Theistic morality

[The Omnissiunt One]

This is an interesting claim.

Is this merely your opinion or do you rely on some objective standard of morality that leads you to this conclusion? If the latter, what is that objective standard? (I have somewhat been following your conversation with PR and I think you have alluded to some objective standard but I did not read anything where you explained what it was. Maybe I missed something. If so, could you please at least point me to your explanation?) If the former, doesn't that throw you back into moral relativism which you seem to reject?

My morality is basically based on preference utilitarianism, as formulated by Peter Singer, the contemporary utilitarian (and Aussie). If we give the idea of morality any credence whatsoever, we must accept that others' interests (wishes, emotions, plans for the future, etc.) are just as important as ours. All interests are equal, provided their intensity is the same. From this, we can therefore say that an action is good if it fulfils others' interests, and bad if it hinders them.

When I said what I did about the Bible, I was referring to our general conceptions of what a moral guide, or indeed any guide, should do. A motorbike handbook which said, 'Putting in sawdust instead of fuel is acceptable' would be no handbook. Any football rulebook which didn't ban violent play, or indeed said that it was acceptable, would be no rulebook. Similarly, a moral guide that is supposed to provide rules for our lives, or at least principles from which we can extrapolate rules, should surely say something about a matter as important as slavery, rather than explicitly saying that it was acceptable. You may think that these examples are wrong, or think that they are not analogous, but that is what I think.

[Purple Rabbit]

For the Bible to be taken seriously as a moral guide, it should have explicitly condemned slavery, otherwise it is no moral guide at all.

This is an interesting claim.

Is this merely your opinion or do you rely on some objective standard of morality that leads you to this conclusion? If the latter, what is that objective standard? (I have somewhat been following your conversation with PR and I think you have alluded to some objective standard but I did not read anything where you explained what it was. Maybe I missed something. If so, could you please at least point me to your explanation?) If the former, doesn't that throw you back into moral relativism which you seem to reject?

I agree with The Omnissiunt One that it would have made a single compelling argument for a divine moral. Especially if it also had condemned explicitly misogyny, genocide, homophobia, eternal damnation in hell, and if it had embraced euthanasia on a voluntary basis and stem cell research to name a few.

It is not an objective standard though. It's a tentative shared informed standard and that's all it takes.

[Edwardo Piet]

The fact it's an objective fact that slavery in general causes an awful lot of suffering to the slaves in question, demonstrates the immorality of it I would say.

EvF

[The Omnissiunt One]

The fact it's an objective fact that slavery in general causes an awful lot of suffering to the slaves in question, demonstrates the immorality of it I would say.

EvF

Hear, hear.

It's a tentative shared informed standard and that's all it takes

So, if we had a tentative shared informed standard that slavery was alright, would it be morally acceptable?

[Purple Rabbit]

The fact it's an objective fact that slavery in general causes an awful lot of suffering to the slaves in question, demonstrates the immorality of it I would say.

No, it doesn't. That fact shows nothing but the fact itself.

But your statement shows that you attribute values to it that go beyond the fact itself:
v1) it is wrong to cause suffering to slaves
v2) all wrong-doing to others must be labeled "immoral"

It also suggests a rationale accompanying it, somehing like:
r1) slaves are human individuals that can experience feelings and emotion
r2) resticting freedom of human individuals will be experienced as maltreatment
r3) every human individual will benefit from a general rule to avoid maltreatment of anyone

And it suggests a goal to strive for:
g1) Avoid all human suffering

So the label "immoral" more or less reveals your personal values, your personal rationale behind it and your personal moral goal you've set.

So far so good. We can inform us by science about the rationale. We can investigate with science whether slaves in any way are intrinsically distinct from free people. We can inform us with science in what ways a general rule for avoidance of maltreatment will bebefit individuals in a group. And so on.

Now suppose someone (let's call him Mr X) with the following values and rationale:

Values:
V1) It is not wrong to cause suffering to slaves
V2) Slaves can be owned as property

Rationale:
R1) A person brought into slavery transforms into a human subclass
R2) Slavery can enlighten suffering of free individuals
R3) Maltreat of slaves is necessary to subdue them

Moral goal:
G1) Avoid suffering of me and my family as free individuals

Mr X will label it immoral to not maltreat slaves.

Please observe that my description is not very far off from historical fact. Science can help to disentangle R1-3 but it cannot produce an objective truth for g1 over G1 or vice versa. Science can inform us about the efficiency and effectiveness of obtaining a certain goal by certain means but the goal has to be presented up front and will always involve a choice made by man.

---

It's a tentative shared informed standard and that's all it takes

So, if we had a tentative shared informed standard that slavery was alright, would it be morally acceptable?

Indeed it would be and historically it has been in large parts of the world. See the example above.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Indeed it would be and historically it has been in large parts of the world. See the example above.

That seems to demonstrate a flaw in your moral system. You can't condemn the Taliban for oppressing women, as that's the norm in their culture. Neither can anyone change society's moral view, because there is no standard to which that person can appeal to change others' minds, if morality is just society's view; they will necessarily be wrong, because they'll be arguing against the majority view. Therefore, William Wilberforce was technically morally wrong, until society's view changed. Also, moral progress becomes completely meaningless, as I've said, because no one society can be called better than another.

[Purple Rabbit]

Indeed it would be and historically it has been in large parts of the world. See the example above.

That seems to demonstrate a flaw in your moral system.

Nope.

You can't condemn the Taliban for oppressing women, as that's the norm in their culture.

Oh, I can condemn those acts from within my moral view just as you can from your allegedly objective moral framework. The only difference would be that you claim absoluteness, IOW you're right and the others are wrong and that's an absolute. There you are in Afghanistan face to face with the Taliban. Would it help you in any way that you claim the absolute? Like say the crusaders in the middle east? If you condemn those acts you are doing that from within your own moral framework, just like me. That's exactly what's happening in the real world all the time. But you have to realize that condemning as such is not a goal but a means. Condemning is a rather ineffective means to change moral views. It IMO is more effective to not attack values but the rationale behind it based on informed reasoning and to try to achieve sharing of moral goals.

Neither can anyone change society's moral view, because there is no standard to which that person can appeal to change others' minds, if morality is just society's view; they will necessarily be wrong, because they'll be arguing against the majority view. Therefore, William Wilberforce was technically morally wrong, until society's view changed. Also, moral progress becomes completely meaningless, as I've said, because no one society can be called better than another.v

Non sequitur. It does not follow from an absence of an objective moral standard that moral standards cannot influence each other or cannot be changed. Moral standards change because they influence each other, moral rationale is (re)examined in the process and goals are reformulated as a result of trading and negotiating processes (if you grant me this I'll grant you that). The claim of an absolute standard is what inhibits moral change more than anything. That is the claim of traditional christianity, that is the claim of Judaism, that is the claim of muslim fundamentalism, that is the claim of any totalitarian state. Stating the immutable is what constitutes fundamentalistic dogma and inhibits moral evolution.

[rjh4 is back]

From this, we can therefore say that an action is good if it fulfils others' interests, and bad if it hinders them.

How, then, do you judge an action that fulfills the interests of some but hinders the interests of some? Is it by mere numbers in each group, i.e., the group being fulfilled vs. the group being hindered? Is it a composite of the numbers in each group, the level of fulfillment, and the level of hindering? If a composite, how would one go about determining it?

[chasm]

In a society where half of people believe that euthanasia is right and half believe it's wrong, who is right?

The side who has office. For example, take the healthcare bill that passed. It only passed because the majority of Congress is Democrat. If the majority of Congress was Republican, it wouldn't have passed.

How do we decide what to do? You may be right that morality is nothing more than what society disapproves of, or approves of, but moral decision-making seems necessary to some extent.

I agree. There has to be some ground-work to work off of. Most people look to religious texts to do this. In most places gay marriage isn't legal because the Bible (or other religious book), says it's a sin (I think gay marriage is legal in 5 places out of 50 states, D.C., and U.S. territories).

And if they didn't look at religious texts, where would they look for ground-work? They would go off their own beliefs of right and wrong. Which goes back to what society does or does not approve of...

[The Omnissiunt One]

Oh, I can condemn those acts from within my moral view just as you can from your allegedly objective moral framework. The only difference would be that you claim absoluteness, IOW you're right and the others are wrong and that's an absolute.

But if it's just your moral framework, it's meaningless. You can't claim superiority. It's not an absolute, because if people could show me that their way is ultimately more beneficial, then my mind would be changed.

There you are in Afghanistan face to face with the Taliban. Would it help you in any way that you claim the absolute? Like say the crusaders in the middle east? If you condemn those acts you are doing that from within your own moral framework, just like me. That's exactly what's happening in the real world all the time. But you have to realize that condemning as such is not a goal but a means. Condemning is a rather ineffective means to change moral views. It IMO is more effective to not attack values but the rationale behind it based on informed reasoning and to try to achieve sharing of moral goals.

Of course, condemning isn't going to help. Informed reasoning, though, presupposes some objective standard to which we can appeal. If, as you say, morality is just what society agrees upon, then all you can say is, 'That's what your society thinks, this is what mine thinks.'

Non sequitur. It does not follow from an absence of an objective moral standard that moral standards cannot influence each other or cannot be changed. Moral standards change because they influence each other, moral rationale is (re)examined in the process and goals are reformulated as a result of trading and negotiating processes (if you grant me this I'll grant you that). The claim of an absolute standard is what inhibits moral change more than anything. That is the claim of traditional christianity, that is the claim of Judaism, that is the claim of muslim fundamentalism, that is the claim of any totalitarian state. Stating the immutable is what constitutes fundamentalistic dogma and inhibits moral evolution.

Again, you're conflating moral objectivism, or moral realism, with moral absolutism. Moral absolutism would state, 'Stealing is always wrong.' A moral realist, though, could say, 'Stealing is sometimes wrong, depending on the consequences.' You talk of moral rationale, but what is this rationale you're referring to, if morality is just society's view or a personally held view? If, though, we say that what's moral is what benefits most people, and harms fewest people, then we have a rationale from which we can work out how best to run society.