Morality

[paulpablo]

I just want to try and clarify what this thread was about again though. (I'm not the greatest at articulating this kinda stuff.....)

- I'm not saying you have to believe in a god to be moral.. In fact, I stated that it appears to me that Atheist(as a whole) are more moral than the theists.
- I'm not denying evolution. And I obviously agree, that in one way or another we evolved some form of morality... and continue to do so.
- I'm not preaching any bible or religion
- I know that some culture/time/subjectivity obviously has a role to play, in what we deem right/wrong.

- I'm just simply asking (what appears to be a fair and rational question, at least to me) the philosophical question:
What does "morality" mean without some sort of mystical "essence" that transcends our own subjective lives?
Is this not a fair question?.. Stop just trying to prove a point or calling me a troll. I'm not the enemy.


Now, I'll try and explain why I don't think my question is as silly as you guys think:

- If morals are purely subjectivity(be it: personal,or family,or cultural,or nation ect.) this would mean that all moral values are ultimately equal.
That what we deem "right/wrong" is actually nothing more than a social construct; created by ourselves, or our family, or our nation, or whatever....
What we deem as "right/wrong" is no more relevant, than what our favorite color is.
- This is moral nihilism. plain and simple. if this is the case.. Then let's at least face the facts

- Secular humanism, or moral realism.. seems to be the only other choice
This is the view I've held all my life, and I'd take it almost all you guys would base your morals around it to.
This says, that we can have objective morality derived from science. (Sam Harris talks about this quite a bit)
this has lead me to "ought-is" problem. Science alone, does not deal with values, it can't tell us what we ought or ought not do. It can only state what "is".
It seems to fall straight back into subjectivism^..

But right/wrong do exist!... The genital manipulation of little girls in the name of Islam is wrong!
(and even though it appears I have no way of logically stating that), I will stand by that assertion %100.

So the conclusion I've come to is somewhat a "mystics" kind of postion

So if you can no longer call yourself an atheist because of this dilemma, do you now believe in a particular god from any religion at all?

What does "morality" mean without some sort of mystical "essence" that transcends our own subjective lives?

What do you mean what does it mean? It means what some people have decided is right or wrong, either via religion or via choices made in their own lives because of empathy, sympathy and other emotions.

I still don't understand why you can no longer call yourself an atheist because of this, even if you believe in a god it's subjective as to which god is real and therefore subjective as to which god is telling you the correct moral values to have.

[crud]

"do you now believe in a particular god from any religion at all?"

No, words like "mystic" or "spiritual" I may use.
I hold no doctrine. I believe "god" is in our hearts... as corny as that sounds
Though, I like some of the eastern concepts; Buddhism/taosim....


"What do you mean what does it mean?"

I mean "what does it mean?"
Do you see any kind of objectivity to morality?
Or is it all purely subjective.. or to put it frankly, an illusion?

[max-greece]

Crud,

You disappeared for a while. Read my last post on page 6 of this thread and then we can talk. I am not sure I have covered your questions here - but I think they go some way to addressing them.

[Whateverist]

Do you see any kind of objectivity to morality?
Or is it all purely subjective.. or to put it frankly, an illusion?

Here is another vote for entirely subjective, yet not at all arbitrary.

[crud]

Thanks Max

"Do we really need a transcendent objectivity to judge it?"
- It appears to me we do?... Sure we can observe, measure and compare.
But to me it seems that we do need some sort transcendent objectivity to deem it objectively wrong.
otherwise we can only state it's wrong, relative to our cultures "personal opinion"....while it's right to theirs...


And thanks whateverist

could you elaborate what you mean by "arbitrary"?

[max-greece]

Crud,

Our Culture's "personal opinion"

In some ways this is a tricky one - if we are to take an individual culture in isolation then what you are saying makes sense, but that is not what we are dealing with here.

What we have is a cultural history of morality. One would like to think, and indeed hope, that our culture actually represents the pinnacle of societal morality to date. Morality is a constantly changing thing but I like to consider it a process of evolution with each subsequent "level" being built upon the last.

This is not a smooth process by any means. The declaration of independence and bill of rights are 2 moral outlines I regard as massively ahead of their time whilst Nazi Germany was not only a throw back to the worst excesses of religious intolerance from the middle ages but overlaid entirely new issues. As I have already covered we now reject that societal morality.

It could be that it was the very repulsiveness of the Nazi morality that propelled us to where we are today - or at least accelerated our change.

If my theory of the continuing evolution of societal morality is correct then I would expect future generations to look back on us with a slight sense of shame at the way we behaved.

So we are in a situation where we still have no absolute - but we can judge right from wrong against a history of moral evolution. This is why, for example, in today's western society we know in our very souls that Sharia Law is totally unacceptable.

[crud]

I agree with everything you've just said.

Morality is constantly evolving
It's not a smooth process, and the evils play a big part in to give us a reason to continue to evolve.
And I agree, future generations will look back on us with the same distaste that we have for slavery.

but, just the fact that there is room for moral growth, implys that there is some sort of absolute stranded to grow towards.


When I say morality is absolute I'm not talking about 10 commandments or any other type of authoritarian rule book.

I do mean it in the same sense as the secular humanists say.
something along the lines of: maximum well being for all humans (and I'd also included animals)... Science clearly plays a big part in this

But, philosophically speaking from the naturalism point of view, it seems like we are left with the "is to ought" dilemma.

[max-greece]

"but, just the fact that there is room for moral growth, implys that there is some sort of absolute stranded to grow towards."

Have to disagree with that line. Is there an absolute car? Building? Piece of music? Painting? Computer? Anything?

Come to that - is there a point that evolution stops - where the perfect being has been created (with perfect morality of course)?

I think not.

Its a journey. Its not a journey with a destination. Its not a journey with an unknown destination. It is a journey with no specified destination whose function is the journey itself.

Just to return to the idea of evolution. If we accept that evolution is adaptation to change (usually environmental) a perfect being in one environment may not be so in a changed one. Similarly a perfect moral position in one society may not (probably won't) translate into the next. Perfection (absolutism) therefore fails by definition.

[Savannahw]

"but, just the fact that there is room for moral growth, implys that there is some sort of absolute stranded to grow towards."

Have to disagree with that line. Is there an absolute car? Building? Piece of music? Painting? Computer? Anything?

Come to that - is there a point that evolution stops - where the perfect being has been created (with perfect morality of course)?

I think not.

Its a journey. Its not a journey with a destination. Its not a journey with an unknown destination. It is a journey with no specified destination whose function is the journey itself.

Just to return to the idea of evolution. If we accept that evolution is adaptation to change (usually environmental) a perfect being in one environment may not be so in a changed one. Similarly a perfect moral position in one society may not (probably won't) translate into the next. Perfection (absolutism) therefore fails by definition.

LOVE LOVE LOVE

[crud]

"Is there an absolute car?"
Well, no there's not. But there is an absolute standard(the laws of physics) that we can use to build/judge the car.

"is there a point that evolution stops"
When all comforts are met, all disease cured, and peace established. I see no reason for evolution to continue.

"Similarly a perfect moral position in one society may not (probably won't) translate into the next."
There is a difference between universal moral goodness, and the rules/culture/preference of a society.
Like I said this is a fairly abstract notion I'm throwing around here.