Religion is a poor source of morality

[Esquilax]

Seems to me that people do not always agree on basic material facts of history, crime scenes, and even scientific findings. But few people would say that obectivity is impossible in those areas. To say that for morality to be objective the facts must be incontrovertible strains the definition of objectivity. Why should anyone assume that moral knowledge cannot be objective just because people lack full understanding of the area of inquiry?

There's an important difference though: in terms of history, scientific findings and so on, there are at least actual, objective things that can be pointed to. Scientific findings, for example, are the result of experiments that take objectively real things and manipulate them in certain ways to isolate variables and causes. But when we come to morality, there is no demonstrable or detectable thing that those claiming objective morality are able to show at all, merely the demand that their morality is, in fact, objectively correct.

In other areas of potential objectivity there are at least things that one can refer back to to support the claim of objectivity. What references of that type exist for the claim of objective morality, aside from books filled with claims and fiat assertions?

[robvalue]

Thank you

I can't even understand what someone even means by objective morality, until they can give me some sort of real example.

To me, one of these always applies to talk of objective morality:

1) It's incoherent
2) It's actually subjective morality being called objective morality
3) It's of no practical use to anyone

The burden of proof is on anyone claiming morality is objective. That requires defining what the frag that phrase means (to me it's a contradiction in terms) then at the very least giving some actual examples. Surely that's not asking for too much.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

That's a good summary, Esquilax, and I think it has something to do with why atheists and Christians tend to "talk past one another" when discussing the idea of "objective" morality. We use the term "objective" in the way you just did, isolating variables and manipulating real elements of the thing we're trying to understand until we can narrow it down enough to be certain of causation/effect of that variable, and others are able to duplicate the same result, by the same method, every time.

On the other hand, when Christians use the term "objective", they tend to mean "a standard given by such a high authority that everyone I know in my social circles agrees it's the only worthwhile one". As in, "if you disagree with this particular set of morals, it's not the fault of the morals but of your failure to agree with what everyone I know says is The Right One™, directly from Gawd".

Everything else, then, is "subjective" morality, made up by people in varying cultures at varying times to suit the climate of that culture, according to the latter view.

It's a little bit like the way each member of each sect and faith tradition will look you dead in the face and tell you that it's "obvious" to them that every other belief system is manmade nonsense, full of fairytales and magical thinking, but not theirs. It's from GOD!

[Edwardo Piet]

Thank you
I can't even understand what someone even means by objective morality, until they can give me some sort of real example.

To me, one of these always applies to talk of objective morality:

1) It's incoherent
2) It's actually subjective morality being called objective morality
3) It's of no practical use to anyone

I wonder if you would be interested at all in The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris.

There are two important point to not miss in his argument. The first point is about how - like John Searls said - there are two kinds of objectivity, epistemic and ontological. Therefore you can study facts about subjectivity objectively.

The second point you shouldn't miss - although I'm sure you already know this - is how uniformity is not required for objectivity. I.E. Even if the whole world believed that something was right or wrong it wouldn't make it right or wrong and so objectivity in his argument is not about uniformity.

I am such a huge fan of Sam Harris and as for his argument against free will, well. I feel he just articulates so much better than myself what I have believed and how I have felt for years.

Sam Harris on objective morality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk

[robvalue]

All I hear as the "evidence" of objective morality is the undesirable nature of it not being a thing; or the question begging assumption that objective moral comparisons can be made.

Evie: thanks, I'll check it out Yeah I like a lot of the stuff he has to say. I agree, the language is tricky and I'm no expert. I'm simply asking for some sort of explanation as to how advocates of objective morality actually think things are different from how I describe them to be, whatever words you use for it.

Once you've set up a framework of what morality actually is and how it is to be evaluated, then things can be in some way measured objectively. It's the underlying assumptions people have about this framework that I'm saying is subjective. "Morality is, you know, morality. Good things." It's all circular until you actually pin stuff down.

Hence the lack of forthcoming examples. Pinning down is easier said than done.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think Sam Harris' primary point is that whilst theists argue for objective morality that's ontologically objective, he argues instead that subjective facts about the well being of conscious creatures can be studied objectively in an epistemic way instead... the same way science studies other things epistemecally . And his point is that the conclusions matter to the well being of everyone.

To paraphrase Sam Harris: "If words like "good" and "bad" and "right" and "wrong" mean anything at all then... they mean we should at the very least steer away from the worst possible misery for everyone."

He's not saying that it can be proven ontologically, he's saying that you can epistemically study subjective facts about well being that matter in an objective scientific way.

[robvalue]

Sure, I get that. What I'm saying is that even if you say morality is about wellbeing of humans (to me morality goes beyond that) people don't agree on how you measure wellbeing. There are so many different factors, and each person values each factor in their own way.

Of course, in simple examples, you can say shooting someone is objectively bad for "their wellbeing". This is why I ask for nontrivial examples. I could argue, even in this case, that you've actually stopped the suffering in the rest of their life and I consider suffering to be overall of much greater consequence to wellbeing than any enjoyment that could be gained. That is my theoretical opinion, yet I don't see how someone can "objectively" say I am wrong. Suffering and happiness are not in the same currency so cannot easily be compared like simple numbers. In my equation, the favour I have done him exceeds even the penalty for violating his autonomy. This is an example of the danger of setting any standard as the definitive one.

But when two outcomes come into conflict, declaring one to be objectively better than the other is where it falls down. Only once an exact way of measuring overall wellbeing has been established can two outcomes be compared, and who gets to come up with the formula? And even if they come up with it, why should anyone care about it if they don't agree with it? No one can dictate to me how important my pain is compared to my happiness, for example. That's up to me, and only me, to decide.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes Sam Harris doesn't get into the complexities of utilitarianism, although that's not the point of his argument.

Anything you can care about, any values you can have will involve emotion. Values exist within the brain subjectively, they're a certain kind of fact about the well being of conscious creatures as he says.

I agree it's not just about humanity, but I believe it is just about the well being of humans and other conscious creatures.

Objects and non-conscious things that ultimately affect the well being of conscious creatures matters for that reason. Values matter because they can be valued by emotional beings.

[robvalue]

Yes, I totally agree. For me, morality is about the "wellbeing" of all conscious creatures. There are ways you can improve that wellbeing, and reduce deficits to it. And absolutely, that's all the value that there really is.

It's how exactly you settle disputes between direct conflicts of interest that I think science cannot adequately answer. To do this, it must at some point assign relative value to different aspects of wellbeing. And bluntly, I don't much care about how anyone else values my physical pain compared to my lifespan, as a rough example.

I'm trying to watch the video, but I can't hear anything over me shouting "You fucking atheists have no morals!" over and over.

Just kidding, I'm checking it out now Looks interesting!

There are other objections I have, such as differering beliefs and intent, to such a formulaic evaluation. To insist everyone have correct beliefs is ridiculous. So how good someone is "trying to be" will depend on their beliefs, and to only look at the consequences by someone else's standards is no longer morality, in my book. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to discuss with them and change their opinion, of course.

[Edwardo Piet]

Another important point Sam Harris makes in his book:

Whether we can ever find out the correct answers in practice, is different to whether there are answers in principle.

Defining and measuring utilitarian ethics in practice is another matter to the question of whether some conscious creatures suffer more than others. There are answers in principle.

EDIT: This is very worth checking out and won't take forever to read either: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-m...sam-harris

Very helpful I think.