Evil

[Mudhammam]

You sound like me about a month ago, Rob. Lol. I was compelled to think that morality was subjective for the very reasons you put forth. However, I found there to be some devastating problems with that view. I'll put them forth the best that I can at the moment. Bear in mind, many others have stated the problems far more effectively (most philosophers - not that consensus equals truth but it should perhaps cause reason for further consideration - are moral realists).

When I say someone is "wrong" to do something, I mean it is wrong according to my morality and belief system, nothing more.

What does that actually mean? You're saying that something which is deemed "wrong" (by you) can simultaneously be "right" if measured by a morality or belief system that is contrary to yours. But that's nonsense. One of those belief systems must be wrong, for both cannot be right and wrong with respect to the same truth claim. Obviously, they amount to contradictory judgments. If, however, you don't mean to say anything which can be deemed true, and that your morality is really neither right nor wrong but simply a matter of taste - like preferring chocolate or vanilla, as what some people like others dislike - then 1) you're not discussing morality at all (as morality pertains to good and bad, or right and wrong, intention, action, judgment, etc.) and 2) you cannot claim anyone to be right or wrong in their belief systems, or the judgments which proceed, including yours. So, why should I or anyone else accept your morality or belief system if you cannot even claim it to be right?

I can never say it is objectively wrong. Right and wrong mean nothing until defined, that's the whole problem with objective morality. Since no two people would ever completely agree on what "right" and "wrong" mean, any objective standard is useless.

I think you overstate the problem, as the difficulty of definition - and disagreements about how concepts relate to the world - is certainly not limited to morality. People commonly disagree over how to define the following: "truth", "objectivity", "matter", "being", "real", "nothingness". So then what? What objective standard should we appeal to? Our subjective experiences which is all we ever know? Which ones - the sensual or the intellectual? Or should we just remain silent?

No, I don't think the morality of ISIS is inherently inferior, because I don't think it means anything to say that.

Do you really believe that? I have my doubts...

It is only inferior once we agree such basic things as human life and wellbeing are of prime importance.

Why should the number of people who agree on any given subject have any bearing on whether or not their judgment is right? What does it matter, truthfully speaking, if one person makes a correct determination or if five (or five hundred, or five hundred million, etc.) others agree with that one person?

 They may say serving their God is of more importance. Who gets to say what is "more important"? It comes down to a societal agreement. So they say we are wrong, because our priorities are backwards. If we can't agree on what is important and valuable, we can't compare values. And since ISIS clearly don't agree, we're only judging them from our point of view.

As rational beings, we define and give meaning to all of our experiences in the world. Why should difficulty in agreement over our terms or the goals each wishes to achieve have any effect on whether or not truth exists - in either metaphysics or meta-ethics?

It would be nice to say Western morality is objectively better than Isis, but without first defining exactly what morality means and how it is measured, this is a meaningless statement. My whole point is that these moral values are up for debate, there are no "correct" ones without simply begging the question.

You could apply this to many other contentious issues in which I highly doubt you'd want to say that the truth of the matter is relative. The situation we confront in defining the Good is no different than other areas that have proven to be immense, slippery tasks. I don't think it really means that we cannot have some notion upon which to build, and you seem to discount the possibility of opposed viewpoints even reaching agreement - which is actually far more widespread on a great number of fundamental moral questions than you give credit for - by eliminating any meaningful statements about which truly is better or worse; insofar as you insist that right or wrong has no inherent meaning outside of what each person decides (yet apparently, this does make it inherently right for them, although I don't really understand how that could be meaningful), how could disagreement ever get resolved?

I've said in another thread, I think owning animals and killing them for food is immoral. Society generally says it is not. Who is correct? It depends on how you define morality, and clearly it depends on how treatment of animals figures into it as compared to humans. What is the "correct" way to do this? What is the correct way to value them? I hold that there isn't one.

Then how can you hold it to be immoral? You're really saying it's both - depending on who is speaking - and that's no different than to say it is neither. Again, disagreement over a given topic doesn't equal there being no right or wrong, or true or false, judgments about it.

Finally, let me ask: How could you ever be wrong about a given moral judgment if what is wrong is what you decide? If you change your mind about eating meat, and tomorrow decide it to be right - were you previously wrong in your view? How is that possible if what is right (or wrong) has no inherent meaning or truth value apart from your subjective opinion about it? That is, you're right now - according to you, which is the only criteria your subjectivism allows - and you'll be right when you change your mind. How does that work?

[robvalue]

By the way, this is a very interesting discussion I've not met an atheist before who believes in objective morality. (Although I did find out soon after Simon does too!)

To the last question: if I think something is moral, given the beliefs I have, then it is moral to me. Simple as that, it is a judgement call. If I knew my intent was to do the "right thing" at the time, then it was a moral action. I may look back at previous actions, when my ideas about what is right and wrong has changed, and think those actions would be immoral if I did them now. It's about intent. Can we agree it's about intent? If you don't think morality is about intent, we really are discussing entirely different subjects and it's not surprising we don't agree.

This is why I'm so concerned with definitions. If I find out now that you don't think morality is about intent, this whole discussion has been us talking past each other and will continue to be.

Yeah, I'm saying an action can be judged moral by one person and immoral by another. Neither are right objectively, because morality is a value judgement and as such is not inherently correct or incorrect. Even if we agree on such a goal as human wellbeing, how we go about measuring that wellbeing is a subject for discussion. To say one "correct" way of measuring wellbeing exists seems nonsensical to me. At best, it can be a consensus of opinion. If there is some cosmic objectively right way to measure wellbeing but everyone on the planet feels completely differently to it, what use is it, even if it did somehow exist?

My whole point is in defining what morality is in the first place. If we agree that the word morality means intending to progress human wellbeing, then yes, ISIS seem like bollocks. But it may still be that they really believe serving Allah is ultimately in man's best interest. If they do truly believe that (I'm not saying they do), and they are doing what they think is right, then I'd consider such actions moral, from their point of view. But if I did the same thing, it wouldn't be moral because I hold different beliefs. It's the intent which is important.

If we only consider consequences and not intent, am I being immoral if I accidentally hurt someone?

If we agree for the sake of discussion that morality does mean maximising wellbeing then it makes sense to compare, or at least discuss, differing approaches. If your argument is that morality already means this to everyone, then that's fine, as long as everyone in the discussion agrees. If a member of ISIS joins the discussion, we would need to start again. Just saying "ISIS are wrong" doesn't go any way to including them in the discussion. You'd probably say it's impossible to include them in the discussion, I would agree. Similarly, we couldn't be included in their discussion. The versions of morality are too different.

Yes, I do believe what I said about ISIS, simply because "right and wrong" are meaningless words until you say what they represent. For example, I define "right" as cutting people's heads of as much as possible. Now ISIS is more moral than us.

Clearly, I can consider another person's actions immoral while they consider themselves moral. How could it be any other way? Insisting that one of us has to be "right" doesn't make it so. Yes, I think treatment of animals is wrong. Other people think it's right. A clear contradiction. Is one of the two parties actually objectively right? If so, which one? I'm saying neither are. To me, morality "obviously" includes not killing things if you can avoid it. Most other people think morality "obviously" is more concerned with humans, and animals come a weak second. So clearly it's not actually obvious from either standpoint. Who gets to say who is right? We can both put forward our reasons for why we feel that way, and perhaps one of us will change our mind. That is how morality evolves. What good would it do for me to announce being vegan is objectively more moral than not being vegan? Even if it were "true", no one is going to change their actions based on that statement. So it's totally irrelevant whether the universe "thinks" I'm more moral. If I can't describe why I feel that way, nothing will change. People may agree, they may not.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

To the last question: if I think something is moral, given the beliefs I have, then it is moral to me. Simple as that, it is a judgement call. If I knew my intent was to do the "right thing" at the time, then it was a moral action. I may look back at previous actions, when my ideas about what is right and wrong has changed, and think those actions would be immoral if I did them now. It's about intent. Can we agree it's about intent? If you don't think morality is about intent, we really are discussing entirely different subjects and it's not surprising we don't agree.

This is why I'm so concerned with definitions. If I find out now that you don't think morality is about intent, this whole discussion has been us talking past each other and will continue to be.

Major kudos for bringing up this point. I think one of the inherent problems with even trying to discuss "objective morality" with Theists, especially the "revealed religion" kind, is that often we are talking about completely different things. We think of it in terms of intent: "did I do my best to behave in the manner that I believe is the right thing to do, trying to do no harm while trying to accomplish things I wish, even if I may need to learn more about how to accomplish that goal". They think of it in terms of sacred rules and conformity to those rules; "we know the One Right Way to Live™, and morality is measured by the degree of adherence to the sacred code".

In other words, even though they call operation from a Godly Rulebook "objective" morality, it means nothing to them (at least, not in the sense that we mean the term) when we point out that it is in fact subjective and has even mutated with time, because they're using a different set of premises than we are.

If you think I'm insulting the latter group by calling them conformists, you're wrong. Even if you accept that humans, not gods, define that code, it is nevertheless an agreed-upon set of rules that at least attempt to provide a set of "right behaviors" for that society, and by which everyone can measure their degree of moral behavior simply by "sticking to the rules". When I was at USAFA, we had the famous Honor Code, that many know are central to life as a cadet: "I will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does." What most people do not know is that there is a second line to the Honor Code, which says, "Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and to live honorably."

When we learned that, we were told by the officer who accepted our oath that, if we simply follow the second part, we needed not worry about the first. Much of social morality, I find, comes down to a sense of what is honorable. If you believe strongly in a sense of the reverential/sacred and value conformity/stability and a sense of heirarchy or "place" in your social circles, then you are what I think of as "conservative-minded" (not necessarily in the political sense, but the concepts do dovetail)... whereas if you are the type who prefers to question everything, value progress and have a desire to shape things in a new way in an attempt to make it better (at the risk of making it worse), and place individuality and individual happiness over the cohesion of the whole, then you are what I think of as a "liberal-minded" type.

From that, it follows that the idea of "what is Honorable" will differ, between the two types of mindset, and it is as incomprehensible to the former type that the latter type says "How dare you tell women they should be submissive to their husbands" (because the woman who defines her own life independently of men challenges their comfortable sense of social order and place for both genders, which is why conservative men and women speak the same way about it; it's not just about wishing to dominate, and in fact many conservative-minded men are not "naturally" leaders, so their churches have to have seminars to teach them to "be the head of the household") as it is to us when they say that women who don't wish their kind of life (or to have a man at all) are dangerous/evil. We are talking past one another, working from a completely different set of fundamental assumptions about what makes Honor, and thus morality.

They have (subjectively!) decided that what matters, in terms of this personal honor code behavior which we tend to tag moral behavior, is adherence to that which they have accepted as the highest form of guidance for human behavior, and they are genuinely disturbed that others reject it, seeing that as the essential definition of immorality. We, on the other hand, see honor code behavior in terms of how our behavior impacts others, not a list of rules, which is why in our view you cannot be immoral out in the middle of the desert, or marooned on an uncharted island, where there are no other people to affect (the Last Man On Earth principle) through your behavior. But the "objectivists" would still find it easily possible to behave immorally, since the code follows them and has no regard for other humans, except as defined within that code. And that sums up our primary objection to their code, where we see that it disregards other people: genocide, slavery, etc. And why it baffles us that they cannot be as horrified by the presence of these things in the code as we are. It's why ISIS really does believe what they are doing is moral: to them, they are following their Godly Code to the letter, which includes violence and intimidation toward other tribes of apostates, an attitude which is incomprehensible to our liberal-minded types and is a major violation of the (updated) code followed by our conservative types.

[robvalue]

Thank you!

Yes, it seems you totally got my point

Honourable, yes, I like that. Often when I decide upon my actions, I don't do something even if it doesn't objectively cause any harm, just because I would consider it dishonourable. I would know it was somehow "wrong" to do, even if no one else would ever know I did it; nor would it hurt anyone. This shows that, to you and me at least, morality is about intent and not consequences.

A very quick example: spying on someone getting changed. If I was careful I could probably get away with it, they wouldn't know or be harmed as such. But I'd consider it immoral to do so, because I'm invading their privacy without their consent.

PS, to clear up an earlier point:

Let's say Jim from ISIS cuts off someone's head because he truly believes it will please Allah to do so, and that ultimately that is in mankind's best interest. From his point of view, that is a moral action. He intends "good" consequences. I judge it to be an immoral action if I did the same action because my beliefs are different. But it isn't me doing the action, it is him. I can try and convince Joe that actually Allah doesn't exist and cutting people's heads off isn't in mans' best interest. Maybe he'll agree, and stop doing it. If he did agree, but then cut someone's head off for no reason, it would be immoral by his new standard.

[robvalue]

Additional:

I think the idea of objective morality and simply labelling western morality as "better" than other cultures is not only pointless but potentially harmful. If we instead take the approach that they are (maybe) genuinely doing what they think is right, we can understand why they do it. That gives us more of a chance of meeting somewhere in the middle, and maybe persuading them through debate why we feel our values are the way they are. I'm not saying it's always possible, but it's the only way things could ever change towards a united world without simply forcing values on people. Even if it's not possible now, it may be in the future, and a better understanding from both sides can only be helpful to this aim.

We don't have to agree. Just to understand.

What does it achieve, really, to call them barbarians and dismiss them entirely? It makes us feel good, but it's never going to bring the world together. I realize I've been as guilty of this as anyone else.

It's kind of similar, on a smaller scale, to the difference between dismissing a Christian as a lunatic and accepting they really do have strong beliefs and trying to meet in the middle.

[Captain Scarlet]

I just love how you atheists deny the concept of Natural Law then turn around and tacitly call on it by calling it programming. Stop trying to hide your moral nihilism.

Yes its about as entertaining as when theists claim morality is objective because it radiates out from the mind of a god, what dun it. There that settles it!

[Mudhammam]

Rob, I apologize for the delayed reply. I've wanted to respond since I first got a chance to read your posts, but life has been a little busy, I've had to put the forum on the back burner, and I didn't want to cheat you out of a thoughtful response. You raise some good objections. At the risk of being too brief now, however, I'll merely focus on a couple of your questions; hopefully we'll figure out a way - if possible, given your thesis (  ) - to move the conversation forward.


You said/asked, 

It's about intent. Can we agree it's about intent? If you don't think morality is about intent, we really are discussing entirely different subjects and it's not surprising we don't agree.

I do think it's about intent - for the most part. I don't want to downplay the role of consequences though. If I had to put a percentage on it, which might be somewhat meaningless - I'd say morality is equally 50/50 both. That's open to revision, of course, but that's my initial impulse.

 If there is some cosmic objectively right way to measure wellbeing but everyone on the planet feels completely differently to it, what use is it, even if it did somehow exist?

Your preceding sentences carry the implication that there is a right or wrong answer to this question, and though factually (as opposed to morally) speaking you seem to hold that there are absolutely (as opposed to relative) true answers to this question (say it is useless, for example), I can't see how the justification doesn't either beg the same question or appeal to the same notion of an objective standard that is "out there", i.e. truth to be discovered rather than invented by the whims of our neurology or societal convention. Assume that we can define our terms so as to meaningfully reach agreement about either the pragmatism or the reality of an objective standard on questions related to the definition of "real" or "existent" - why cannot moral propositions be placed in a similar category of "being"? If not, why not? I think the implications that morality is illusory is likely to have consequences equal or greater to those of other metaphysical questions. Insofar as logic and our capability of reasoning allows us to posit ends to which human beings can maximize their happiness or well-being, there would seem to be objectively true or false statements as there are in other areas of inquiry. If you believe otherwise, I fear we might just have to disagree, though what that means, on your view, I'm not sure I see the significance.

[robvalue]

Thanks for your reply No problem.

Yes, you can objectively compare an action to a set of criteria. It's just that no one agrees on the criteria. There are huge numbers of ways of measuring happiness/wellbeing/human success/societal strength etc. So to objectively assess an action we must give weighting to all these things. If you ask 100 people, you'll get 100 different weightings probably. I don't understand how anyone can insist there is a "correct" weighting.

I don't think you've addressed this: am I more moral than people who eat meat? Right now, society will say no. In the future, they may look back and say yes.

And with intent, two identical actions get different scores depending on the intent. So measuring the morality of the action is not objective, unless you also somehow include this intent in the formula.

To me, the idea of objective morality means any action has a morality score which is not dependent on opinion. I'm saying that if there is such a way of grading actions, it is meaningless because almost everyone is going to disagree with every grading.

Even as a society, what we see as important changes all the time. So if we came up with a grading system based on everyone alive today, it would change if we did it again in 10 years time.

We may have to simply disagree. I'm not understanding your usage of the word "objective", simply because objective implies it's not dependent on opinion or who observes it. 100 people will have 100 different ideas of how actions should best suit us as a society, even among one society, and so will each have a different opinion of that action. To say there is an objective rating is to somehow give the neutral universe an opinion. An uninvested party can only grade morality against a set of criteria we give them. What do we give them? It's not the same as giving this party some way of weighing things, which will produce an objective answer for any particular item. Morality is not so easily weighed.

If you can give me any specific example of an action and how it is objectively rated as a certain amount moral/immoral (I hope we can agree actions are not simply good, bad or indifferent but are in degrees) I'll be very interested. Something non trivial that involves at least some conflict of interest between different forms of good/bad outcomes.

[Mudhammam]

Thanks for your reply No problem.

Yes, you can objectively compare an action to a set of criteria. It's just that no one agrees on the criteria. There are huge numbers of ways of measuring happiness/wellbeing/human success/societal strength etc. So to objectively assess an action we must give weighting to all these things. If you ask 100 people, you'll get 100 different weightings probably. I don't understand how anyone can insist there is a "correct" weighting.

Sure, terms have relative meaning to each person, but there are still objective circumstances and brain states to which these terms must apply, if they are to have any meaning beyond the abyss of solipsism. If someone says that the peak of human happiness (granted that this state of the brain in some sense participates in whatever the Good is, without limiting the Good to human experiences exclusively) involves child molestation, we aren't obliged to agree that this conception of happiness is correct or equal to every other conception of happiness. We would be right if instead we argued that there are ways to achieve even greater degrees of happiness, and which don't negate the happiness of others (and that the increase of happiness in others is more likely than not to play a role in increasing our own). In any case, your argument isn't about morality per se, but seems to be making a broader point about the problem of language as it relates to subjective experiences in a world where each individual can never know anything beyond his or her subjective experience; one cannot articulate thoughts and ideas without appealing to sounds which can only ever be judged true or false by how others [seem to] apply familiar noises to similar experiences. I feel like we might going in circles a little, but I still don't see how disagreement entails relativism unless we want to say that all truth is relative, which is of course self-defeating.

I don't think you've addressed this: am I more moral than people who eat meat? Right now, society will say no. In the future, they may look back and say yes.

In that specific regard, I would say yes. But whether or not either of you holds the true opinion in that debate, the issue at stake (pun intended) is if truth even has any import in such a discussion. My experience, and probably yours, suggests (perhaps assumes) it does.

And with intent, two identical actions get different scores depending on the intent. So measuring the morality of the action is not objective, unless you also somehow include this intent in the formula.

To me, the idea of objective morality means any action has a morality score which is not dependent on opinion. I'm saying that if there is such a way of grading actions, it is meaningless because almost everyone is going to disagree with every grading.

That eliminates the very possibility of moral progress. And viewed from the standpoint of history, observing how societies have shifted, often following the intellectual debate (which is for nothing but for the sake of truth), I think that is manifestly false.

Even as a society, what we see as important changes all the time. So if we came up with a grading system based on everyone alive today, it would change if we did it again in 10 years time.

We may have to simply disagree. I'm not understanding your usage of the word "objective", simply because objective implies it's not dependent on opinion or who observes it. 100 people will have 100 different ideas of how actions should best suit us as a society, even among one society, and so will each have a different opinion of that action. To say there is an objective rating is to somehow give the neutral universe an opinion. An uninvested party can only grade morality against a set of criteria we give them. What do we give them? It's not the same as giving this party some way of weighing things, which will produce an objective answer for any particular item. Morality is not so easily weighed.

If you can give me any specific example of an action and how it is objectively rated as a certain amount moral/immoral (I hope we can agree actions are not simply good, bad or indifferent but are in degrees) I'll be very interested. Something non trivial that involves at least some conflict of interest between different forms of good/bad outcomes.

(Bold mine)
Once again I must point out that in your notion of "objectivity" you seem to want to relegate moral questions to a category of their own, demanding that since only minds can regard such questions, the answers must in principle be mind-dependent and therefore relative. But that is special pleading unless you want to argue similarly for literally every concept, as only minds are entitled to entertain such objects. Where does that leave the concept of truth?

[robvalue]

I appreciate the reply

I may have to give up at this point, I'm still not understanding your use of language here. I've tried really hard but I still don't get it. Maybe we agree but we're just using different words, I don't know.

If anyone else can help us understand each other, feel free to chime in!