, like 2+2=4, and that no further demonstration is possible or required. Others could try to persuade you that every culture has certain norms upon which they agree - punishment for murderers or thieves, say. Still, someone may attempt to give a rational defense of objective morality, by either demonstrating the meaningless or self-refuting nature of subjectivism or by putting forth a positive argument, such as that morality is what everyone WOULD agree upon if everyone were equally positioned to each other; the moral solution to any problem is then a hypothetical ideal, and it is up to you to discover it through reason, and oftentimes, experience. Those are some of the possible ways I can think of at the moment.