General question about the possibility of objective moral truth

[Chad32]

No one says he "does not believe in a real Right and Wrong", but a moral relativist says that different cultures have different ideas about what those rights and wrongs are, making it clear that morality is subjective, rather than objective. You said as much in your reply.

However, because we are a social animal, we have evolved a general sense of empathy for our fellow human beings because this is the only way for social groups to succeed, which manifests itself as a series of "common themes" among the various forms of morality we see in different cultures. Generally, what harms our fellow humans will also harm us if allowed to go on, so we make rules about it.

If you're going to discuss the moral concepts atheists hold with us, we'd ask that you at least try to understand what they are, instead of making up versions that help your argument but which aren't real.

In my understanding, to say that morality is subjective is the same as saying that there is no real Right and Wrong. Because "real" means that it is really existing. But when I think that morality is just a subjective feeling that human beings have - then we have to state that our feeling of the truth of morality, of moral rules is just a useful ilusion which our brain generates for us. (Because the long term survival chances of a society are higher if there are moral rules.)

Well find something that can be universally agreed on to be right or wrong, and we'll call that objective. the problem is that there's always going to be some reasonable justification to disagree.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

In my understanding, to say that morality is subjective is the same as saying that there is no real Right and Wrong. Because "real" means that it is really existing. But when I think that morality is just a subjective feeling that human beings have - then we have to state that our feeling of the truth of morality, of moral rules is just a useful ilusion which our brain generates for us. (Because the long term survival chances of a society are higher if there are moral rules.)

I'm not saying morality is subjective like it's an opinion. I'm saying LOOK, what you're calling "morality" is different everywhere we look. Sometimes in small details, sometimes in pretty major ways. That means it clearly, unmistakably is subjective and based on the society, and any agreement between societies then is likely attributable to the factors I described.

You are the one who is proposing this idea of transcendent morality, of some eternal code, presumably one given by The Great Invisible Lawmaker in the Sky™.



I love how the people who want us to accept their astounding (and astoundingly ignorant, in my opinion) idea of transcendent morality never fail to come at us with the accusation that it is subjectivity that needs defending and/or explaining!

[Natachan]

Before we talk about the question of making moral judgements of good or bad we need to first establish what morality is. The question takes it for granted that morality is understood by all, and I don't think that's right. So what is morality? It is a determination as to how things fit into certain value sets. Let's say I value human life. As such a moral action would be one that would promote that value of human life. If I don't value human life, then I have no reason not to kill people. As such I would not find it immoral to kill someone. You might disagree with me, and there we have a conflict.

Is either party OBJECTIVELY right? Well, in the sense of "does some external force give a damn" then the answer is no. Neither party has a more valid set of values in this particular situation. However we as humans have evolved as a cooperative social species. Those of us who don't value life don't generally live to tell about it. Those of us that don't value positive social structures generally don't survive to reproduce. As such you could say that we share a similar set of values that lead us to generally similar moral judgements.

I'm not so sure if we can say that people who don't value positive social structures don't survive. Actually my impression is that we have plenty of people of this kind in this world.
At the end my whole question comes up to find an argumentation not for those who keep social rules, but for those who don't. It's very frustrating if you have a real criminal in front of you and you try to explain him that (and why) his behavior is really wrong, while he just denies that there is an objective way to proof that. Of course we can still punish him. But I also want to show him that he himself knows that his behavior is wrong.

As a portion of the population the number is fairly small. Just as the number of people with genetic diseases is small. It is not advantageous, but it does happen.

At the very end you probably CAN'T provide an objective reason to the person who does not value life or positive social consequences.

Then gets to the rather nasty bit, we as a society IMPOSE some of our moral judgements. It is very hard to justify this objectively. Why does the majority get to impose their moral judgements on the minority? This is something I'm still working out on my own. There is some evidence to indicate that these people are sick, and as such it would indicate that their judgements and values might not be completely sound. But again, what is the objective justification? I don't think there is one. I'm not comfortable with that, but that might just be the way it is.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I'm not so sure if we can say that people who don't value positive social structures don't survive. Actually my impression is that we have plenty of people of this kind in this world.
At the end my whole question comes up to find an argumentation not for those who keep social rules, but for those who don't. It's very frustrating if you have a real criminal in front of you and you try to explain him that (and why) his behavior is really wrong, while he just denies that there is an objective way to proof that. Of course we can still punish him. But I also want to show him that he himself knows that his behavior is wrong.

As a portion of the population the number is fairly small. Just as the number of people with genetic diseases is small. It is not advantageous, but it does happen.

At the very end you probably CAN'T provide an objective reason to the person who does not value life or positive social consequences.

Then gets to the rather nasty bit, we as a society IMPOSE some of our moral judgements. It is very hard to justify this objectively. Why does the majority get to impose their moral judgements on the minority? This is something I'm still working out on my own. There is some evidence to indicate that these people are sick, and as such it would indicate that their judgements and values might not be completely sound. But again, what is the objective justification? I don't think there is one. I'm not comfortable with that, but that might just be the way it is.

This argument also presumes that all lawbreakers are such because they are immoral, rather than desperate or socialized in a way that is different from the majority (taught to favor a different moral code than the majority's). Actual psychopaths, those who gain pleasure from harming others, are extremely rare, even in prison... and, even in prison, there are mechanisms in place by both the guards and inmates to restrain such individuals from freely practicing their whims.

Nature of the social animal. We make societies, and societies make cooperative rules for everyone to live by.

But I think the language you selected, Mr. Wald, is informative of one of the big problems with the American justice system; it's based in Puritanical-Christian moral philosophy (quite literally, the term "penitentiary" comes from the term penitence, or "go pray and think about what you did until you know why you are sorry"), and still underlies a lot of how we think of crime, punishment, and rehabilitation.

Unfortunately, it's mostly bunkum. Most inmates know what they did, they feel bad that they got into that situation (either because they were addicted, or stupid, or desperate), and most feel terrible about what they did-- furthermore, they have the attitude of "I did it, I got caught, and I am going to pay my time".

The movie "Hollywood fantasy" version, in which the convicts sit around and joke about how they're all innocent, just doesn't happen. It makes most people feel good, I guess, but it's just not reality. So if we're going to discuss moral philosophy, let's make sure we understand just how rare the actual sociopath/psychopath is... it's less than 1% of the world population, and most of them stay "in line" as a result of learning to conform to the rules the 99% of the rest of us set, so they do not suffer the penalties for stepping outside of what is considered acceptable to normal, feeling people.

[Michael Wald]

I'm not so sure if we can say that people who don't value positive social structures don't survive. Actually my impression is that we have plenty of people of this kind in this world.
At the end my whole question comes up to find an argumentation not for those who keep social rules, but for those who don't. It's very frustrating if you have a real criminal in front of you and you try to explain him that (and why) his behavior is really wrong, while he just denies that there is an objective way to proof that. Of course we can still punish him. But I also want to show him that he himself knows that his behavior is wrong.

As a portion of the population the number is fairly small. Just as the number of people with genetic diseases is small. It is not advantageous, but it does happen.

At the very end you probably CAN'T provide an objective reason to the person who does not value life or positive social consequences.

Then gets to the rather nasty bit, we as a society IMPOSE some of our moral judgements. It is very hard to justify this objectively. Why does the majority get to impose their moral judgements on the minority? This is something I'm still working out on my own. There is some evidence to indicate that these people are sick, and as such it would indicate that their judgements and values might not be completely sound. But again, what is the objective justification? I don't think there is one. I'm not comfortable with that, but that might just be the way it is.

I think, every human being who thinks about morality has to admit, that his feelings of what is right or wrong, are – if he is honest to himself – claiming to be more than just a subjective feeling. If a fighter of the IS is knocking at my door with the intention to cut off my head then I will hardly think: “OK, in my opinion it’s wrong what he wants to do, but in his own opinion it is right – so, at the end we are both equal and none of us is more right with his point of view than the other.” –Honestly, I will insist, that I AM the one who see the things OBJECTIVELY right in that moment and not the IS fighter. But I can only be right with that if morality actually can be true in itself.
If morality has NO truth in itself, then our own feelings about Right and Wrong are cheating us.

[Mudhammam]

Now I would like to ask: Is from an atheistic point of view a moral conviction like "killing of people is morally wrong" an objective fact? Or is it a social convention, which means it is a subjective view?

Thanks for any answers!

First, atheism doesn't dictate a point of view about the objectivity of moral statements. Secondly, it thus depends on whom you ask. I lean towards "killing people" - if you mean unjustified killing - "is morally wrong" as being an objective fact.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I think, every human being who thinks about morality has to admit, that his feelings of what is right or wrong, are – if he is honest to himself – claiming to be more than just a subjective feeling. If a fighter of the IS is knocking at my door with the intention to cut off my head then I will hardly think: “OK, in my opinion it’s wrong what he wants to do, but in his own opinion it is right – so, at the end we are both equal and none of us is more right with his point of view than the other.” –Honestly, I will insist, that I AM the one who see the things OBJECTIVELY right in that moment and not the IS fighter. But I can only be right with that if morality actually can be true in itself.
If morality has NO truth in itself, then our own feelings about Right and Wrong are cheating us.

sub·jec·tive
/səbˈjektiv/

adjective
1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions

[Neo-Scholastic]

Michael, I have been participating on this forum, off and on, for about three years. As another has pointed out, the objectivity and subjectivity of morality has indeed been extensively discussed. However, that repetition has allowed me to make a careful study of how atheists generally respond when asked about the source of moral guidance.

Their first approach is to present various straw man arguments they feel undermine biblical and/or theistic sources and standards.

They re-present the Eurythro dilemma which is only problematic for polytheistic religions and does not apply to monotheism.

The point to Mosaic laws governing slavery and harsh punishments inconsistent with modern sensibilities willfully ignoring specific dispositional eras and the Moses’s temporary appointment to the divine council for governing an ancient Hebrew theocracy.

They accuse God of crimes against humanity ignoring the need to eradicate the institutionalized injustice and perversity of irreversibly corrupted cultures and how that requires choosing between what is bad and what would be worse.

Etc. Etc.

Next they try to fill the absence of God with unsupported secular values. They have four general takes: absurdism and social cohesion, moral instinct, and enlightened self-interest. Only the absurdists have a consistent moral theory; all the rest irrationally hold mutually exclusive beliefs, as follows:

Those who refer to the evolutionary advantages of social cohesion nevertheless deny that humans have an essential human nature.

Those who appeal to positive emotional instincts, like empathy, ignore other less noble sentiments like disgust, covetousness, and envy.

Those who look to enlightened self-interest do not acknowledge a hierarchy of values terminating in a highest Good.

So while many atheists often portray themselves as the paragons of reason and defenders of logic, their own attempts to source moral values reveal how they must plagiarize religion rely on whim and sentiment to justify their favorite moral theories.

[Whateverist]

So while many atheists often portray themselves as the paragons of reason and defenders of logic, their own attempts to source moral values reveal how they must plagiarize religion rely on whim and sentiment to justify their favorite moral theories.

Not me.  I don't feel like it.  

[GrandizerII]

As a portion of the population the number is fairly small. Just as the number of people with genetic diseases is small. It is not advantageous, but it does happen.

At the very end you probably CAN'T provide an objective reason to the person who does not value life or positive social consequences.

Then gets to the rather nasty bit, we as a society IMPOSE some of our moral judgements. It is very hard to justify this objectively. Why does the majority get to impose their moral judgements on the minority? This is something I'm still working out on my own. There is some evidence to indicate that these people are sick, and as such it would indicate that their judgements and values might not be completely sound. But again, what is the objective justification? I don't think there is one. I'm not comfortable with that, but that might just be the way it is.

I think, every human being who thinks about morality has to admit, that his feelings of what is right or wrong, are – if he is honest to himself – claiming to be more than just a subjective feeling. If a fighter of the IS is knocking at my door with the intention to cut off my head then I will hardly think: “OK, in my opinion it’s wrong what he wants to do, but in his own opinion it is right – so, at the end we are both equal and none of us is more right with his point of view than the other.” –Honestly, I will insist, that I AM the one who see the things OBJECTIVELY right in that moment and not the IS fighter. But I can only be right with that if morality actually can be true in itself.
If morality has NO truth in itself, then our own feelings about Right and Wrong are cheating us.

If someone approaches you with a machete or whatever with the intention to chop off your head, the last thing on your mind should be whether or not morality is objective/subjective. More important to ... you know ... protect yourself from harm.