Replacing Religious Morality

[MindForgedManacle]

Given that objective right and wrong does not appear to exist, and certainly does not exist in the practice of human affairs, would the burden not lie upon the person claiming it does?

How does it not appear to? If by 'moral' and 'immoral' you mean "that which is and isn't (respectively) conducive to well-being", I can safely say that there is in fact a standard of right and wrong that is applicable in human affairs.

Also, how are we defining 'objective' here, anyway? Even if a set of morals applied to all humans, that's still subjective on the basis of species. Does the definition of right and wrong change, depending on the mental capacity of the being?

The word 'objective' is really a misnomer here, because even though I can say certain moral actions are moral or immoral from within my consequentialist framework, that truth is still relative to the framework. The real term for it is moral realism.

And you're misunderstanding the word subjective I think. If morality only applied to humans (it doesn't), then all human actions could be scrutinized as being moral or immoral. That's no subjective. Limited in scope maybe, but then again defining anything at all has to limit the scope of what one means for the definition to actually mean anything.

Morality (on my conception) only makes sense when talking of beings who have the capacity to reason, and more importantly, to suffer. If something in question lacks either (or both) the capacity to reason or suffer, it's easy to see why giving it moral considerations - outside of its effects on things that can suffer and reason - doesn't make any sense. Rocks don't have moral considerations and it's easy to see why.

That's usually how we apply it in practice. We don't hold children to the same standards as adults. We don't hold animals to the human standard.

Children haven't developed adequate reasoning skills or knowledge of the world. We don't apply a totally different standard, we just don't hold them to be fully-fledged moral agents. The same for animals, except we don't really hold them to be possible moral agents at all. That's not to say that we don't think they are to be considered morally; of course we do. Their ability to suffer is the reason why. Ask yourself, why don't you (likely) consider it immoral if a lion kills other non-human animals? Is it perhaps because a lion lacks the mental capacity to reason about things as abstract as ethics?

[Bipolar Bob]

@Bipolar Bob

Because morality is about how you should act.

Morality is about how one should act within a given society or culture. It is about enculturation and conformity. Moralities change from society to society and from culture to culture.

Given we have values and the capacity to reason, there are going to be ways that are 'objectively better' in acting in accordance with and promoting those values. Of course behavior is going to change with the circumstances, but how you behave will be dictated by your moral values and views.

Our moral values are not just something that we are born with, those values come from somewhere. And if you study morals, values and ethics not every single value or moral is based on reason, in fact most moral codes are based on something other than reason. It is our milieu, our cultural and social environment that dictates what we view as right or wrong. All moral values are cultural.

And you're going to need to defend the claim that there is no objective right and wrong. Given a certain set of values and what you mean by 'moral' and 'immoral', it can very much be said that there are in fact better ways to act in that framework.

I will defend my claim once you define what an objective right or wrong is and give me an example thereof. By the way the burden of proof falls upon those making the positive claim not me. Just like theist have the burden of proof fall upon them when they make the positive claim that god exists, so that same burden falls upon those who claim an objective right or wrong.

[henryp]

If we think of the rules as exhaustive covering all possible scenarios and participants, perhaps that would make it simpler?

ex. Bob murders Frank under circumstance X: Evil
Bob murders Frank under circumstance Y: Not evil
Bob murders Frank under ...

Is that subjective or objective? It depends on the details, but each situation only has one correct answer.

[Bipolar Bob]

If we think of the rules as exhaustive covering all possible scenarios and participants, perhaps that would make it simpler?

ex. Bob murders Frank under circumstance X: Evil
Bob murders Frank under circumstance Y: Not evil
Bob murders Frank under ...

Is that subjective or objective? It depends on the details, but each situation only has one correct answer.

When you state there is a objective right or wrong basically what you are stating is that given moral is not just an opinion but is factual. It more like saying being gay is always wrong because that is the way things are.

[MindForgedManacle]

Morality is about how one should act within a given society or culture. It is about enculturation and conformity. Moralities change from society to society and from culture to culture.

And saying that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of morality. Morality is about how one should act, period. It wouldn't matter if you were the only being left alive, how you acted would be dictated by your moral values.
Moralities don't just up an completely change among societies. For all the talk one tends to hear of cultural relativism, people tend to ignore how widespread most fundamental values (preservstion of life in most circumstances, especially) are.

Our moral values are not just something that we are born with, those values come from somewhere. And if you study morals, values and ethics not every single value or moral is based on reason, in fact most moral codes are based on something other than reason. It is our milieu, our cultural and social environment that dictates what we view as right or wrong. All moral values are cultural.

And why we have certain values are in fact largely in-built. Humans have natural dispositions toward and against certain things. Why do we usually care about those suffer in pain, and why do we value preventing suffering in the first place? Because we've always known what pain was like, and most people come built with some level of empathy. This is an embryo of how we actually develop our basal moral values. They're founded in how we are as creatures.

I will defend my claim once you define what an objective right or wrong is and give me an example thereof. By the way the burden of proof falls upon those making the positive claim not me. Just like theist have the burden of proof fall upon them when they make the positive claim that god exists, so that same burden falls upon those who claim an objective right or wrong.

And if an atheist says "There are no gods", they have just as much a BoP as theists who claim to know there is one. Your claim was that there is no objective right and wrong. I already defended my view of it in the post above yours.

[Simon Moon]

If we think of the rules as exhaustive covering all possible scenarios and participants, perhaps that would make it simpler?

ex. Bob murders Frank under circumstance X: Evil
Bob murders Frank under circumstance Y: Not evil
Bob murders Frank under ...

Is that subjective or objective? It depends on the details, but each situation only has one correct answer.

Each instance can be evaluated for the best possible outcome. But it is not subjective because there is a a standard we can compare each action in every situation against.

It is known as 'situational morality'. Some people believe situational morality is subjective, but it is not.

To evaluate whether an act is evil or not evil, all one has to do is calculate, to the best of their ability, the most likely outcome from the act. Will it cause more or less suffering to innocent people if circumstance X or Y are carried out or not?

I'm not saying that every situation will have an easy moral choice, and their may even be more than one best possible choices, but that is how society becomes more moral.

Bob murders Frank because Frank slept with his wife. While I wouldn't call that an evil act, it is wrong. How do I know? Because it is causing more suffering to murder Frank, than not to.

Bob murders Frank because Bob knows for a fact that Frank is a serial murderer. In this case murdering Frank will cause less suffering than to let him live.

Of course, this method will not always yield the best results in every case, but using logic and reason, less than the best results can be improved upon.

Please take note that we no longer have slavery in the US.

When did a deity come down and tell people "though shall not own another human being as property"? It was through logic and reason (and empathy) that slavery was outlawed.

It is secular morality that has constantly dragged religious morality kicking and screaming into modernity.

[_xenu_]

You'll behave in much the same way you always have because its in your best interests. You may change some social positions, but as far as most day-to-day interaction it won't make a difference. Machiavelli himself, hardly an example of religious piety himself, emphasized at least maintaining an appearance of honor, and to do that you have to actually do the right thing most of the time. No ones perfectly honorable, and your reference to starving people in Africa is pretty typical for anyone. People only tend to care about others in their immediate social circle anyway. Including the people in Africa.

[Bipolar Bob]

I already defended my view of it in the post above yours.

What you have not defended is moral facts, if you are going to state that there is an objective moral standard then you have show us what are the properties of right and wrong, good or evil, you have to show us how those properties could be measured and observed and by what means they can be measured or observed.

If something has no measurable properties and you cannot observe it then its status as a fact becomes iffy to say the least.



*edited because I am damn dsylexci...I mean dyslexic

[genkaus]

Why do we even need a morality i.e. a moral code? The thing with morals is that strict adherence to one can be detrimental. Behavior should change with circumstances, therefore your morality and ethics should be fluid, but what we get with a moral code is an attempt to do the opposite. Moral codes are nothing but enculturation and conformity and have nothing actually to do with an objective right or wrong. Mainly because there is no objective right or wrong. Circumstances change, behavior must adapt to those changes or you and your culture will perish.

That is an extremely ignorant view of morality.

Humans are not animals. We do not automatically act on instinct. We have the capacity to reflect upon our actions, to consider our desires and motivations, to foresee the consequences and make our choice based on all these precursors. Which is why we need a conceptual guide to direct our actions and that conceptual guide is what we call morality, i.e. a moral code.

The simple fact that your actions are based on thought and self-reflection, means you need a moral code to guide those actions. Whether that moral code is rigid or fluid, whether it is good for you or detrimental, whether it is the result of conformity or individuality, whether it is encultured or reasoned, whether it is dogmatic or adaptive, whether it is rational or irrational or whether it is objective or subjective - that depends on the moral code you've chosen.

---

Helping an Orphan is 4000 points, but beating Super Mario 3 is only 340? It's silly (to me).

Where did this point system come from?

Now you could make an argument that you think I'd find living a productive life more enjoyable than a hedonistic life, but I suspect that's just projecting your own made up belief system onto others. And you aren't even an allpowerful omnipotent super being.

Actually, its not projection and I don't have to be omnipotent to know it. Its human psychology - being human means you have objective needs and satisfying those needs is required for happiness.

When you said yes, (to the first part) do you believe the laws of mathematics are subjective, because they were made up by God? That's an interesting position. I still think it's underestimating the nature of such a being, and I'm not sure it would change anything, but an interesting idea.

Its not under-estimation or over-estimation. Its the nature of objectivity - if something is determined by a conscious entity's will or opinion, then that thing is subjective. So, if mathematical laws were made up by god, then they would be subjective. Its that simple.

---

Morality is about how one should act within a given society or culture. It is about enculturation and conformity. Moralities change from society to society and from culture to culture.

Wrong. Morality is about how one should act. The presence of culture is irrelevant. And even if you consider morality within the context of a society or a culture, it does not automatically make it about enculturation and conformity.

Our moral values are not just something that we are born with, those values come from somewhere. And if you study morals, values and ethics not every single value or moral is based on reason, in fact most moral codes are based on something other than reason. It is our milieu, our cultural and social environment that dictates what we view as right or wrong. All moral values are cultural.

Your statement fails its own test. If all moral values were cultural then every single value or moral would be based on culture - which it isn't, so it isn't. The fact that most of the moral codes known to you are based on something other than reason does not mean a rational moral code is not possible.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Humans are not animals. We do not automatically act on instinct. We have the capacity to reflect upon our actions, to consider our desires and motivations, to foresee the consequences and make our choice based on all these precursors.

Which requires the capacity of freewill, since a forced choice is no choice at all.