My views on objective morality

[robvalue]

One more before I shut my stupid mouth:

A significant number of people go around killing others and blowing themselves up because they base their morality on what they think god wants them to do. According to them, doing this stuff is moral. This is completely at odds with what  you would probably want to call objective morality. So you have to call them "wrong". But they would also call you "wrong". If morality is objective, one of you is actually, objectively wrong. How do we determine which, without appealing to anyone's point of view?

We can tell who is "wrong" about hair colour by going ahead and testing it ourselves, using the proper agreed method. But if they make up their own way of measuring hair colour, by which they are right, then there is no useful comparison to be had. All we can compare is how useful the two systems may be.

[robvalue]

We have an assumed objective reality, which "exists" independent of anyone's opinion about it.

We then have abstract concepts, which we have formed, to help us make sense of the reality.

These concepts don't literally exist, and they can only be usefully compared if we're doing so using the same standard. No one has a problem with everyone using cm to measure length. If instead, no one would agree and we all used slightly different ways of measuring it, we would get nowhere.

That's what happens with morality. We all measure this abstract concept slightly differently. There is no agreed standard. And if there was one, what use would it be?

I think what theists really mean/want is a referee with a final say. Thing is, they can't agree on what the referee thinks, and they'll even subjectively override the referee themselves if he goes beyond what they think he should say.

[RoadRunner79]

[robvalue]

Fair enough then, it seems we've reached an understanding

[pocaracas]

I can understand that there can be an objectively best set of behaviors that people can have to obtain a healthy society.

However, I'm pretty sure there can be more than one such set to arrive at the same result.

Certainly, some elements of those sets will feature in most of them...
For example, "do not cause unjustified harm to others in society" seems to me to be a fairly generalized rule in human societies... The trouble with this rule is... it applies within the society... the in-group/out-group thinking takes over. Anything is fair when the out-group is considered. This we see in every form of patriotism, religiosity... even in cannibal tribes. The rule..... the "objective" rule applies to the in-group... the "objective" rule has bounds... bounds which cannot be ignored.... but bounds which we, in the western world, with our worldwide awareness, tend to forget. As we forget them, the rule appears, to us, as completely objective... it's like it works for all of humanity.

But those bounds are important.... those bounds tell us that the rule became adopted by social animals as a means to keep the family group, the tribe, the society, alive and healthy and to keep going forever.
Perhaps that happened by trial and error, perhaps some social animal, millions of years ago, thought about things and decided to pass on that info to all of his friends... without language .... Evolution does seem to tend to do things by trial and error, so I'd put money on that.

I see no need to posit an external entity as the giver of the rule. It seems to be a rule that can easily come by, or else, societies do not develop in species... there are still many animal species that do not depend on any form of social interaction, except for mating, so that also works.... it's not like society is the best survival technique.

It's a survival technique that works. And, in order for it to work, it must have some rules.... and there I go back to the beginning... rules arrived at by trial and error as the species develops its social structure, from a state of individualism to a state of society/partnership.

[robvalue]

There's so many more factors and nuances that can (and I think should) be taken into consideration, that I find blanket statements about morality to be more or less useless.

But it's down to each person. There is no inherent "morality" to an action. The universe goes from state A to state B. From an uninterested, unbiased, neutral perspective, any state is as good as any other. At the very least, we have to decide what matters. And I think this gets missed at the definition stage, as people assume they're talking about the same thing and have the same goals. What matters to me is not exactly the same as what matters to everyone else, I know that much for sure. (Some people probably agree with me, but many simply don't at a fundamental level.)

We can measure objectively the results of actions, but that's not the same as making a judgement about it. There's so much more to it. Or rather, if there isn't, I think it's a useless concept.

So, one last question Roadrunner, where does God figure into morality? It seems you've got it sussed without him being at all relevant.

[RoadRunner79]

Fair enough then, it seems we've reached an understanding

And have not really discussed anything.... Sorry, I mentioned where I thought the confusion was a couple of times, and since you didn't say anything, I thought we where on the same page.

Also note, this is why I kept mentioning the confusion between epistemology and ontology. A lot of what you mentioned with the hair color question was very telling, that we where not talking about the same thing.

[Mudhammam]

From my point of view, the rational faculty bestows upon thinking beings what might be termed a moral duty to follow, as Socrates famously said, “whatever direction the argument blows us,” for “that’s where we must go.” I find most persons agreed upon the following assumptions, at least in practice: Some acts are genuinely immoral and rational beings often feel an obligation to mitigate these (in a fashion that is surmised to accord with “right reason”). Certain acts possess a moral component as expressions of “intellectual states,” these encompassing intentionality and an ability to consider hypothetical scenarios, such as ethical dilemmas. Further, rational beings assume an obligation to exercise their rational faculties as much as possible to the extent that they partake of society; this obligation is a reasonable expectation of rational beings, including one’s self. From this duty to follow the argument wherever it leads has emerged the ideal of a standard to which all cooperative endeavors must assent, and of which every civilized society throughout history has recognized: a principle of reciprocity, or what Plato deemed the harmony of the soul, viz., justice. Others have understood this in terms of a “Golden Rule”; Immanuel Kant attempted to formalize it in the so-called “categorical imperative.” Of course it is the case that the extent to which I am judged by myself or by others to have acted wrongly, or to have failed to act wherein it was within my capacity as a rational being to do so, depends solely on consideration of the end or object of my act, viz., the rationale for my behavior, contrasted both with “right reason” and the reasons that I may or may not put forth to excuse my abrogation of “right reason.” How morality is properly judged for any given action, then, rests in an understanding of moral “Truths” (yes, with a capital “T”) that is essentially Platonic in this one aspect: Truth is “that which always is and has no becoming.” In other words, it is the peculiar relationship between the intellect and “eternal reasons,” as Augustine would call them, that bestows morality upon the actions of rational animals. Nor must it be perceived to be a sort of moral intellectualism that lies beneath the framework which I have outlined, though the shades of two additional Socratic principles, the former being one of Socrates’ well-known “paradoxes,” undoubtedly surface:

1. “Then if the pleasant is the good, no one who knows or believes there is something else better than what he is doing, something possible, will go on doing what he had been doing when he could be doing what is better. To give in to oneself is nothing other than ignorance, and to control oneself is nothing other than wisdom… neither is it in human nature, so it seems, to want to go toward what one believes to be bad instead of to the good. And when he is forced to choose between one of two bad things, no one will choose the greater if he is able to choose the lesser.”

2. “There is, [Socrates] said, only one good, that is, knowledge, and only one evil, that is, ignorance.”

[Mystical]

I'm gonna be honest guys, I gave up on that report I was doing. Sorry all! It's hard to do investigations from hospital settings! Hope you guys figured it out, and to miss Catholic Lady I do believe I owe you an apology for what I said in the chatbox. My feelings on the church establishment you  are part of but not representative of (I should not have transposed Catholicism's beliefs upon yours) , as you indeed have your own personal beliefs on the matter you were trying to share. 

While I do think Catholicism is a cult, that's my personal opinion on the matter--mind you please I'm not modding actively right now so don't take what I say as anything mod-like in any way! I'm just a parishioner of this forum, and I love this forum! I don't want anyone to feel they're being silenced, or indeed unwelcome. Hence my sincere apology, I hope you accept it! And I too hope the other members involved were able to work it out too! Sorry I don't have the mental acuity atm to read an already doubled page count of thread! Just wanted to drop a note of apology and throw in this little ball of happiness into the thread!

[bennyboy]

Whatever. CL was a passive-aggressive troll, with absolutely no argument to put forward other than wishy-thinking. Even cutesy-pie niceness is not a substitute for evidence and careful reasoning. In fact, it seems to me that she was fishing for ad homs every time she was asked to provide anything substantial.

For example, instead of addressing the philosophical point of a good God who allows child rape, she managed to make it about 30 fucking pages of "Poor me, why do people attack me and say I support rape?" And when repeatedly it was pointed out exactly why people were saying her views excused child rape, she had nothing to say but, "La la la. I can't hear you. It's just my belief, I'm just stating my belief. La la la. HEY. . . why do people attack me and say I support rape?" This is the exact same bullshit for which theist after theist has been destroyed mercilessly in these threads. The only difference is that the other theists are at least honest enough to present themselves for what they are: hostile invaders looking to pick a theological fight on an atheist forum.

So please, don't apologize. This isn't a fucking Catholic support group. It's an atheist forum, and nobody here should have to apologize for a sincere reaction to unsupported fairytale bullshit.