Objective Morals+

[Napoléon]

You are entitled to your own opinion. But you don't agree with killing at all, even when it was against the Nazis or any hostile country/people such as OBL etc. You can be a pacifist if you want, I've got no issues

I actually asked about murder.

Murder and killing are distinct from each other for a very important reason.

[Ryantology]

Murder by definition is wrong since it means "unlawful killing". But if you said that God says killing is morally good, then yes, killing becomes morally good.

What if God condoned ambushing women to take them as rape-slaves? Or murdering children? How about tearing fetuses out of wombs with swords? Are these actions good because God allowed, encouraged, or ordered people to do them?

[John V]

I'm just gonna go ahead and explain why "might makes right" is morally bankrupt, just in case he is actually that supid. I am not saying that he is, just in case.

Imagine an all powerful king. You cannot, under any circumstances, overthrow this king/dicatator. He is basically a complete asshole. But what he says, goes, and if you disagree, you die. So this king, let's just call him King Theist, decrees that all women are property, have no rights at all, and are basically slaves to Males. King Theist proceeds to decree that homosexuality is a such a heinous crime, that anyone who is caught gets executed, same with aldultery, speaking out against the King, or his government, ect. King Theist is also a child molester. Why not? You would say he is to be overthrown, correct? You may not want to disobey him, for fear of death, but you would agree that he is evil, right, despite the fact he is all-powerful?

The king has one set of subjective morals. You have a different set of subjective morals. As both are subjective, you cannot prove that your set is more sound than his. The above is merely an appeal to emotion.

Always amazes me when people argue that all morality is subjective, but then argue that their own morality is superior. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

---

Ah, OK then.

Might-makes-right is not a moral evaluation. In fact, it avoids discussing morality completely through appeals to authority or appeals to fear. I trust you're familiar with how both of these appeals are logical fallacies, right?

Might-makes-right instead focuses on power. Those who have the guns (or gold, or supernatural powers, or whatever) can make arbitrary decisions on what is declared to be "right" or "wrong" without any deliberation or consideration of what really IS right or wrong.

This presumes that we can determine "what really IS right or wrong," i.e. it presumes an objective morality. You need to prove an objective morality for this argument to have merit.

So morality can be discovered then with sufficient knowledge?

No, that doesn't follow from the statement you quoted.

[DeistPaladin]

Always amazes me when people argue that all morality is subjective, but then argue that their own morality is superior. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

I think where you're getting confused here, as do many who offer similar arguments, is that "subjective = anything goes". Like with many Christian apologetic arguments, you over-simplify and create false dichotomies. In this case, either there is a celestial overlord or anything goes.

In reality, not all subjective evaluations are equal. Some are better supported by objective data and rational argument than others.

Let's say, for example, that I employ a salesman who claims to be doing a "great job" by his own estimation. I differ, saying he's doing a "terrible job". These are two subjective evaluations of his performance. So, since they are subjective, both are equally valid, right?

Wrong. I can point out that this hypothetical salesperson hasn't brought in any new customers over X number of months, hasn't successfully cross-sold on any product lines, etc. He has nothing but his bare assertion and feelings to offer.

This presumes that we can determine "what really IS right or wrong," i.e. it presumes an objective morality. You need to prove an objective morality for this argument to have merit.

"Objective"





Perhaps we're tripping over different ideas of what that word means. When you say "objective morality", do you mean that we can mathematically determine the most moral course of action in any given situation? Can we plug numbers into a spread sheet to provide analysis on the best thing to do? Are there units of morality, that can measure it as we can with temperature, mass or velocity?

What does this term mean to you? Let's establish that first before we discuss what morality is.

No, that doesn't follow from the statement you quoted.

??? Wait, you said...

I'm just suggesting that more people might agree with God if they had his knowledge.

So by "agree", you mean we would come to the same conclusion. If we come to the same conclusion, we evaluate morality the same way. If we evaluate morality the same way, we can discover the same moral code with sufficient knowledge.

Where did my analysis of your statement go wrong?

[John V]

I think where you're getting confused here, as do many who offer similar arguments, is that "subjective = anything goes". Like with many Christian apologetic arguments, you over-simplify and create false dichotomies. In this case, either there is a celestial overlord or anything goes.

No, I don’t think that subjective=anything goes.

In reality, not all subjective evaluations are equal. Some are better supported by objective data and rational argument than others.

Let's say, for example, that I employ a salesman who claims to be doing a "great job" by his own estimation. I differ, saying he's doing a "terrible job". These are two subjective evaluations of his performance. So, since they are subjective, both are equally valid, right?

At this point, yes.

Wrong. I can point out that this hypothetical salesperson hasn't brought in any new customers over X number of months, hasn't successfully cross-sold on any product lines, etc. He has nothing but his bare assertion and feelings to offer.

At this point, your evaluation is no longer subjective. This bait-and-switch is the typical atheist tactic on this issue.

Perhaps we're tripping over different ideas of what that word means. When you say "objective morality", do you mean that we can mathematically determine the most moral course of action in any given situation? Can we plug numbers into a spread sheet to provide analysis on the best thing to do? Are there units of morality, that can measure it as we can with temperature, mass or velocity?

What does this term mean to you? Let's establish that first before we discuss what morality is.

I checked dictionary.com on objective, and these two definitions seem most on point:

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective ).

As you note later, an objective morality would be something which could be discovered and presented in a way that all reasonable people would agree with it. Like your sales figures above – they are what they are.

So by "agree", you mean we would come to the same conclusion. If we come to the same conclusion, we evaluate morality the same way. If we evaluate morality the same way, we can discover the same moral code with sufficient knowledge.

Where did my analysis of your statement go wrong?

I said more people might agree. You ignore the more and might, focus only on the agree, and incorrectly restate it as “we would come to the same conclusion.”

[DeistPaladin]

No, I don’t think that subjective=anything goes.

Oooooookeeeey, I'm confused then. Perhaps you can help me understand what you are saying when you said:

The king has one set of subjective morals. You have a different set of subjective morals. As both are subjective, you cannot prove that your set is more sound than his. The above is merely an appeal to emotion.

Now the hypothetical "king" (hereafter, KT for short) that you referenced from TA's post was described as such:

King Theist, decrees that all women are property, have no rights at all, and are basically slaves to Males. King Theist proceeds to decree that homosexuality is a such a heinous crime, that anyone who is caught gets executed, same with aldultery, speaking out against the King, or his government, ect. King Theist is also a child molester.

So, correct me if I got anything wrong here, you seem to suggest that KT's "morals", which include slavery, persecution and child molestation, are equal to TA's morals, which seem to condemn such things. You said TA "can't prove" that his morals are "more sound" than KT's. You accused TA of the logical fallacy of "appealing to emotion".

Really? Are you serious?

So what is this but "subjective = anything goes"?

At this point, your evaluation is no longer subjective. This bait-and-switch is the typical atheist tactic on this issue.

Rather than get emotional with me, why not realize that I'm trying to relate to you how I am working out what opinions are "objective" and "subjective" and how many "subjective" opinions are still supported by "objective" data.

My central point was...

In reality, not all subjective evaluations are equal. Some are better supported by objective data and rational argument than others.

Part of a debate is batting around different subjective evaluations of our world. We do so by offering objective facts to support our subjective evaluations, hopefully to discard weaker subjective evaluations (those not supported by facts or rational arguments) in favor of stronger ones.

Let's take the "King Theist" example. You said TA can't prove his morality is more sound than this hypothetical child molesting king. How about showing the damage that child molestation does to the victim? How about discussing how the child's rights are violated? How about arguments that involve "The Social Contract" (i.e. "how would you feel if that happened to you"). I think TA would be able to make a strong case that his subjective evaluations are stronger and better supported than KT's.

As you note later, an objective morality would be something which could be discovered and presented in a way that all reasonable people would agree with it. Like your sales figures above – they are what they are.

I would interpret this as a stronger subjective evaluation better supported by the objective data but I dislike semantic quibbling so I will just accept your definition for now...

OK, so morality can be discovered then with sufficient wisdom, right?

So morality exists independent of God, potentially discovered by anyone with sufficient knowledge (i.e. "discovered") and rational capacity (i.e. "all reasonable people")?

I said more people might agree. You ignore the more and might, focus only on the agree, and incorrectly restate it as “we would come to the same conclusion.”

My mistake is humbly noted and it's beside the point.

If just ONE person would come to the same conclusion, it demonstrates that morality can potentially be discovered with sufficient knowledge, which answers my question.

[John V]

Oooooookeeeey, I'm confused then. Perhaps you can help me understand what you are saying when you said:

Sure. Suppose you adopt a utilitarian model of morality, and I adopt the harm principle. These choices were subjective. However, the results they each produce are constrained. So, I said that subjective is not equivalent to anything goes. It can be anything goes, but isn’t necessarily.

Now the hypothetical "king" (hereafter, KT for short) that you referenced from TA's post was described as such:

King Theist, decrees that all women are property, have no rights at all, and are basically slaves to Males. King Theist proceeds to decree that homosexuality is a such a heinous crime, that anyone who is caught gets executed, same with aldultery, speaking out against the King, or his government, ect. King Theist is also a child molester.

So, correct me if I got anything wrong here, you seem to suggest that KT's "morals", which include slavery, persecution and child molestation, are equal to TA's morals, which seem to condemn such things. You said TA "can't prove" that his morals are "more sound" than KT's. You accused TA of the logical fallacy of "appealing to emotion".

Really? Are you serious?

Yes. If you could prove it, you’d do so, rather than repeating it and expressing incredulity.

In reality, not all subjective evaluations are equal. Some are better supported by objective data and rational argument than others.

Part of a debate is batting around different subjective evaluations of our world. We do so by offering objective facts to support our subjective evaluations, hopefully to discard weaker subjective evaluations (those not supported by facts or rational arguments) in favor of stronger ones.

Let's take the "King Theist" example. You said TA can't prove his morality is more sound than this hypothetical child molesting king. How about showing the damage that child molestation does to the victim?

As noted above, I’d ask you to prove that the harm principle is objectively the correct foundation of morality.

How about discussing how the child's rights are violated? How about arguments that involve "The Social Contract" (i.e. "how would you feel if that happened to you"). I think TA would be able to make a strong case that his subjective evaluations are stronger and better supported than KT's.

You should have stopped at harm. By mentioning other systems, you’re showing yourself that you don’t know that one is correct.

I would interpret this as a stronger subjective evaluation better supported by the objective data but I dislike semantic quibbling so I will just accept your definition for now...

OK, so morality can be discovered then with sufficient wisdom, right?

So morality exists independent of God, potentially discovered by anyone with sufficient knowledge (i.e. "discovered") and rational capacity (i.e. "all reasonable people")?

No, not to my knowledge.

If just ONE person would come to the same conclusion, it demonstrates that morality can potentially be discovered with sufficient knowledge, which answers my question.

No, that simply demonstrates that subjective does not mean arbitrary and unique.

[DeistPaladin]

[quote='DeistPaladin' pid='413459' dateline='1363097926']
So, I said that subjective is not equivalent to anything goes. It can be anything goes, but isn’t necessarily.
...Yes. If you could prove it, you’d do so, rather than repeating it and expressing incredulity.

OK, let's back up. The reason I repeat myself and quote what you've said is because you seem to be all over the field here. You seem to be saying one thing and then later say "I never said that". My incredulity stems from an inability to understand just where you stand.

Your positions, please clarify, seem to be:
1. Subjective morality does NOT mean anything goes.
2. All subjective morals (or lack thereof) are all equal and you can't prove one is more sound than another, even using the extreme examples of KT vs. TA.
3. Morality CAN be discovered with sufficient wisdom
4. Morality CAN'T be discovered with sufficient wisdom.

Now, on the first two points, you simultaneously seem to hold an explicit denial that subjective morality =/= anything goes. You also hold that a moral code of a king who molests children is equal to the one that says molesting children is wrong (that TA can't prove otherwise). To repeat your stance on the matter (bold emphasis added):

As both are subjective, you cannot prove that your set is more sound than his.

"As both are subjective" would indicate you think that the subjectivity is the critical factor that makes it impossible to say which morality is better.

So, because both are subjective evaluations, they are both equally valid and so anything goes? Or is there something I'm missing? Please clarify your thinking here.

You should have stopped at harm. By mentioning other systems, you’re showing yourself that you don’t know that one is correct.

I've yet to see a single philosophical model on moral evaluation that satisfies me completely. I'm most sympathetic to the Bentham Utility Principle but this has its flaws. (Fictional example) Should Sarah Connor have killed Dyson since one murder of an innocent man to save 3 billion lives plus human civilization? Isn't that a bargain? I don't think so but strict Utilitarianism might say otherwise.

Morality is a complex issue but admitting I don't yet have all the answers isn't a reason to just insert a quick and easy "GodWillsIt" to fill in the gaps of our ignorance.

No, not to my knowledge.

And this is points 3 and 4 of what confuses me about your position. You really need to elaborate better than a simple "nuh-uh", especially after you declared that...

I'm just suggesting that more people might agree with God if they had his knowledge.

So is morality something that can be discovered with sufficient knowledge or not?

[John V]

OK, let's back up. The reason I repeat myself and quote what you've said is because you seem to be all over the field here. You seem to be saying one thing and then later say "I never said that".

IMO your interpretation of what I say is poor, and so I have to say I never said to your characterization. For instance, ignoring qualifiers like many and might and drawing an absolute from the statement.

My incredulity stems from an inability to understand just where you stand.

Your positions, please clarify, seem to be:
1. Subjective morality does NOT mean anything goes.

Not necessarily. As already explained, one could subjectively choose an ordered system of morality, so it would be simplistic to say anything goes.

2. All subjective morals (or lack thereof) are all equal and you can't prove one is more sound than another, even using the extreme examples of KT vs. TA.

You can’t prove that one is more sound than the other. As they differ, I don’t see that “all equal” is correct wording.

3. Morality CAN be discovered with sufficient wisdom

No, as already noted, you incorrectly drew this from my statement by ignoring qualifiers.

4. Morality CAN'T be discovered with sufficient wisdom.

Correct.

Now, on the first two points, you simultaneously seem to hold an explicit denial that subjective morality =/= anything goes.

I deny that subjective morality = anything goes. I don’t know what =/= means.

You also hold that a moral code of a king who molests children is equal to the one that says molesting children is wrong (that TA can't prove otherwise).

I hold that you can’t prove one code to be correct and one incorrect.

To repeat your stance on the matter (bold emphasis added):

As both are subjective, you cannot prove that your set is more sound than his.

"As both are subjective" would indicate you think that the subjectivity is the critical factor that makes it impossible to say which morality is better.

So, because both are subjective evaluations, they are both equally valid and so anything goes? Or is there something I'm missing? Please clarify your thinking here.

As already explained, one could subjectively choose an ordered system of morality, so it would be simplistic to say anything goes.

I've yet to see a single philosophical model on moral evaluation that satisfies me completely. I'm most sympathetic to the Bentham Utility Principle but this has its flaws. (Fictional example) Should Sarah Connor have killed Dyson since one murder of an innocent man to save 3 billion lives plus human civilization? Isn't that a bargain? I don't think so but strict Utilitarianism might say otherwise.

Can you prove one or the other to be correct?

I'm just suggesting that more people might agree with God if they had his knowledge.

So is morality something that can be discovered with sufficient knowledge or not?

As I’ve said before, no. My statement doesn’t even necessarily indicate that anyone’s morality changes.

Again, if you could prove that one system of morality were correct, you’d do that.

[DeistPaladin]

Not necessarily. As already explained, one could subjectively choose an ordered system of morality, so it would be simplistic to say anything goes.

You keep going back and forth on this, running up and down the field.

How is saying, "you can't prove one system is more valid" (what you said below) different from "anything goes" (what you deny saying, see above)?

You can’t prove that one is more sound than the other. As they differ, I don’t see that “all equal” is correct wording.

You're quibbling over semantics.

In one breath, you say subjective morality doesn't mean "anything goes". In another, you seem to be all "gee whiz, a king likes molesting children and Trombone Atheist disapproves and who can say which system is more valid"?

No, as already noted, you incorrectly drew this from my statement by ignoring qualifiers.

The qualifiers were irrelevant.

When dealing with what is possible, qualifiers like "more", "might", "most" or even "few" or "one" all allow for possibility.

Since the question deals with what is possible, your qualifiers do not rule it out.

4. Morality CAN'T be discovered with sufficient wisdom.

Correct.

...except when you say it can be.

I don’t know what =/= means.

"Does not equal"

I hold that you can’t prove one code to be correct and one incorrect.

So we're back to "anything goes"?

As already explained, one could subjectively choose an ordered system of morality, so it would be simplistic to say anything goes.

But you said, "as both are subjective" followed by "you cannot prove that your set is more sound than his."

So it's not that "anything goes"; it's just that anything goes. Got it.

Can you prove one or the other to be correct?

We can use moral philosophy to discuss logical arguments and objective data in order to determine who has the stronger position. So in that sense, yes.

So is morality something that can be discovered with sufficient knowledge or not?

As I’ve said before, no.

Except that you said before, yes.

I'm just suggesting that more people might agree with God if they had his knowledge.

So which is it?