Morality versus afterlife

[The Grand Nudger]

In fact, I would say that a basic inane sense of morality is instilled in all of us.   It is difficult to get away from; and even the most adamant moral relativist is going to become quite objective, when the wrong is done against him.

What a snide way to insinuate that anyone who doesn't agree with your notion of objective morality is just a unintentional liar, lol.  That someone feels that they have been wronged is no statement on the objectivity of their moral system..because surprise, surprise.....you don't have to believe in objective morality to have a sense of right....and wrong.  

How do I know this...gee, idk..perhaps I have notions of right and wrong, but no delusions of possessing an objective morality?

[robvalue]

Orange:

No, I'm not being inconsistent because I owned the whole thing as my opinion according to my morality. I wasn't claiming it was in any way an objective fact. My morality leads me to have opinions about other people's moralities. Yours does too, I'm sure. That doesn't make me right, or change anyone else's opinion of their own morality. This is just what subjective means. If you just follow orders, that is not morality. That is giving up entirely on your own judgement, and hence amoral. You're betting everything on the orders being "good" while having no way to tell if they actually are or not. If you had a way, you wouldn't need to be told what is good or bad by someone else. Alternatively, morality just means "doing what God wants" to you, and as such the consequences of your actions to other people are of no concern to you. I wouldn't call that morality. If you do call it that, we're not talking about the same thing in the slightest.

Yes, morality is an opinion because it's a value judgement. It's subjective. This isn't a problem, it's reality. Just saying it isn't good enough doesn't solve the "problem", and replacing it with some sort of divine instructions doesn't either. That is just redefining morality to be blind obedience. Finding the practical reality uncomfortable is not an argument. I understand religion often preaches objective morality, because it likes to think in binary terms. It's just that the concept is nonsense. Please see my challenge to roadrunner below, you are welcome to try also.

So again, if God started ordering you to do things, is there anything you would refuse to do? Is there any line he can cross? Try and be real here. Don't say what you'd like to think you'd do, think what you would actually do.

Roadrunner: If you want the term "objective morality" to mean anything, you need to define exactly what it is. And to help me understand, please give me an example of how it works in practice where there is some sort of conflict of interest between two competing outcomes. No one has been able to rise to this simple challenge yet. All I get are trivial situations, killing someone versus not killing them. There is no conflict there. A conflict is where you have to balance one outcome against another due to a choice that must be made, or a limited amount of resources.

I have no idea what "inane morality" is supposed to mean. Yes, most people have empathy because it's an efficient evolutionary trait in our species. So hurting others in some way feels like hurting ourselves. Morality is a judgement, things aren't just "moral" or "immoral", it requires someone to make the distinction; see above. So no, things don't become inherently moral or immoral under any circumstances, including me not having empathy, because it's a nonsensical concept.

If I just woke up tomorrow with the urge to rape someone, then I'd simply control the urge. I know it hurts people, so I don't do it. As long as I care about others I will try not to hurt them. If I no longer cared about others, I really wouldn't be me in any shape or form. Do you want to murder and rape people? If not, what it is you want to do that you would worry about being caught doing it? My point was that "getting caught" is not an issue for me personally, because I have no desire to do things that would cause me such concern.

[orangebox21]

Do you have a reference for an official position regarding moral utilitarianism to support the claim that there are no circumstances in which the taking of human life is justified ?  If you have one I'm happy to concede.

Why should I be required to provide you with references for a claim which I have not made?  Don't be a dipshit.....I know you're better than this.

From post #50

This [exterminating people] is a common "misconception" regarding moral utilitarianism.  It does not play calculus -with- human lives..it plays calculus -in service- of human lives.  That you see extermination within the definition has nothing to do with the definition, or with moral utilitarianism...

You've made the claim.  I'm asking for a reference to support the claim.  This is legitimate request.

If utilitarianism is based upon maximizing happiness then it logically follows that there is a situation in which the taking of human life is morally justified.

Genocide, your example, being one of them..in your estimation?  Perhaps you could offer a scenario in which genocide is justified by the well-being of sentient entities.  It;s your contention...provide such an example...I'd like to see what your trigger is, precisely where you'd lose it and go gestapo on us.  I'm gonna stay home on that day, in that situation..if it ever occurs.  I don't want to take the chance that you're there and newly converted to your version of moral utilitarianism.

If you want to expand the definition of genocide [the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation] to include 'the group of people who if ceasing to exist would maximize wellbeing,' the then yes your moral system advocates genocide.

There are three states of happiness; happy (a positive happiness value), unhappiness (a negative happiness value), and neutral (zero happiness value).  If a person's life is a net sum negative happiness value how does your moral system not justify the killing of that person?  A person who is dead would have a zero happiness value.  Zero is greater than a negative number.  It's simple math.  So, in my understanding, utilitarianism teaches the taking of human life is justified under the previous conditions.

We've already discussed your "understanding".  Like I said...altering the definition of moral utilitarianism would not stop you from seeing boogeymen.

What is occurring here is your unwillingness to engage in a meaningful conversation about the implications of your moral system.

---

Uh, no, it doesn't have to be that way. If someone adopts a moral standard that strongly clashes with my own, I don't need to all of a sudden agree that his standard is good or even better than mine. Otherwise, I'd adopt his standard instead.

I didn't say that you needed to agree that his standard is good for you but rather his standard is good for him.  To remain consistent the moral autonomist cannot judge another man's morality as universally wrong, only wrong for himself but right for the other.  This is how moral autonomy functions.  When faced with the question:  "Is Christianity moral?" the moral autonomist must answer:  "yes and no."  It depends solely upon who you ask.  The answer is yes for those who decide yes, and no for those who decide no.

---

As an example of the above...for you Orange.  I accept that you feel that your christianity is moral, is good - or that a christian worldview offers morality.  I think it is the exact opposite, fundamentally and inescapably immoral.

Here again you cannot remain consistent and assert that I feel Christianity is moral [unless you're asserting that you feel moral autonomy and utilitarianism is moral, language you haven't used for your own position].  It is in fact moral for me while immoral for you [within the context of moral autonomy].

My acknowledging that you have exercised your moral autonomy in deciding to accept the morals of christianity - or indeed christianity-as-moral, does not change my moral assessment of christianity or it's morals.  This, more than anything, is why I'm not a christian -it's not even an issue of belief.  I couldn't...in good conscience, cash the christian check.  This doesn't stop me from observing or acknowledging that others have differing moral assessments..and even different standards for morality.

This paragraph is consistent with moral autonomy. 

---

Orange:
No, I'm not being inconsistent because I owned the whole thing as my opinion according to my morality. I wasn't claiming it was in any way an objective fact. My morality leads me to have opinions about other people's moralities. Yours does too, I'm sure. That doesn't make me right, or change anyone else's opinion of their own morality. This is just what subjective means.

Is personal incredulity reasonable?

If you just follow orders, that is not morality.  That is giving up entirely on your own judgement, and hence amoral. You're betting everything on the orders being "good" while having no way to tell if they actually are or not. If you had a way, you wouldn't need to be told what is good or bad by someone else. Alternatively, morality just means "doing what God wants" to you, and as such the consequences of your actions to other people are of no concern to you. I wouldn't call that morality. If you do call it that, we're not talking about the same thing in the slightest.

Here's where I don't want to misunderstand you or misrepresent your position.  Is the statement "if you just follow orders that is not morality" subjective?  If it's just an opinion then again is personal incredulity reasonable?

If it's not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact, then why did you switch the standard by which you judge morality.  We've been talking within the context of moral autonomy [the ultimate authority belongs to individual choice] but now you've made an objective statement [if you just follow orders, that is not morality] to which my moral autonomy must submit to.  That's no longer moral autonomy and you're not remaining consistent.

Yes, morality is an opinion because it's a value judgement. It's subjective. This isn't a problem, it's reality.

That's a huge problem [for the reasons we are discussing] and it is not at all how reality functions.

Just saying it isn't good enough doesn't solve the "problem",

Did I say that?

and replacing it with some sort of divine instructions doesn't either.

It is if I say it is, I'm autonomous. 

That is just redefining morality to be blind obedience. Finding the practical reality uncomfortable is not an argument. I understand religion often preaches objective morality, because it likes to think in binary terms. It's just that the concept is nonsense. Please see my challenge to roadrunner below, you are welcome to try also.

Why does functioning in 'blind obedience' necessitate a false moral system.  Aren't you ultimately telling me to 'take your word for it?' 

So again, if God started ordering you to do things, is there anything you would refuse to do? Is there any line he can cross? Try and be real here. Don't say what you'd like to think you'd do, think what you would actually do.

What things are you claiming He is going to start ordering me to do?  I ask this because often this question implies that God is going to ask me to do all kinds of things against His nature and character. 

Roadrunner: If you want the term "objective morality" to mean anything, you need to define exactly what it is. And to help me understand, please give me an example of how it works in practice where there is some sort of conflict of interest between two competing outcomes. No one has been able to rise to this simple challenge yet. All I get are trivial situations, killing someone versus not killing them. There is no conflict there. A conflict is where you have to balance one outcome against another due to a choice that must be made, or a limited amount of resources.

The word objective is defined as not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts:  existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world.  An objective morality is one that exists outside of the mind (making it universally applied) and is not determined by personal feelings or opinions.
 
Let's take the moral law that says: it is wrong to murder.  From the viewpoint of an objective morality, this law is universally applied in that it is always wrong for any and all individuals to commit an act of murder.  Objective morality also states that this moral law is justified as moral outside of the feelings or opinions of any and all individuals, and as such it is morally wrong to murder regardless of an individual's opinions or feelings of the law.

As per request here are a few examples:

Thou shalt not steal.  My family and I are in a situation where we either starve to death or one of us steals some food [in fact let's say somehow I would live but the rest of my family would die] from another family who would then die.  Here the choices are steal or watch my family die.  There are real consequences here.  If I steal then I break God's law and I am [indirectly responsible] for the death of a family.  If I don't steal I am [indirectly responsible] for the death of my family.

Thou shalt not lie.  I live in Germany during the height of the Nazi regime.  Some soldiers come to my door and ask if I have seen any Jews.  There are two Jewish families hiding in my attic.  How do I respond?  If I answer no I have broken God's law and if the soldiers happen to find the families I will most likely be executed with them.  If I say yes, then I am obeying God's law and will be handing these families over to what will most likely be their death.

Given these two universal moral laws and that an objective morality is universally applied, I would have to obey each of these in the face of these external pressures.  I would not steal nor would I lie.  

The problem with these hypotheticals is that we both construct and assume the results are necessarily true.  We assume that if I don't steal my family will die.  Maybe I don't steal and a family from down the road brings us some food.  Perhaps when I don't lie to the soldiers they whisper, "Good, keep them hidden and we'll do all we can to keep any soldiers other than ourselves away."  Yet it is possible things happen exactly as written in the example.  As a Christian I simply [seek to] do what is right, regardless of the cost and [unforeseeable] outcome.

[The Grand Nudger]

As I've said more than once, nothing about the definition of moral utilitarianism, or anything I've said....has anything to do with your ability to see boogeymen.  Either you can come down from that frenzy and have a discussion or you can't. Another poster has already given you the means to purge your irrational fears. You merely need to ask the targets of the genocide how well they feel their interests are being pursued.

[robvalue]

Orange: Thanks for your reply. I don't see any point in continuing. Clearly, to you, what God says is "morality". (Or more accurately, what a specific group of people say he says.) That has nothing in common with what I call morality, so we're just not talking about the same thing.

[robvalue]

I'll say this though, that's the first time anyone has event attempted to give an example of "objective morality" in action. So credit for that.

However, what we have here, from our point of view, is an arbitrary list of things to do and not to do, decided by a book. That's just one possible method of morality out of an infinite amount. And it's been subjectively chosen by those who follow it. What I consider important for morality is entirely different. So as morality is not a well defined term, there can't be just one "objective morality" without defining morality to simply be that thing, unless you can somehow demonstrate one system to be "better" than another. Before you can even begin to attempt something like that, you'd need to agree what the goals of morality are. And already, we disagree.

And I'd say any arbitrary system like the above is entirely useless in practice, except for the purpose of trying to please the character in the book.

It also fails as soon as a situation falls outside the scope of the text; and that's assuming the text can be clearly and obviously understood objectively, which Christians everywhere have shown it cannot.

[Divinity]

I don't think many would change their morality if they found out there's no afterlife. Each person has their own sense of what's right and wrong. Some of them are assholes. Some of them are really big fucking assholes. They'd hate gay people even if Jesus himself came back and said "You know what, stop. Just stop. Gay people should be allowed to get married. I love all people. Stop with this love the sinner nonsense." They'd just call him a fraud and a charlatan, and go back to hating on gay people because they find it 'sick' regardless of what stupid nonsense their bible tells them. Same goes with all other moral values. How many people do you see demanding people be given Sunday off work?

[The Grand Nudger]

-and wouldn't it be refreshing if folks would just own their own opinions for change, eh? I'd still think that they were disgusting people for holding those positions, but I would respect their ability to acknowledge their convictions as their own.....rather than blaming them on some mythical jew and his non-existent daddy.

[robvalue]

If morality, as in Orange's case, only serves to make a character in a book happy, what consequence is that if there is no afterlife? If the character is a god, is cheering it up really a priority worth persueing? Why is it so fucking miserable when it can do anything?

I agree Divinity, in reality, most people's morality probably wouldn't change much if they discovered there was no afterlife, or even no God. They'd just have an awakening as to where (most of) the morality actually comes from.

There is just one use of an arbitrary list of do's and don'ts to be used as morality, and that would be for someone who has literally no idea what to do. Maybe a psycopath who has no empathy, or someone who has never interacted with other humans before. An alien, even. Someone who wants to fit into our society, but to who killing someone seems as arbitrary an action as helping someone. For a person in this position, a well designed list could at least be a starting point. But no lists can ever be a fully comprehensive "objective morality", unless they are so simple as to be very limited in scope.

[GrandizerII]

Uh, no, it doesn't have to be that way. If someone adopts a moral standard that strongly clashes with my own, I don't need to all of a sudden agree that his standard is good or even better than mine. Otherwise, I'd adopt his standard instead.

I didn't say that you needed to agree that his standard is good for you but rather his standard is good for him.  To remain consistent the moral autonomist cannot judge another man's morality as universally wrong, only wrong for himself but right for the other.  This is how moral autonomy functions.  When faced with the question:  "Is Christianity moral?" the moral autonomist must answer:  "yes and no."  It depends solely upon who you ask.  The answer is yes for those who decide yes, and no for those who decide no.

And? This is practically a problem how? I am still justified in saying that I disagree.