Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 4:45 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Objective vs Subjective Morals
#11
RE: Objective vs Subjective Morals
I've started to embrace moral subjectivity. Morality is about choices. Choices have consequences. You either serve Divine Love and Wisdom or you serve yourself. "Choose this day whom ye shall serve," and reap the consequences of that choice.

(April 22, 2014 at 4:19 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:
(April 22, 2014 at 12:17 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Theists aren't the only ones who are moral realists. 72% of philosophers are atheists, and 59% of philosophers are moral realists.

And saying that because one goes about morality through a certain framework they choose that morality is therefore subjective is silly. That would entail that everything else (mathematics, logic, science) are equally as subjective, as you do that in those fields too.

I don't think we should let theists paint us into a corner with a false dilemma.

We have Virtue ethics, which predate the Bible, Deontology from Kant, (pure reason-based ethics), Utilitarianism. All of which are valid alternative frameworks to "I get my morals from God," which is a problematic statement in and of itself. Few contemporary Christians would be able to defend slavery, beating children and women, stoning, and rape with a straight face.

And yet, that is the morality we find in the bible.

If all morality is from God, where did those outside morals come from?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
On what basis do you choose a moral framework? You've pushed the problem back.
Reply
#12
RE: Objective vs Subjective Morals
(April 22, 2014 at 5:30 pm)bennyboy Wrote: In this sense, I think from a personal view, any member of a fundamentalist community has an objective morality-- so long as the moral requirements are outlined in detail. What's the difference between a God making a moral code from Moses making it, in terms of any non-Moses member of that early community?
The main difference between a god's moral code and a human's is that the god can enforce his code at will.

We could also note that an omniscient god has much more information than a human, but as morality is ultimately subjective anyway I don't see that that matters.

The Mosaic law was presented for a special purpose and carried potential special reward. General judgment does consider that morality is subjective. Jesus and Paul say that people will be judged by their own standards.

(April 22, 2014 at 10:17 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: If you put it that way, then I agree.

The next question then would be: why should I think your moral code to be the right one?
I didn't ask you to think that. Do what you like. You'll be judged according to your own judgment.
Reply
#13
RE: Objective vs Subjective Morals
(April 23, 2014 at 3:06 pm)alpha male Wrote: The main difference between a god's moral code and a human's is that the god can enforce his code at will.

We could also note that an omniscient god has much more information than a human, but as morality is ultimately subjective anyway I don't see that that matters.
That's all fine but it wasn't my point. My point is that if the decrees of a superior are taken as absolute law, that represents an objective morality from the perspective of the followers. It doesn't matter to the person obeying the laws whether Moses made them up in a magic mushroom trip, or whether a real God handed them down as per the story.

On the other hand, if the willingness to ACCEPT an imposed moral code represents subjective morality, then even Christians following a real God are exhibiting a subjective morality.
Reply
#14
RE: Objective vs Subjective Morals
The definition of "objective" is existing independent of opinions or values. I've found that such things tend to be measurable in mathematical terms. Temperature, velocity, mass, weight, distance, etc. are what we think of as "objective" and these are measurable in numerical expressions.

The closest I've ever seen to coming up with a system to make actions measurable on some sort of morality scale is Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarian Principles. Bentham suggested that there is a sum total of pleasure and a sum total of pain in the universe, totals which are variable depending on our actions and other influences. That which creates pleasure or relieves pain can be considered "morally right" which actions that destroy pleasure or create pain are "morally wrong".

Looking past the fact that evaluations of the sum total of pleasure and pain are themselves subjective and therefore not practically measurable even if we had any ability to acquire such knowledge, it's not a bad concept and I've found it helpful in understanding morality. That said, it certainly isn't perfect and, taken in exclusion of any other principles of morality, leads to an "ends justify the means" mentality.

Let's consider an extreme example.

Let's say you know that in the future, a super computer controlling America's nuclear stockpile will gain sentience and start a nuclear war. Soon after that war, it will manufacture killer machines to wipe out the remainder of human beings on the planet. You learn about the scientist who will discover a super chip that will lead to the construction of said super computer. The scientist is himself innocent, having peaceful applications in mind for this new breed of self-aware computers. Nonetheless, his invention will lead to the deaths of 3 billion humans and the destruction of human civilization. Killing this innocent man might prevent all this from happening. For argument's sake, let's say it will.

Would it be moral for Sarah to pull the trigger and murder Miles Bennett Dyson to prevent that future?

[Image: Miles_Dyson_nearly_killed.jpg]

I would say no. I think most people would. And yet from a strictly mathematical analysis, it's a no-brainer to the contrary. Murdering 1 man to save the lives of 3 billion is a net gain of 2,999,999,999 lives, to say nothing of saving human civilization.

The fact that the numbers alone can't decisively tell us what is morally right or wrong would suggest that morality is a subjective matter.

(April 22, 2014 at 4:29 pm)alpha male Wrote: Personally I think morality is subjective. When theists speak of having an objective morality, it's only objective from a human point of view. They're generally not arguing that there's some objective code of morality which is independent of and superior to god, which is what a true objective morality would require.

We may be working with different definitions of "objective". It seems to me that something either is or isn't objective. Objective must mean free of ANY opinions, views or values, no matter who or what is making those evaluations.

EDIT to add picture.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#15
RE: Objective vs Subjective Morals
(April 22, 2014 at 7:11 am)FallentoReason Wrote: As far as I can tell, morals aren't something that are "out there" to be discovered i.e. they don't seem to be objective. And until a proof is given that they actually are, it can only mean that the theist is working from a subjective framework, just like the rest of us.

I'd like to know what the theists on here think about morality, and how they justify their moral code.

I was skimming the web looking for some inspiration to respond to this thread and came across this essay. Though it was best to post it rather than paraphrase it. It's quite interesting.

The Cae for Objective Morality in Atheism

MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci

"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Reply
#16
RE: Objective vs Subjective Morals
(April 23, 2014 at 5:38 pm)bennyboy Wrote: That's all fine but it wasn't my point. My point is that if the decrees of a superior are taken as absolute law, that represents an objective morality from the perspective of the followers.
Yes, I believe I made that point myself.
Quote:It doesn't matter to the person obeying the laws whether Moses made them up in a magic mushroom trip, or whether a real God handed them down as per the story.
Yes, and?
Quote:On the other hand, if the willingness to ACCEPT an imposed moral code represents subjective morality, then even Christians following a real God are exhibiting a subjective morality.
I agree.
Reply
#17
RE: Objective vs Subjective Morals
(April 24, 2014 at 8:54 am)alpha male Wrote: I agree.

Good for you. I mean that. I want to commend you for at least this point of intellectual consistency.

I say this because so many Christians seem, for some reason, desperate to try to transform subjective into objective and tie themselves into knots doing it. I really don't get why. To me, whether something is objective or subjective doesn't make it inherently superior.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#18
RE: Objective vs Subjective Morals
" That which creates pleasure or relieves pain can be considered "morally right" which actions that destroy pleasure or create pain are "morally wrong". "

And what happens when there is pleasure in the pain? Just take a look at the BDSM threads in Area 69.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
Reply
#19
RE: Objective vs Subjective Morals
(April 24, 2014 at 10:44 am)max-greece Wrote: " That which creates pleasure or relieves pain can be considered "morally right" which actions that destroy pleasure or create pain are "morally wrong". "

And what happens when there is pleasure in the pain? Just take a look at the BDSM threads in Area 69.
+1

Also, look at drugs.

Jogging creates pain. Is it morally wrong? How about making my kids get off their mobile devices and rejoin the real world? That causes them pain, but it would be immoral NOT to limit their game time, I think.
Reply
#20
RE: Objective vs Subjective Morals
(April 24, 2014 at 10:44 am)max-greece Wrote: " That which creates pleasure or relieves pain can be considered "morally right" which actions that destroy pleasure or create pain are "morally wrong". "

And what happens when there is pleasure in the pain? Just take a look at the BDSM threads in Area 69.

What happens when you surgically remove the corpus callosum?

(April 24, 2014 at 5:30 pm)bennyboy Wrote:
(April 24, 2014 at 10:44 am)max-greece Wrote: " That which creates pleasure or relieves pain can be considered "morally right" which actions that destroy pleasure or create pain are "morally wrong". "

And what happens when there is pleasure in the pain? Just take a look at the BDSM threads in Area 69.
+1

Also, look at drugs.

Jogging creates pain. Is it morally wrong? How about making my kids get off their mobile devices and rejoin the real world? That causes them pain, but it would be immoral NOT to limit their game time, I think.

It doesn't work when you only look at the immediate consequences.

You do it because you think your children will ultimately be happier for it, right? That's ethical hedonism.


Addition prior to MFM's kudos.

(April 22, 2014 at 10:17 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Maths (and logic, but maybe to a lesser degree?) is a construct that only exists in our minds. The most fundamental concepts of e.g. geometry don't exist outside of our minds; you can't find a circle in real life, or parallel lines. It is just accepted that such concepts exist, and from there, we can build upon those assumed truths. I think this is a nice analogy for morality actually, in that it's a construct that doesn't exist in reality.
"I sure love my new car."

"Cars only exist in your mind."

"We're in a car right now! Are you blind!?"

"All you can ''see'' is the colors in your mind's eye. You can't comprehend what a car really is."

"If we can't really see the car, how did we both know the car was red?"

"A color-blind person wouldn't see the car as red."

"But he would agree that it's a car."

"Yet if I asked you both to define ''car'', I would get two different definitions."

"If this isn't a car, how did we get to the office? Do you think we're just floating around on magic hippy smoke!?"

"Your subjective concept of ''cars'' may be useful, but that doesn't mean the thing in your mind has an objective existence independent of your subjective perceptions."

"Fuck this conversation!"
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  On theism, why do humans have moral duties even if there are objective moral values? Pnerd 37 3089 May 24, 2022 at 11:49 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Subjective Morality? mfigurski80 450 34894 January 13, 2019 at 8:40 am
Last Post: Acrobat
  Objective Standard for Goodness! chimp3 33 5650 June 14, 2018 at 6:12 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  Objective morality: how would it affect your judgement/actions? robvalue 42 8219 May 5, 2018 at 5:07 pm
Last Post: SaStrike
  The Objective Moral Values Argument AGAINST The Existence Of God Edwardo Piet 58 13613 May 2, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  Can somebody give me a good argument in favor of objective morality? Aegon 19 4409 March 14, 2018 at 6:42 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Subjective Issues Azu 13 2354 September 26, 2017 at 10:07 am
Last Post: Astonished
  Autonomous vehicle objective morality! ignoramus 0 796 July 26, 2017 at 5:21 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  Is morality objective or subjective? SuperSentient 50 11218 May 18, 2017 at 6:04 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  On the consistent use of "objective" and "subjective" Ignorant 22 4274 November 15, 2016 at 12:01 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)