My views on objective morality

[LadyForCamus]

In other words mystic - Assuming "it's not the case in any possible world that it is good to torture an innocent being forever" to be true, like Jor said, is begging the question.  

It's a premise that is not argued for. I was hoping (at that time, I didn't know you), you were one of those Atheists who believed in objective morality strongly.

I have a question though regarding that. Why all the comments on God allowing rape to happen...if you do not think it has been proven to be impossible that in some possible world it would be morally good to torture an innocent being forever and ever?

I don't understand so perhaps fill me in.

Because thanks to evolution, biology, and genetics, I feel empathy. Generally speaking (some exceptions apply), imagining someone being physically harmed or physically suffering, especially the young and/or vulnerable (as well as all animals) makes me feel bad. Because I can imagine how it would feel if it was happening to me. This should be the end of the entire discussion as far as I'm concerned. It's like Rob said, the term "objective morals" is meaningless for all practical purposes. We don't need to rename "empathy" with a woo-ish title that implies some metaphysical connotation that it in no way has earned.

Empathy drives most of us. Not all of us. And those who lack it usually end up breaking the laws put in place by the empathetic majority known as society. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's certainly no worse than what any religious group has attempted. For fuck's sake, Christians alone can't even agree amongst themselves on what is "objectively morally right" let alone all the differences between multiple religious ideologies. But you have the nerve to try and call that "objective"?

The term is meaningless, Mystic. Do unto others, and figure it out from there. If I imagine someone being raped and don't reflexively feel bad about it, but rather look to the sky for some supernatural being to fill me in on whether or not I should feel bad about it, I might actually be a sociopath.

[LadyForCamus]

I googled definition of subjective and this is what I got: 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=ch...definition

^That's what I have in mind when I say subjective morality. Basically that morality is just matter of opinion, personal feelings, and taste. Of which there can be no concrete right or wrong. 



Well bashing someone in the face is not a good example because it is not something that we claim is objectively immoral in the fist place. There can be fine reasons for bashing someone in the face... like in self defense. So you are right, the morality of bashing someone in the face depends on circumstances surrounding the event.  

So let's stick to rape, which is an act that we claim to be objectively immoral. This means the act of rape is always immoral, regardless of circumstances. The only thing that changes here is the culpability of the rapist. A rapist who is legitimately insane and was having a psychotic episode has less culpability than one who premeditated the rape and is perfectly mentally capable of controlling what he's doing. Does this mean one rape was moral and the other wasn't? No, they were both immoral. The culpability of the rapist is the only thing that changes.

Even if every person agreed rape is evil it does not make it objective, an objective moral would have to exist independent of human minds. Meaning you would have to prove that the concept of rape would exist and be wrong even if humans didn't exist.

Also, this too! ^^^

[Angrboda]

For my two cents, our moral faculties exist in our subconscious and are not amenable to change by consciousness. Our moral judgements come to us from the depths of our being. Since we don't have access to the formation of our moral judgements, they appear to us as fixed and objective. They are semi-fixed, being the product of culture, genes, and development, as well as our current experiences. So moral judgements are not subjective like tastes in ice cream; they are more durable than that.

[bennyboy]

I can say "rape is evil"... that's objective because it is fact.

No.

It's.

Not.



It's a fact that most decent people don't like rape, and probably that you personally have a very strong personal reaction to it. But if someone thinks rape is okay, either generally or in specific contexts, you don't get to say they are just wrong on their facts.

[LadyForCamus]

For my two cents, our moral faculties exist in our subconscious and are not amenable to change by consciousness. Our moral judgements come to us from the depths of our being. Since we don't have access to the formation of our moral judgements, they appear to us as fixed and objective. They are semi-fixed, being the product of culture, genes, and development, as well as our current experiences. So moral judgements are not subjective like tastes in ice cream; they are more durable than that.

If you're talking individual person to individual person, I totally agree. I think it's when we start talking across cultures that it gets murky for people. Like Drich's "pop morality".

[Neo-Scholastic]

For my two cents, our moral faculties exist in our subconscious and are not amenable to change by consciousness.  Our moral judgements come to us from the depths of our being.  Since we don't have access to the formation of our moral judgements, they appear to us as fixed and objective.  They are semi-fixed, being the product of culture, genes, and development, as well as our current experiences.  So moral judgements are not subjective like tastes in ice cream; they are more durable than that.

What I hear you saying is that reason cannot override our innate desires.

[bennyboy]

Again, I'm not here to support my beliefs with evidence. I have said that multiple times. I have also said I don't have evidence that I can demonstrate to anyone. I can say why objective morality makes sense to me, and the video I posted on the OP explains it pretty well, but I can't give you evidence because I don't have any. 

You chose to post your ideas in a phiosophy forum. This implies that you intend to support them with some actual philosophical points. If you want to make the case that people can learn truths from spiritual experiences, then that's something we can debate, and that should be a different thread. That thread, I can guarantee you, is going to go very much the same as this one. But at least then, we'd all be talking about the same thing.

I feel like I have already addressed these questions. 

1. Why do I think God is real? 

That's a question I've answered multiple times already in this thread. It's a mix of things. There's no way I can sum it all up in an online forum, especially since I'm so bad with words. The video explains part of it. I'd say the biggest part of it is due to a supernatural experience I had. I have explained this in more detail earlier on in the thread. If you care to find it, go for it.   

When people say there's "too much" so sum up, it usually means it would be like trying to describe what pineapple tastes like-- you know what it tastes like, but you do not know of any words that would fully emobody your experience.

But there's a problem with this way of collecting information-- people with "spiritual" experiences are often convinced of their truth only because of their strength. It's very hard to have what you think is a vision or a revelation, and accept that it could have come just because you ate too many pickles, or because you had a mini-stroke. But to be honest with yourself, you have to separate the idea of your experience from the feeling of it. You have to look around, and see if the world is actually consistent with that idea.

It is not. You can see people all over the place with all different kinds of ideas about morality. You can see Catholics (even "infallible" popes) through history with all different kinds of ideas about morality. In your own church, I can guarantee that people have (at least subtly) different ideas about what is right or wrong.

So while I appreciate the personal sense of value of having deep-feeling experiences, I think you are making a mistake in projecting that experience onto all of reality. People have all KINDS of deep experiences. Some guy might even have a "spiritual" experience which causes him to think rape is okay, after all. Should he just go out into the world and act on that idea as a "fact"? No. We'd hope he'd consider his idea, consult others, and realize-- "Hey, that was quite the experience. But I can't find sufficient evidence to justify calling it 'real' or to act on it."

Please understand this. People have all kinds of "meaningful" experiences, but they do not all point to your idea, and some directly contradict it. I guarantee that very many people in this forum have had very meaningful moments in their lives where they slapped their heads and said, "Holy shit! What have I been worrying about? Clearly, God isn't real, and is a totally incoherent fairy tale! I'm free from the bullshit to live my life." Given the very emotional state they would have to be in to give up their former religious beliefs, would you accept this as sufficient evidence that God, after all, is NOT real?

No, obviously you wouldn't. But I hope you will see why no sensible person will take the strength of your personal experiences as having value to anyone but you in establishing ideas.

2. Why do I think He "made" objective morals? 

Perhaps that wasn't the best way to put it. As I said in my last post to you, morals are sets of principles concerning the distinction between good and evil. Everything God created is good. Evil is the absence of good. When we do something good, that's moral. When we do something bad, that's immoral. He didn't "create" morality directly. He created good. Evil is the absence of good. Free will gives us the choice between the 2, and the principles concerning the distinction between them is morality. So while morality is directly tied to Him and dependent on Him in that way, perhaps having said He "created it" wasn't the best choice of words.  

Hang on. God and only God created the Universe, and is all-powerful. The universe should be perfectly and completely suffused with his Goodness. How would it come to pass that parts of it even COULD be absent of His goodness?

What question did I not answer? I have answered all your questions. You just don't like my answers, and keep saying I don't have evidence to support them. Yes, that is correct. I don't. I have said as much, repeatedly.  

Okay, here's the confusion. It's because you posted a thread about objective morality in the philosophy thread. I assumed that you had more than your feelings to discuss, since ideas based only on feelings are pretty much the opposite of philosophy, and were prepared to make an actual argument in favor of your idea.

So I'm back to my previous position. This thread should be moved to the Religion section, where you can happily talk about your feelings and how they give meaning to your life.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Because thanks to evolution, biology, and genetics, I feel empathy.  Empathy drives most of us.  

Empathy is one of many emotional responses to circumstance. People also feel fear, anger, contempt, and loyalty. In-group loyalty is a particularly strong evolved emotional response and often at odds with empathy. By what criteria do you priviledge empathy over all other evolved responses?

[Angrboda]

For my two cents, our moral faculties exist in our subconscious and are not amenable to change by consciousness.  Our moral judgements come to us from the depths of our being.  Since we don't have access to the formation of our moral judgements, they appear to us as fixed and objective.  They are semi-fixed, being the product of culture, genes, and development, as well as our current experiences.  So moral judgements are not subjective like tastes in ice cream; they are more durable than that.

What I hear you saying is that reason cannot override our innate desires moral judgements.

Fixed.

[LadyForCamus]

Because thanks to evolution, biology, and genetics, I feel empathy.  Empathy drives most of us.  

Empathy is one of many emotional responses to circumstances. People also feel fear, anger, contempt, and loyalty. In-group loyalty is a particularly strong evolved emotional response. By what criteria do you priviledge empathy over all other evolved responses?

I don't privilege it over other evolved responses. That was not my claim.