Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Mister Agenda]

I don't think that believing in a subjective morality, means that one endorses atrocities.  I don't think they have an external basis, in which to criticize, or say that others are right or wrong.  And I see your point, "equal" was probably a poor choice of words on my part.  "Indifferent" perhaps would be a better choice, as there is not a common basis for comparison.  I apologize, if I came off as attempting to state what a moral relativist believes.  Rather what I meant is that there is a disconnect, between there moral relativism, and their actions or behavior; which doesn't follow from that position.

Moral relativism is a bit of a different kettle of fish than moral subjectivism. Relativism is about lack of absolutes. There is no absolute standard of what constitutes 'long' for instance. It's no barrier to determining whether one piece of string is longer than another...relativism is about making comparisons, and a relativist can certainly claim that Quakers are better than Nazis, they just can't claim it's not possible to be better than a Quaker or worse than a Nazi. Moral relativism says that actions are morally better or worse depending on the agents and circumstances and necessarily involves a moral judgment about what's better or worse. Moral relativism is a position that can be held simultaneously with a belief in objective morality...in which case it just means that objective morality is complicated and fluid.

[SteveII]

Their actions most likely follow from what they subjectively describe to be right and wrong.  There's no disconnect.  There is -no- functional difference between an objective and a subjective morality.  Person A thinks x is subjectively wrong and they do y.  Person b thinks x is objectively wrong....and they do...wait for it.......y.

Perhaps no functional difference at that moment in time. Wouldn't the difference be that Persona A knew their morality was subjective and could be subject to changes over the course of time, experiences, authority influences, change of culture, change of location, emotions, even laziness etc.? Whereas wouldn't Person B's objective morality resist change? Magnify that over several cultures and a couple of generations, then large gaps in morality would be possible.

My opinion is that most people believe in objective morality no matter what they want to call it. It is only the atheists who is more philosophical in nature that discovers that it must be subjective and label it so out of loyalty to the cause. 

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps no functional difference at that moment in time. Wouldn't the difference be that Persona A knew their morality was subjective and could be subject to changes over the course of time, experiences, authority influences, change of culture, change of location, emotions, even laziness etc.?

A persons assessment of morality being subjective doesn't imply or necessitate that their own would change over time, with experience, authority influences, changes of culture, changes of location, emotions, or laziness.  It's merely the acknowledgement that moral disagreement between themselves and others might be accounted for by those things.  All things being equal - drop me or you or anyone else in a society of cannibals and none of us are likely to ask for a big pile of ribs off the grill, right?  

Whereas wouldn't Person B's objective morality resist change? Magnify that over several cultures and a couple of generations, then large gaps in morality would be possible.

-Would- person b's morality resist change?  How resistant to change has the purportedly objective religious morality been?  Not very, in this outsiders opinion.  Sure, if a persons morality actually were based upon something objective it might resist change...but that ever changing field of religious morality ought to tell you something about it's sufficiency as an objective foundation.  You're all one revelation away from killing some schuck to cover your sins or raping and pillaging the enemy tribe.  

Or are you?  If not, why not?  For my part, my objective morality is positively amenable to change.  If we found out tomorrow that some livestock had a rich inner life and the current best practices did not adequately account for that I'd call livestock production a necessary evil.  

Point of both comments, is to show that moral malleability is not tied to it's objective or subjective status.  A deeply held subjective moral assessment can be very resistant to change..particularly since no external frame of reference is required. No amount of information will or even -can- force a change in opinion. Alternatively, a truly objective morality must, by necessity, change as relevant objective information comes to light.

My opinion is that most people believe in objective morality no matter what they want to call it. It is only the atheists who is more philosophical in nature that discovers that it must be subjective and label it so out of loyalty to the cause. 

What cause?  Why must morality be subjective? Why would a "more philosophical atheist" discover any such thing? I can;t fathom where these comments come from..what process was used to arrive at such opinions. It seems to me that objective morality is available to both theists and atheists...and while a purportedly objective morality based upon some god is not available to atheists..secular objective moralities -are- available to theists. The status of one;s belief and even the status of the existence of some god are both extraneous issues to the subject at hand.

[JackRussell]

I never said God's nature is arbitrarily good.  What I did say was that the standard of goodness which God's nature meets must come from himself, or it must come from somewhere else.  Those are the two horns of the dilemma, and they are inescapable.  Saying that God's nature is "necessary" adds nothing to the question.  It is a non-answer.  Either the standard of goodness comes from God himself, in which case it's arbitrary, or it comes from somewhere else, obviating God.  It's irrelevant whether it "necessarily" comes from God or not.  Contingency and necessity have nothing to do with it.

By saying it can come from somewhere then you are saying that it is contingent.  That is to say it is a property that he could have lacked. This is incorrect. Gods moral character is ESSENTIAL to him. That is why i said it is a part of his nature. That is, there is no possible world in which God could have existed without those attributes. God didn't come to being loving, holy etc by accident or by luck.

Also his nature doesnt come from himself. He didnt decide his own nature.


I did no such thing.  I posed a dilemma with two horns.  Either God's nature is good because the standard of goodness comes from himself, or because the standard of goodness comes from somewhere else.  There is no third option.  Claiming I assumed something I didn't assume is just more waffling on your part.  You can't refute the dilemma, so you're just throwing out arbitrary answers.

Both horns have been refuted.


This is false.  I did no such thing.

You did.

---

Well, it's kind of semantics to me. If you can agree that morality is about wellbeing, then I guess anything that goes against the wellbeing of another is wrong. I am not arguing necessarily of the absoluteness of it: is it wrong to kill or is it wrong to murder? I am saying morality is situational, but you can make moral pronouncements from the point of view of wellbeing.

Situational, that is why i am arguing for objective morality, not moral absolutes.

---

I this debate I am a bit of a simpleton.

I do not know of a god.

I agree, i also do not know of a god.

I have developed a morality through my upbringing, education and interaction with other social beings of my species.

We are not arguing how you came about or developed your morality. That is a question for epistemology. We are arguing about ONTOLOGY.

I have been wrong.

About what?

I have been right.

About what?

I understand and empathise with others and do not have a diagnosis of a brain condition that inhibits this.

Ok.

I am a social creature, that seems to be evidenced by simian evolution and is evidenced in other species too.

Just a social creature?

I understand what the amagdyla does to a limited extent in human  responses

Ok.

I have an incomplete understanding of how the human mind works, others know more, but nobody has the problem solved.

Ok

I don't want to be a dick.

Cool

I don't need the supernatural to help me do that.

Ok

God doesn't seem to resolve anything, moral problems can be difficult. The world's writings that claim to be fro gods include things that I find very immoral. If humans are flawed by either theistic or natural reasoning, how could they understand gods or aliens or supercomputers with advanced AI?

mmm

Why does this pint of Kronenbourg taste sooo good?

???

Experience is weird sometimes, but a god that wanted to let me know his objective moral commands certainly could. He hasn't.

Is it a fact that raping a child for fun is wrong?

Cue up pre-supp bullshit, but this whole argument from theists is soooooo tedious.

---

Many of us do. But you'll find that won't stop us from picking at flawed arguments for OM. 'OM must be true or I can't call Nazis bad' is an appeal to emotion, and fallacious on at least two levels.

What are these 2 levels?

---

Right and wrong are value judgements.  All value judgements depend on the point of view of the person making it, and are therefore subjective -- but this is not where it ends.  Rape is wrong in the eyes of the victim, and in the view of the average person, and according to the the laws of the country where I live.  We therefore have a social contract established to punish rapists.

Laws exist to protect us from people who do not respect our desire to be free from harm.  Is this really too hard for you to understand, Henry?

Good and bad are value judgements. Not right and wrong.

By denying an objective standard exist, you are declaring right and wrong dont exist in regards to the issue you are discussing.

Good and bad are value judgements. Again, if OM doesnt exist, then there is no such thing as objective good or bad.

Your problem my friend is that you like everyone else absolutely realises objective morality exists, but you are trying to ground it in something else other than God.

You cannot ground it in things like the victim. By doing so and being adamant that OM does not exist just really means that you are sufferring from a delusion. But it is obvious to you that you are not sufferring from a delusion because our moral experience indicates so strongly to us that certain acts are factually right and wrong. 

You are going around in circles. Your argument which i dont even think you believe to be true would result in a scenario where the victim thinks the rape is wrong while the rapist thinks its right.

I want you to think carefully now, how can something like rape be both right and wrong at the same time without the violating the law of non contradiction?

Its like saying the earth is both flat and spherical in shape. 

If you really DENY OM existing which i know you dont, at best you can only say, the victim finds it undesirable, but not wrong.

You really dont want to bring the country's laws into this discussion because at one stage it was legal to gas Jews and homosexuals in a particular country. Does that make it right?

---

lol of course something subjective can be wrong . This fools continuing to not get that subjective does not mean arbitrary. Nor relative  nor does relative  mean subjective.  Ultimately the whole dichotomy  is less important then it's made out to be.

Show me how.

Just to show how incoherent this notion is. Lets pick something that IS subjective and lets pretend it is asked in an exam.

Q. Chocolate ice cream ITSELF tastes better than vanilla ice cream.

Is the answer right or wrong?

Suppose you answer yes. The marker gives you a cross. 

Unless there is an external standard OUTSIDE both of you, ie the fact itself to decipher, then NO ONE IS RIGHT OR WRONG.

Please REFUTE THIS.

Well you are right, choice of ice cream is preference and not an important moral decision. Choice of ice cream does not(actually it could if you had a medical condition predicated on avoiding ice-cream, but I am assuming as a hypothetical that's not true), affect wellbeing, It does reflect on personal responsibility, which may affect my response in parentheses. So, in a broad brush response to this question their is no right or wrong. But it is not an important moral decision. Morality is about wellbeing, it's difficult, but there is no way your answer makes a supernatural omnibot necessary.

I know I am dim, but I don't see how how being a Christian would make me any brighter on this issue?

[Amarok]

Quote:My opinion is that most people believe in objective morality no matter what they want to call it. It is only the atheists who is more philosophical in nature that discovers that it must be subjective and label it so out of loyalty to the cause. 

Once again steve resorts to this rhetoric .It does not matter what most people believe . No one here is claiming atheists are more philosophical in nature. Nor is there an atheist cause. Nor any reason for anyone to take up a position in the name of said nonexistent cause. That's once again you projecting.

---

---

Situational, that is why i am arguing for objective morality, not moral absolutes.

---

---

What are these 2 levels?

---

Good and bad are value judgements. Not right and wrong.

By denying an objective standard exist, you are declaring right and wrong dont exist in regards to the issue you are discussing.

Good and bad are value judgements. Again, if OM doesnt exist, then there is no such thing as objective good or bad.

Your problem my friend is that you like everyone else absolutely realises objective morality exists, but you are trying to ground it in something else other than God.

You cannot ground it in things like the victim. By doing so and being adamant that OM does not exist just really means that you are sufferring from a delusion. But it is obvious to you that you are not sufferring from a delusion because our moral experience indicates so strongly to us that certain acts are factually right and wrong. 

You are going around in circles. Your argument which i dont even think you believe to be true would result in a scenario where the victim thinks the rape is wrong while the rapist thinks its right.

I want you to think carefully now, how can something like rape be both right and wrong at the same time without the violating the law of non contradiction?

Its like saying the earth is both flat and spherical in shape. 

If you really DENY OM existing which i know you dont, at best you can only say, the victim finds it undesirable, but not wrong.

You really dont want to bring the country's laws into this discussion because at one stage it was legal to gas Jews and homosexuals in a particular country. Does that make it right?

---

Show me how.

Just to show how incoherent this notion is. Lets pick something that IS subjective and lets pretend it is asked in an exam.

Q. Chocolate ice cream ITSELF tastes better than vanilla ice cream.

Is the answer right or wrong?

Suppose you answer yes. The marker gives you a cross. 

Unless there is an external standard OUTSIDE both of you, ie the fact itself to decipher, then NO ONE IS RIGHT OR WRONG.

Please REFUTE THIS.

Well you are right, choice of ice cream is preference and not an important moral decision. Choice of ice cream does not(actually it could if you had a medical condition predicated on avoiding ice-cream, but I am assuming as a hypothetical that's not true), affect wellbeing, It does reflect on personal responsibility, which may affect my response in parentheses. So, in a broad brush response to this question their is no right or wrong. But it is not an important moral decision. Morality is about wellbeing, it's difficult, but there is no way your answer makes a supernatural omnibot necessary.

I know I am dim, but I don't see how how being a Christian would make me any brighter on this issue?

He will just keep repeating it and ignoring you it's all he's got

[RoadRunner79]

---

I don't think that believing in a subjective morality, means that one endorses atrocities.  I don't think they have an external basis, in which to criticize, or say that others are right or wrong.  And I see your point, "equal" was probably a poor choice of words on my part.  "Indifferent" perhaps would be a better choice, as there is not a common basis for comparison.  I apologize, if I came off as attempting to state what a moral relativist believes.  Rather what I meant is that there is a disconnect, between there moral relativism, and their actions or behavior; which doesn't follow from that position.

---

No external basis is required.  That's kind of the point of calling some x subjective assessments.

What's your basis, and is it actually external?  How much thought have you given this?

Their actions most likely follow from what they subjectively describe to be right and wrong.  There's no disconnect.  There is -no- functional difference between an objective and a subjective morality.  Person A thinks x is subjectively wrong and they do y.  Person b thinks x is objectively wrong....and they do...wait for it.......y.

I think that it is an interesting question, and I have given it some thought.  

I don't think that you get to make a distinction without a difference here.   For instance;  if morality is subjective, then when you are telling me, that something is  immoral, you are not really giving me information about the action in question, but simply giving information about yourself.  For that is what it is based on (the subject).  Similarly, someone who disagrees, and calls it moral, is not contradicting you; as you do not share a common basis for such a comparison. Both can be equally true and valid (one is no more right or wrong than the other) outside of the subject.  What is true for you, may not be true for me, and what is true for you today, may not be tomorrow (morally speaking). What is moral, is shaped by something in the subject, not the action in question.

On the other hand, if it is objective, then it is independent of the subject, their thoughts, tastes, or preferences do not effect the morality of the action (or whatever it is that subjectivist claim is the basis I do not know). Because Bob decides that abusing his wife is a good stress relief, and justifies, that it helps him with his work to better mankind, cannot make it moral. If the society that Bob is in, sees the advancements Bob is making towards a better well being for everyone, and decides that the abuse is ok, it cannot make it moral. This is because, the basis for what makes it moral or not; is external to and not connected to any person or groups idea of morality. A view may be more moral or less, or completely incorrect regarding morality in an objective sense. Subjectively it cannot really be incorrect, other than perhaps if someone is lying about a description of themselves. There is nothing else to compare it to, other than that subject in particular. A different person has a different basis. If morality is objective, then opposing answers contradict, and both of them cannot be true. Something cannot be both immoral and moral at the same time, in the same way. There is an external standard of what is moral, which can be compared to, it is independent of the person; which gives a real justice, and real rights. With subjectivity, you do not have this.

The question isn't functionally, when both agree, but when they do not. How do you treat them then?

---

I don't think that believing in a subjective morality, means that one endorses atrocities.  I don't think they have an external basis, in which to criticize, or say that others are right or wrong.  And I see your point, "equal" was probably a poor choice of words on my part.  "Indifferent" perhaps would be a better choice, as there is not a common basis for comparison.  I apologize, if I came off as attempting to state what a moral relativist believes.  Rather what I meant is that there is a disconnect, between there moral relativism, and their actions or behavior; which doesn't follow from that position.

Moral relativism is a bit of a different kettle of fish than moral subjectivism. Relativism is about lack of absolutes. There is no absolute standard of what constitutes 'long' for instance. It's no barrier to determining whether one piece of string is longer than another...relativism is about making comparisons, and a relativist can certainly claim that Quakers are better than Nazis, they just can't claim it's not possible to be better than a Quaker or worse than a Nazi. Moral relativism says that actions are morally better or worse depending on the agents and circumstances and necessarily involves a moral judgment about what's better or worse. Moral relativism is a position that can be held simultaneously with a belief in objective morality...in which case it just means that objective morality is complicated and fluid.

Doh!!  You caught me.  Apparently at a point, I made the mistake of starting to say relative instead when I meant subjective.   I apologize.

I do think that your example is good though for showing how what is objective can be relative.   Although it may be argued, that while the word "longer" is relative, it is a reference to length which is not.   Either way, it is objective.  And which one is truly longer, is not dependent on what anyone believes about it.  Ever see those optical illusions, where they try to trick you into guessing the wrong line as longer?  But thanks for catching my screw up.

[SteveII]

deleted. Messed up quotes.

[The Grand Nudger]

The messed up quotes were the least of your worries on that one.  

[Silver]

deleted. Messed up quotes.

You know that you can hit the reply button in another tab, select all and copy the content, close out of the reply tab, then return to "edit" your messed up post whereby you delete the content and paste what you copied.

[SteveII]

"Is God's nature good because it is God's, or is God's nature good because it is morally good (i.e. it conforms to an independent standard of good)?"  You see, playing the ontology card has gained you nothing.  Just as the Euthyphro dilemma applies to Divine Command Theory, it also applies to the argument that morality is derived from God's nature.  Either God's nature is arbitrarily good simply because it is God's, which results in an arbitrary set of morals which by definition is not moral.  Or God's nature is good in that it conforms to a standard of goodness that is independent of God, making God's nature superfluous to the question of morals.  You have accomplished nothing by your detour into ontology except to confuse the issue.  God is still an unsatisfactory source of morality, and you're left empty handed, claiming the existence of objective morals that you can't explain.

See bold.

You have just gutted the dilemma. The unwanted conclusion of the original dilemma was that God could change his mind and good could be redefined. The bold above simply points out in so many words that morality is based on God's nature.  Natures don't change. No unwanted conclusion. 

Regarding the arbitrary characterization, how much more objective could the nature of an eternal God be?