 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What's the point of anger, protests, indignation, petitions and justice...
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
@EtymologicalEvangelical
If you don't mind indulging me I'd like to repost something I said in the "Can Atheism develop an epistemology to live by?" thread.
This is not so much me trying to argue my corner but more me highlighting my difficulty in understanding the argument.
Saying morals exist is an interesting one for me because they don’t exist in the same way as a brick exists. You can't say there is a big solid block of moral that God breaks chunks off of and hands out to us when we are born. Morals are just a label not a thing. A person is affected by their upbringing, environment and brain chemistry. They are confronted by a situation, make a decision and act on it. Other people can then label that action as moral or immoral. (Sometimes their judgement will depend on the long term results of the action and often people will disagree on whether it was right or wrong). So what actually happened here? Did God fashion the environment? Construct and tweak the brain chemistry causing the bout of depression or over confidence that biased the decision?, control the parents?
What I'm trying to get at is that I get confused when people describe morality as given by God as it makes morality sound like a solid thing where as morality is the label given by other people to the results of actions taken by people caused by not one but many variables.
The existence of a brick is objective, but it doesn't follow that the only "objective" realities are physical. That seems to me to be the assumption behind your comment.
In fact, the idea that there could exist dimensions of reality above or alongside what we know as "physical nature" is not contrary to the scientific method (here's an example).
If scientists accept that our view of reality is not "set in stone" as per the philosophy of naturalism, then it really is not too much of a stretch to accept that immaterial realities can have an objective basis (such as "information" at the basis of reality, mentioned in the above article I linked to). Why should it be considered inherently illogical to consider that an ultimate mind, reason and conscience exists which gives both reason and morality its objective validity? This does not mean that reason and morality are physical objects somewhere. But it does mean that they can be objectively real - i.e. possess a reality external to any human mind.
Please understand that I am not saying that those who do not believe in this ultimate moral reality cannot possess any kind of legitimate moral sense (that is an extremely important point), just in the same way that no one needs to believe a certain theory of the origin of life in order to live! I am talking about explanation not necessarily practice. But, of course, our view of reality has a direct influence on our practice.
There is a constant appeal to a basic human moral sense, which informs our daily lives - both individually and corporately. To suggest that this "often unspoken agreement" is simply nothing more than a consensus that does not reflect something necessary about reality is, in my view, fallacious. This is the whole point of this thread. If our entire moral structure is nothing more than a labelling exercise or a description of human psychology, that just happens to have developed in a certain way, then there is no rationale to our sense of indignation at those whose morality differs - no matter how obnoxious that morality may seem to us.
Those who think that morality is subjective have no rational justification for talking about "global values" or "universal human rights". This is the kind of language of the UN (see example here), and it really is a nonsense unless there is an objective basis to morality. Interestingly the document I linked to complains about "the strong bonds of western hegemonic monologue and cultural imperialism", and suggests that this should be replaced by a universal concept of human rights resulting from "democracy and consensus". The problem with that reasoning is that a morality based on democracy and consensus cannot be universal unless a unanimous agreement has been achieved by a totally free and fair means. "Democracy and consensus", however, almost always means "dictatorship by the majority" - no matter how benign this dictatorship may be (whatever the word "benign" means within a subjectivist morality).
It's a travesty of the word "universal" to say that it is a result of a less than unanimous consensus. But that is what moral subjectivists often appeal to. The recognition of "universal human rights" is a tacit acknowledgment that there does actually exist an objective basis to morality, and is therefore testament to the truth of the worldview that makes objective morality possible.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The whole difficulty I have with moral objectivism is not so much the theory that something can be morally correct, but how you discover which propositions are the correct ones.
I think the thing is that there are a whole slew of ideas that are derived from areas that people either agree are objective or used to think were objective. And we would like to be able to apply them to moral discussion.
For example, fallacious reasoning. Fallacies are a bad thing because they lead us to the wrong conclusion instead of the right conclusion. But if there is no such thing as a right conclusion then there's nothing wrong with fallacies.
If somebody argues, Hitler was a vegetarian, Hitler was evil, therefore Vegetarians are evil we want to be able to rule that out of discussion. But we still want to discuss the matter so we don't want to rule everything out of discussion. If moral debate is about something objective then that gives us leave to rule out fallacious argument.
Ditto, the idea that I could be wrong. I can't be wrong if there's nothing there for me to be wrong about. So if morality is not objective, then there's nothing there for me to be wrong about and it becomes meaningless to say that I could be wrong.
Ditto, the idea that there's a distinction between some legitimate forms of persuasion and others. We think persuading people by offering them reasons is legitimate; persuading them by offering them bribes or brainwashing them is not. Legitimate modes of persuasion lead us towards the truth; illegitimate modes of persuasion do so at best only coincidentally. But if there is no truth to be led towards then the distinction collapses.
And so on. The idea that morality is determined by subject-independent truths doesn't of itself help determine any subject-independent truths. But it licenses us to use those methods of reasoning that apply in areas where we can. This may never yield a fully correct result, but it might get us to something that is better than we would otherwise get to.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't know that saying Newton's laws can be expressed in mathematical terms is exactly the same thing as saying that Newton's laws "are mathematics".
I don't think it's just that Newton's laws can be expressed in mathematical terms; I don't think they can be expressed in any way that isn't dependent upon the mathematics.
No, I don't think they "are mathematics", whatever that would mean; but they require that there are true mathematical statements.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd
The idea that morality is determined by subject-independent truths doesn't of itself help determine any subject-independent truths. But it licenses us to use those methods of reasoning that apply in areas where we can. This may never yield a fully correct result, but it might get us to something that is better than we would otherwise get to.
This reminds me of something CS Lewis wrote:
quote:
Apparently the way to advance from our imperfect apprehension of justice to the absolute justice is not to throw our imperfect apprehensions aside but boldly to go on applying them. Just as the pupil advances to more perfect arithmetic not by throwing his multiplication table away but by working at it for all it is worth.
(From De Futilitate, a chapter from "Christian Reflections")
Also, it is worth reading another essay from Christian Reflections entitled "The Poison of Subjectivism" on the very subject we have been discussing on this thread.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally by C.S. Lewis:
quote:
Apparently the way to advance from our imperfect apprehension of justice to the absolute justice is not to throw our imperfect apprehensions aside but boldly to go on applying them. Just as the pupil advances to more perfect arithmetic not by throwing his multiplication table away but by working at it for all it is worth.
(From De Futilitate, a chapter from "Christian Reflections")
That works only so long as the direction you're heading is the right one in the first place.
You seem to agree that if there is an objective morality present, that our understanding of that morality is still flawed to various degrees? Even if you feel you are advancing in the right direction, your still dealing with an 'imperfect apprehension.'
It seems to me that an objective moral code that is improperly perceived by all is really a defacto subjective moral code. It's out there, be we can't really, fully know what it is.
Surely we should each follow our understanding of that code as far as we are able, but at the same time we need to be aware of how we are prone to misunderstandings and misinterpretation.
I see great danger in combining the idea of objective morality with a certainty of what that morality is.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99
You seem to agree that if there is an objective morality present, that our understanding of that morality is still flawed to various degrees? Even if you feel you are advancing in the right direction, your still dealing with an 'imperfect apprehension.'
It seems to me that an objective moral code that is improperly perceived by all is really a defacto subjective moral code. It's out there, be we can't really, fully know what it is.
A man wants to look after his family to the best of his ability and seek the wellbeing of his wife and children. But he is not completely certain of the right way to go about this in the particular circumstances in which he finds himself.
Another man can't decide whether it's right to look after his family or abuse them.
I can see a fundamental difference between these two positions. The former is based on a basic moral goal, but an uncertainty as to the right methodology to achieve it; the latter is based on complete amorality.
Objective morality is like the first example. We affirm a basic moral code, but that does not mean that we know the precise right thing to do in every given situation. So this morality needs to be worked on.
Subjective morality is like the second example. There is no firm foundation on which to make any moral decision at all, other than one's own whim.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Subjective morality is like the second example. There is no firm foundation on which to make any moral decision at all, other than one's own whim.
That's a bit of a straw man. I know in theory that my love for my wife is subjective although based on objective traits. I am really quite happy for other men (and women so inclined) to recognise the objective traits but not to feel my subjective feeling that she's the most special person in the world (excepting my daughter). But it would be wrong to say that my love for my wife was therefore a whim. I can't just change it because I feel like it; nor would I want to.
No - the problem with treating morality as subjective is that I can't be wrong. Anyone who tells me that my love for my wife could be wrong is a) talking nonsense and b) liable to get their head bitten off.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
Well EE, I guess it depends on if you're considering a mono-cultural or multicultural setting.
In much of Turkey for example, the perceived objective morality is that occasionally beating your wife is a good thing because it keeps her faithful and diligent and she might fall into the sin of adultery or laziness if she's not kept in line. I've heard men openly tell each-other as much.
To them this is the objective morality and they can 'prove' it every bit as much as you can 'prove' it's objectively immoral.
The distinction is not based on 'amorality', as you put it, but rather on vastly different perceptions of the 'basic moral code.'
All that to say, I tend to agree with your most recent post to an extent, but I think that you may have understated the degree to which the basic moral code can be disagreed upon.
So again, I'll say that your C.S. Lewis quote works, but only if you're heading in the right direction already.
I would argue that our understanding of the (presumably) objective morality is very subjective and mostly based on our culture, religion, etc... again creating a morality that is subjective in practice.
Now, if there were a way to 100% prove what the objective morality is, then that would be a different story. To an extent, that may be theoretically possible in a mono-cultural setting, but IMO nigh impossible in a multicultural setting.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99
Well EE, I guess it depends on if you're considering a mono-cultural or multicultural setting.
In much of Turkey for example, the perceived objective morality is that occasionally beating your wife is a good thing because it keeps her faithful and diligent and she might fall into the sin of adultery or laziness if she's not kept in line. I've heard men openly tell each-other as much.
To them this is the objective morality and they can 'prove' it every bit as much as you can 'prove' it's objectively immoral.
The distinction is not based on 'amorality', as you put it, but rather on vastly different perceptions of the 'basic moral code.'
This comes back to a point I made earlier in this thread, and let me quote the relevant paragraph:
quote:
But suppose we hold to a philosophical view that morality is actually ultimately entirely subjective? And yet we also wish to express moral indignation at the practices of others? Are we not then admitting that we need to deceive ourselves in order to be logically consistent? We could say to ourselves: "We know morality is entirely subjective, but we are going to convince ourselves that certain moral viewpoints are objectively valid, so that we can express indignation and therefore pursue policies to oppose that which we regard as immoral."
If moral practices are simply an expression of culture, and therefore they are defined by the subjective consensus pertaining to that culture, then on what basis can someone from another culture protest against them? If Turkish men feel it's morally right to beat their wives into submission, then what's wrong with that? I may personally find it distasteful, but I would have to accept that this is due to the influence of my own culture. If I had the power to intervene in that culture and crack down on such practices, while still accepting that morality was entirely subjective, then would I not be admitting that "might is right"? I would simply be imposing my personal taste on others.
And the same argument is true within a so called multicultural society. In fact, it could even be argued that the government of my own country is "another culture" distinct from the governed, and therefore we should not protest against any of their decisions (and even if those decisions adversely affect me, I could only protest on the basis of self-interest and not by appealing to any concept of "right and wrong").
Therefore (to come back to the OP) anyone who wishes to protest against the moral decisions of others can only do so if he believes that there does actually exist some objective moral reality to which he can appeal. But if he also holds to a philosophy which denies an objective basis to morality, then he would need to deny that philosophy in practice.
Now I would agree that I am approaching this issue in general metaphysical terms, and I acknowledge that this gets us no nearer to ascertaining what this "objective morality" is. Clearly there is a necessity for an objective morality - or a necessity to believe that there is (which therefore may involve wilful self-deception) - but we are left to discover the details of it.
If the philosophy of naturalism is true, and therefore the only reality that exists outside of the human mind is the amoral physical realm, then morality has to be entirely subjective - merely the result of the way human life has happened to develop. But, as I have argued, morality simply does not work without some acknowledgment of its universal validity - hence someone like Richard Dawkins getting angry about child abuse in the Catholic Church while acknowledging that morality is entirely arbitrary (scroll down to the relevant sections about ethics in this page I linked to). Therefore the (philosophical) naturalist would have to pretend that something is true which he knows is not true: the very attitude so many of a naturalistic persuasion claim to hate, since that is what they think religious people do!
Clearly the central importance of morality to our lives speaks against its subjective nature, as I have argued. But we are still left with the question: well what particular moral principles are "objectively moral" and which are not? This question cannot be divorced from the more fundamental question of worldview, and so once we get to the position of acknowledging the necessity of the existence of a moral reality external to any human mind, then we need to seek to know more about that reality. And from this flows insights into specific moral issues.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Subjective morality is like the second example. There is no firm foundation on which to make any moral decision at all, other than one's own whim.
That's a bit of a straw man. I know in theory that my love for my wife is subjective although based on objective traits. I am really quite happy for other men (and women so inclined) to recognise the objective traits but not to feel my subjective feeling that she's the most special person in the world (excepting my daughter). But it would be wrong to say that my love for my wife was therefore a whim. I can't just change it because I feel like it; nor would I want to.
Admittedly I could have worded my example a bit better. I was not suggesting that love for one's wife was a mere whim, but it would be if morality was totally subjective, since all love and care for others would be entirely a matter of taste. Furthermore, one can have an objectively based moral attitude of love towards one's wife, and on that is built subjective feelings that are exclusive to the husband, and would be inappropriate when felt - and certainly expressed - by anyone else. But I think we have established that objective + subjective = objective + subjective.
I am certainly not arguing against some measure of subjectivity in morality. But the "subjective" has to be grounded in the "objective".
Perhaps a better example would be an archery contest. Some of the contestants try their utmost to hit the bull; they look at the target, aim their arrows in the right direction and do all they can to achieve a perfect result. But inevitably most - if not all - of them miss the dead centre of the target. Some of them may even miss the target altogether.
But there are other "contestants" who refuse to recognise the target, and decide that they can fire their arrows in any direction they like - even into the spectators. They are not even trying to hit the target, because they just make up the target as they see fit, and so they will always hit their appointed target, won't they? They can never fall short of their goal; they can never be wrong, because they make up the rules as they go along!
The CS Lewis quote was clearly referring to the kind of morality associated with the first group of archers.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Perhaps a better example would be an archery contest. Some of the contestants try their utmost to hit the bull; they look at the target, aim their arrows in the right direction and do all they can to achieve a perfect result. But inevitably most - if not all - of them miss the dead centre of the target. Some of them may even miss the target altogether.
But there are other "contestants" who refuse to recognise the target, and decide that they can fire their arrows in any direction they like - even into the spectators. They are not even trying to hit the target, because they just make up the target as they see fit, and so they will always hit their appointed target, won't they? They can never fall short of their goal; they can never be wrong, because they make up the rules as they go along!
Your example simply demonstrates the difference between organised sport and casual games. Organised sport has a committee that establishes the rules - and indeed changes the rules, as every sporting code I know of has gradually over time changed aspects of its rules.
A contestant/player can of course decide to play by their own rules, but they won't get any prizes. The judges/umpires/referees won't reward them for picking different goals to the ones that are stated in the rules expressed by the organisation.
Now contrast that to the games that children make up from time to time. They're in charge of the rules. They make up different goals on different days. If it's not a solo activity, then they'll argue amongst themselves about the rules, and quite frequently they will suddenly make up new ones as they go along.
None of which enables you establish that morality is an organised sport with an external arbiter rather than a casual game with internally determined rules. Your analogy presumes the answer, rather than proving it. The only reason your analogy shows any kind of objectivity is because you selected a contest with an externally determined set of rules. By definition, archery will do what you want it to do.
Nor does it enable you to establish there is anything "objective" about the rules of archery, because it's not self-evident that the goal is to shoot straight rather than to shoot as far as possible or as high as possible. Is archery a "higher" form of bow-and-arrow contest just because it's the particular set of rules that got codified?
And which form of football is the objectively right one? Take a ball that's of the right kind of size and weight to be handled. What am I "supposed" to do with it? Soccer, rugby league, rugby union, Gaelic football, gridiron, Australian rules football, futnet (yeah I just learnt about that one). Which is the closest to being an objectively right football game?
Your analogy isn't working for me. Sorry.
[ 22. July 2012, 13:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo
Your analogy isn't working for me. Sorry.
No need to apologise. I happen to think it's a great analogy. Allow me to apply it...
Let's suppose that morality is entirely subjective. And let's assume that there is a general consensus in society that "it is wrong to abuse children".
So the rule of the "archery contest" is: "don't abuse children". Now some people may struggle with the temptation to abuse children, but they have signed up to this "moral consensus" and so they try their utmost not to give in to their desires. They want to play the game. They may seek help, and if they succumb, then they confess to their crime and submit to the appropriate punishment.
Now let's say that a certain group of people are accused of abusing children (for example, certain paedophile priests). There is a great outcry against these men and people are calling for them to be arrested and charged. But these priests defend themselves by saying: "What's the problem? We have not signed up to your game. We are not participating in your 'archery contest', but we are playing our own game, according to our rules. Our target is different from yours. So leave us alone."
If morality is entirely subjective, then in what sense are these priests "wrong" to say this?
I think I know the answer to that question.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
To be fair (given the subjective) a rational/consistent response could be "why should there be a problem", our contest just happens to include shooting arrows at people who do what you did, and mime artists.
On the other hand most people don't say this, they act like there is a contest. They use the objective morality vocabulary. (which I'm glad about, it doesn't prove it, things might be subjective and they are inefficiently evolved)
[ 22. July 2012, 14:13: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The point of your analogy is that the real question is: what power does "society" actually have to punish the priests in spite of their assertion that they didn't sign up to the rules?
It might be worth you having a think about international law. Rather fascinating area which frankly doesn't bear that much resemblance to law as we normally know it in domestic circles, precisely because of the difficulties of actually disciplining/punishing a country for "breaking the rules". Whereas in a domestic context, a person who gets hauled before a court and says "I don't recognise your authority, I don't recognise your rules" is unlikely to get away with it.
Which one does morality behave more like?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
to be honest, often as you say. But if that is the case we have to totally change our vocabulary (unless and there's no reason we want to deceive ourselves and others).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I don't know. I think there are certain benefits that come from acting as if it's all objective, even if we can't actually demonstrate that it's the case. Most of the time we need to operate with a certain amount of assumption in our lives.
I don't know. I'm in two minds about that.
Once upon a time, Christian morality was a kind of unifying force precisely because everyone recognised its legitimacy. And then more and more people started to question its legitimacy and it's lost its social persuasion. I'm not entirely sure what's replaced it. Adherence to the written law? To some extent, yes, but then you get events like the UK riots last year (was it last year) and you can see that the hold is very thin indeed there.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If moral practices are simply an expression of culture, and therefore they are defined by the subjective consensus pertaining to that culture, then on what basis can someone from another culture protest against them? If Turkish men feel it's morally right to beat their wives into submission, then what's wrong with that? I may personally find it distasteful, but I would have to accept that this is due to the influence of my own culture.
In their culture it's morally right to beat up their wives, and in my culture it's morally right to protest against them. That's easy. Who needs a basis?
Imagine my culture says it's morally ok to bomb foreigners to bring them democracy. Protesting that this is only the influence of my culture doesn't matter. You say, you oughtn't to bomb other cultures on something that's only the influence of your culture. Well, that may be true for you, but nothing in my culture says that. My culture says I have a perfect right to do so on the basis of my culture alone.
As you pointed out on the first page of this thread, the problem with thinking morality is subjective is not that it makes us less likely to intervene in other cultures. The problem (one of the problems) is that it makes us more likely to resort to force when we intervene.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd
In their culture it's morally right to beat up their wives, and in my culture it's morally right to protest against them. That's easy. Who needs a basis?
Of course we don't need a "basis", if we are happy not to live like mature adults. If we want the politics of the playground and we wish to bully others because they are "different", then fine.
And if international law is based on an entirely subjective culturally-driven morality, then we have to accept a return to a form of colonialism: Might is Right.
Alternatively (on the basis of subjective morality), we can accept that we should not intervene in the internal affairs of another country or culture, and we should therefore wave goodbye to human rights campaigns, Amnesty International etc. For example, if North Korea wants to oppress its own people, then what's wrong with that?
And if we want to give up - once and for all - the pretence at being "rational", then let's go for it. Prof Dawkins can try to arrest the Pope as much as he likes, while claiming morality is entirely arbitrary. But it does seem rather daft for him to claim the rational high ground in so doing!
I have simply been observing human behaviour and it tells me that the vast majority of people assume that a basic moral sense (do not murder, do not steal, do not exploit others etc) has universal validity. For me this constitutes evidence that the naturalistic view - that morality is simply a product of the human mind - is impossible to apply consistently, and that we have to believe in the objective validity of a certain basic morality (whether subconsciously or not) in order to make it work.
I have not seen any compelling argument on this thread to change my view about this.
Having said that, I acknowledge that I am arguing in very general terms, and that "objective morality" does not mean what Marvin claimed it meant in this post:
quote:
Objective morality says "these laws shall be the ones we use, regardless of whether anyone likes them or the impact they have on society, and they can never ever change regardless of any new ideas or evidence that might come along."
A point I answered here.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have simply been observing human behaviour and it tells me that the vast majority of people assume that a basic moral sense (do not murder, do not steal, do not exploit others etc) has universal validity.
You seem to confuse morality and denotation of language. Of course, it is wrong to murder -- that's all part of what murder means. "Honor killings" aren't murder in one culture, though, while they are in another. Of course, it's wrong to steal -- that's part of what stealing means. But, in one culture, it is theft to charge interest on a loan, and in another it is just good business to get as high interest as you possibly can. Of course, it's wrong to exploit others -- that's part of what exploit means. But, on Wall Street, suckering people into buying worthless paper is shrewd business, while for the rest of the country (excepting POTUS, apparently) it is a felony.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If moral practices are simply an expression of culture, and therefore they are defined by the subjective consensus pertaining to that culture, then on what basis can someone from another culture protest against them? If Turkish men feel it's morally right to beat their wives into submission, then what's wrong with that? I may personally find it distasteful, but I would have to accept that this is due to the influence of my own culture. If I had the power to intervene in that culture and crack down on such practices, while still accepting that morality was entirely subjective, then would I not be admitting that "might is right"? I would simply be imposing my personal taste on others.
(Side note: I never said morality was 'entirely subjective', just that our apprehension of it is not accurate.)
You keep coming back to "might is right". I fail to see how anyone who believes that their understanding of morality is 'the correct one' and goes around forcing people to comply is acting in any other way.
Most of the great tragedies in history from the holocaust, to colonialism, to the crusades were perpetrated by those who felt they had a monopoly on what is objectively moral. We look back at all of them and nobody says "well, their arrow didn't quite his the bullseye, glad they kept on trying though!" No, we look back and ask how (among other things) they could have been so arrogant as to assume that they had a total and complete grasp of morality?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Now I would agree that I am approaching this issue in general metaphysical terms, and I acknowledge that this gets us no nearer to ascertaining what this "objective morality" is. Clearly there is a necessity for an objective morality - or a necessity to believe that there is (which therefore may involve wilful self-deception) - but we are left to discover the details of it.
I would agree with that, but again, I think you may understate the distance between how two groups of people can approach objective morality.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Perhaps a better example would be an archery contest. Some of the contestants try their utmost to hit the bull; they look at the target, aim their arrows in the right direction and do all they can to achieve a perfect result. But inevitably most - if not all - of them miss the dead centre of the target. Some of them may even miss the target altogether.
But there are other "contestants" who refuse to recognise the target, and decide that they can fire their arrows in any direction they like - even into the spectators. They are not even trying to hit the target, because they just make up the target as they see fit, and so they will always hit their appointed target, won't they? They can never fall short of their goal; they can never be wrong, because they make up the rules as they go along!
The CS Lewis quote was clearly referring to the kind of morality associated with the first group of archers.
Apart from radical relativists, I think your second group is a straw man.
As for the first group, I think that the bulls-eye is there, but hidden under a sheet. Everyone shoots where they think the bulls-eye is, but until the sheet is lifted up we don't really know how everyone scored.
If the bulls-eye is visible, then it can be fully defined, quantified, plotted, etc. However, what we have is a group of Christian archers putting their shots in the upper left, Muslim placing their shots in the lower right, etc.
Until you can find a way to lift up that sheet and reveal the location of the bulls-eye, morality (thought objective in fact) is subjective in practice.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99
You keep coming back to "might is right". I fail to see how anyone who believes that their understanding of morality is 'the correct one' and goes around forcing people to comply is acting in any other way.
Most of the great tragedies in history from the holocaust, to colonialism, to the crusades were perpetrated by those who felt they had a monopoly on what is objectively moral. We look back at all of them and nobody says "well, their arrow didn't quite his the bullseye, glad they kept on trying though!" No, we look back and ask how (among other things) they could have been so arrogant as to assume that they had a total and complete grasp of morality?
Actually these tragedies were perpetrated by people who felt that morality only served the good of their group, and not all people everywhere. Objective morality involves an acknowledgement of universal human rights, therefore that Jews have as much right to life as so called "Aryans", for example. So even though these groups thought that their morality was correct, it was fundamentally subjective since it only served the interests of their group.
But if someone were perhaps to suggest that the antidote to these horrors is subjective morality, then I fail to see what rationale can be appealed to in order to criticise, say, the Nazis. After all, no one can be wrong within subjectivism. If I get my bow and fire my arrow into the body of a spectator, that is not wrong, because I decided at that moment that that spectator was my legitimate target. That is what subjectivism means: whatever I decide is right without reference to any objective and binding standard.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Apart from radical relativists, I think your second group is a straw man.
As for the first group, I think that the bulls-eye is there, but hidden under a sheet. Everyone shoots where they think the bulls-eye is, but until the sheet is lifted up we don't really know how everyone scored.
If the bulls-eye is visible, then it can be fully defined, quantified, plotted, etc. However, what we have is a group of Christian archers putting their shots in the upper left, Muslim placing their shots in the lower right, etc.
Until you can find a way to lift up that sheet and reveal the location of the bulls-eye, morality (thought objective in fact) is subjective in practice. [/QB]
I like that image*, I'm happy to sign up to it, I think Dafyd made a similar statement earlier.
I don't know about the claim about the straw man, a fair number of posters are claiming to think that (perhaps the analogy could be improved, but somethings there).
*although there is something intuitive** we might disagree where murder starts, but we know it's wrong. It's almost like we know where the bullseye is but are aiming for an unseen irregular outer ring.
**which might be totally wrong, or a human fiction or the equivalent of talking about sun-rise.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
You keep coming back to "might is right". I fail to see how anyone who believes that their understanding of morality is 'the correct one' and goes around forcing people to comply is acting in any other way.
In an earlier post I quoted a dictionary definition distinguishing between two sense of 'objective/subjective'.
1. 'Objective' means there is some set of facts about morality that do not depend upon what we believe about morality. 'Subjective' means that there are no such facts: morality is nothing other than what we believe it to be.
2. 'Objective' means that unbiased. 'Subjective' means influenced by personal considerations.
I am going to propose something counterintuitive:
If you believe morality is objective in sense 1, then you are committed logically to believing that your personal moral opinions are subjective in sense 2.
If on the other hand you believe morality is subjective in sense 1, then you are logically committed to believing that your personal opinions are objective in sense 2.
The intuitive thesis is that the correlation is between objective in each sense and subjective in each sense. The intuitive thesis is poppycock. People assume it's true solely because the words are the same. It's a good example of reason being led astray by the vagaries of language.
Defending the counterintuitive thesis:
Part 2: If you believe morality has subjective existence, then you ought to believe your opinions about it are perfectly objective.
That's easy: the concept of bias only has application to things where there is a standard outside oneself to which one ought to adhere. Bias only applies when I ought to be making a judgement on the facts. So bias has no application if morality is subjective; therefore my opinions are unbiased and so perfectly objective.
Part 1: If you believe morality has objective existence, then you ought to believe your opinions about it are only imperfectly correct and partly subjective.
If morality has objective existence then by definition morality is not the same thing as what you think about morality. At the very least they differ as a record of a speech and the speech itself. And if they are different then there's a gap into which error can happen. Or to put it another way, if morality has objective existence then I can be wrong about it; and the balance of probabilities is that I am virtually certain to be wrong about at least some of it. Therefore, at least some of my moral beliefs may be led astray by personal factors and therefore subjective.
So someone who believes that their understanding of morality is certainly the 'correct one' is acting as if they believe that morality has only subjective existence.
Counterintuitive conclusion 2: people who believe morality has only subjective existence are more likely to impose their morality on other people.
What is the point of believing in morality?
A believer that morality has objective existence believes at the very least that he or she ought to regulate his or her own conduct by it. In so far as they want other people to do the same they ought to want other people to do the same because they believe it's morally right rather than because they're coerced.
Now, for someone who believes morality is purely subjective what is the point of talking about morality at all? What does talking about morality do that talking about enlightened self-interest or whatever doesn't, given that talking about morality risks people condemning and imposing their values on other people? And the answer is that imposing values on other people is a feature not a bug.
Consider fox hunting. If I just don't like the idea of foxes suffering I won't hunt foxes. But if I really don't like the idea of foxes suffering then I'll try to stop other people hunting foxes. I'll condemn people who hunt foxes. And if I really really don't like the idea of foxes suffering then not only will I condemn people who hunt foxes, but I'll also condemn people who refuse to share my condemnation. At that point, the argument goes(*), I am using moral language. So the whole point of saying 'fox hunting is wrong' instead of 'I don't like the idea of hunting foxes' is that I'm condemning other people.
So, if someone believes that fox hunting is objectively wrong they think that the primary point of talking about morality is that he or she shouldn't hunt foxes; but if someone believes fox hunting is subjectively wrong they think that the primary point of talking about morality is stopping other people from hunting foxes.
(*) The argument comes from Simon Blackburn who is I think the most prominent defender of a non-realist account of ethics that aims to leave everything as it is as much as possible. My paraphrase obviously (Blackburn has another step in there that I can't remember).
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
After all, no one can be wrong within subjectivism. If I get my bow and fire my arrow into the body of a spectator, that is not wrong, because I decided at that moment that that spectator was my legitimate target.
Er... I can't be wrong within subjectivism. If you disagree with me, you certainly can be wrong. (And of course vice versa from your point of view.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Counterintuitive conclusion 2: people who believe morality has only subjective existence are more likely to impose their morality on other people.
I don't think this necessarily follows. (personally I feel most of the argument is mostly valid)
However the logic would be trivially valid with a clearly false conclusion if Subjective's kept quiet about fox hunting(or said 'it would be in mine and yours interest if..., I don't like...').
That's clearly not what happens, I haven't met on who hasn't used a moral argument sometimes.
But it shows you need to show that Objectivist's aren't intrinsically more likely to make them.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99
You seem to agree that if there is an objective morality present, that our understanding of that morality is still flawed to various degrees? Even if you feel you are advancing in the right direction, your still dealing with an 'imperfect apprehension.'
It seems to me that an objective moral code that is improperly perceived by all is really a defacto subjective moral code. It's out there, be we can't really, fully know what it is.
A man wants to look after his family to the best of his ability and seek the wellbeing of his wife and children. But he is not completely certain of the right way to go about this in the particular circumstances in which he finds himself.
Another man can't decide whether it's right to look after his family or abuse them.
I can see a fundamental difference between these two positions. The former is based on a basic moral goal, but an uncertainty as to the right methodology to achieve it; the latter is based on complete amorality.
Objective morality is like the first example. We affirm a basic moral code, but that does not mean that we know the precise right thing to do in every given situation. So this morality needs to be worked on.
Subjective morality is like the second example. There is no firm foundation on which to make any moral decision at all, other than one's own whim.
Complete and utter balderdash. The second isn't any form of morality, objective or subjective. The second is literal sociopathy. Conversations go a lot better if you don't go into them with the impression that the other side is quite literally mentally ill.
The difference between objective and subjective morality on the other hand is that the foundation of subjective morality is "This is where we are". And that "People are hurting." This is not a complete lack of foundations. It's a lack of there being something "over there".
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
Or you just haven't been paying attention. I've refuted that in my exchanges with Dafyd.
Subjective + Objective = Subjective
Your reasoning is subjective.
If you say that reasoning is subjective, then how can you claim to have refuted another person's position. What are you appealing to in order to claim a refutation?
Because there is an objective component to anything subjective.
quote:
Now is it true that the latter method is 100% subjective? Clearly not.
That is because there is literally nothing that is 100% subjective by your definition. Artistic merit marks are subjective. So is appreciation of art. But both have an objective component.
The way you want to define subjective makes it quite literally meaningless. Nothing in your world is, or indeed, can be subjective.
quote:
There are set moves in gymnastics that are scored in a certain way, and the judges would all have been selected on the basis of some recognised experience in this sport
Now you're talking about the technical merit marks. Which are an attempt to separate the purely objective component from the largely subjective component of the performance.
quote:
If the scoring method was 100% subjective, then the judges would just be picked randomly from members of the public, who are then invited to give scores without any reference to the particular moves and disciplines.
Even that wouldn't be 100% subjective. They couldn't make it 100% subjective without removing all sight of the performance and anonymising the competitors.
quote:
Furthermore, such a totally subjective scoring method would not inspire any kind of confidence and recognition.
That is because the 100% subjective method would be quite literally insane. It would have to be done without reference to the objective fact of the gymnastic or athletic performance. Because what the people did is objective and that impacts the judgement.
Your definition of subjective is meaningless. Which is why you have problems.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And if international law is based on an entirely subjective culturally-driven morality, then we have to accept a return to a form of colonialism: Might is Right.
AHA! You have studied international law, then!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Actually these tragedies were perpetrated by people who felt that morality only served the good of their group, and not all people everywhere.
Their understanding of morality was that good must triumph over evil, they were good the others were evil. It wasn't subjective morality.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Objective morality involves an acknowledgement of universal human rights...
How do you figure? Where is that written? God seemed to show little concern for the human rights of anyone other than the Hebrews in the OT. Is God a fan of subjective morality?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But if someone were perhaps to suggest that the antidote to these horrors is subjective morality, then I fail to see what rationale can be appealed to in order to criticise, say, the Nazis.
But I'm not suggesting that (if I were, then you'd be right), I'm suggesting that the antidote is to understand just how potentially flawed our own understanding of objective morality is.
Until you can show me objective way of explaining what the moral code actually is, then I'm afraid it's still defacto subjective.
In other words, how can you be sure that you know where the bulls-eye is under the sheet?
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That is because there is literally nothing that is 100% subjective by your definition. Artistic merit marks are subjective. So is appreciation of art. But both have an objective component.
Taking this as a post to hang a point of information on:
Among professional philosophers, moral subjectivists believe that you can neatly separate out the 100% subjective component from any judgement. Moral objectivists believe it's impossible.
Justinian's quote above would have pretty much all academic philosophers mark him down as a believer in objective morality.
[ 23. July 2012, 08:48: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Counterintuitive conclusion 2: people who believe morality has only subjective existence are more likely to impose their morality on other people.
However the logic would be trivially valid with a clearly false conclusion if Subjective's kept quiet about fox hunting(or said 'it would be in mine and yours interest if..., I don't like...').
Sorry, I'm not following. Could you explain?
The argument needs to control for the number of moral prohibitions somebody has. It's more likely for historical reasons that a believer in objective morality will object to a wider range of specific behaviours, whereas a believer in subjective morality will tend to object on more general principles.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Moral objectivists believe it's impossible.
Sorry - this should be 'those who believe it's impossible are moral objectivists'. There are positions believing that morality has objective existence who think that the separation can be made. (Intuitionists and Kantians, for example.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
The second isn't any form of morality, objective or subjective. The second is literal sociopathy. Conversations go a lot better if you don't go into them with the impression that the other side is quite literally mentally ill.
And the definition of "sociopathy" which you linked to is:
quote:
Sociopathy is the result of social conditioning which leads to a lack of natural human values. It refers strictly to a social condition where a person knows, yet has been socially conditioned to disregard, the intrinsic human values which are believed to be universal.
"natural human values"?
"the intrinsic human values which are believed to be universal"?
So you are a believer in objective morality after all!
Well I never.
And if you still deny this, then please could you explain what the hell "natural human values" and "universal intrinsic human values" are, if all morality is simply the product of the human mind?
Please tell me who decides which values should be "intrinsic" and "universal"?
Who speaks on behalf of the entire human race and imposes these values on everyone, in a world of subjective morality?
If someone decides that he thinks it is right to beat up his wife (as happens in Turkey, as irish_lord informed us), then in what sense is this practice not a legitimate moral value within subjective morality? You may think it's a result of mental illness, but that is just your subjective opinion, isn't it? How can you prove that this husband is "wrong" without appealing to some objective universal standard of morality that must exist external to any particular person's opinion??
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Objective morality involves an acknowledgement of universal human rights...
How do you figure? Where is that written? God seemed to show little concern for the human rights of anyone other than the Hebrews in the OT. Is God a fan of subjective morality?
At the risk of getting involved in a "text war", allow me to quote a couple of verses from the OT:
quote:
(God's promise to Abraham): "I will make you a great nation ... and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."
Genesis 12:2-3
And...
quote:
(When the Jews were in captivity in Babylon): "And seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the LORD for it; for in its peace you will have peace."
Jeremiah 29:7
And if you feel tempted to retort that God executed judgments on these other nations, then perhaps you may consider that that is precisely because these nations were morally responsible in the sight in God - in other words, the whole world operated according to the same moral code, hence the legitimacy of God's judgments.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
How can you prove that this husband is "wrong" without appealing to some objective universal standard of morality that must exist external to any particular person's opinion??
This thread is going round in circles. You're still stuck on the idea that without some objective universal standard we cannot set laws to govern our society, but I've already answered that argument back on page 2.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
natural human values"?
"the intrinsic human values which are believed to be universal"?
So you are a believer in objective morality after all!
Well I never.
And if you still deny this, then please could you explain what the hell "natural human values" and "universal intrinsic human values" are, if all morality is simply the product of the human mind?
You have a nervous system, don't you? If I prick you will you not bleed? If I hit you will you not be in pain? These are natural and pretty much universal. As is not wanting to be in pain.
These are objective facts, and our response to seeing others experience them is subjective. Subjective by a definition that isn't your completely incoherent mess that would rely on us not actually being able to look at reality to remain subjective.
What you are continually avoiding is that this is an argument between two different frames of reference and understanding. And what I have been saying throughout is that your definition of "subjective" is quite literally incoherent.
Under your definition of subjective and objective, to be subjective you need to deny you know anything, even reality. Your subjectivists are incoherent. To remain subjective about a performance they need to ignore the facts of that performance itself. I therefore reject your definition as meaningless.
Under mine there is a meaningful distinction and I can point to people who fit the description of objective morality. People who follow "objective morality" normally have Deontological Ethics -
"the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules." Two people in the same situation under a system of objective morality will consider exactly the same thing to be right because the moral thing is always to follow the rules which can be written down and pointed to.
Your morality under my definitions is subjective because you do not have such a set of external rules you can point to. On the other hand a significant subset of Roman Catholics follow deontological ethics. (I've been told on these boards that Roman Catholic ethics are deontological, period).
Shorter me:
Under your definitions:
Objective Morality: The belief that there is anything
Subjective Morality: The belief we can't even talk to each other
I think even Creosus would agree that the world exists and that pain is bad. You have defined subjective morality to be almost meaningless. And are then wondering what the point of holding it is.
Under my definitions:
Objective Morality: You can point to an external source that will tell you what is moral
Subjective Morality: You have to do the best you can under guidelines you and others have worked out
And I can point to people with an objective morality.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
You're still stuck on the idea that without some objective universal standard we cannot set laws to govern our society...
I never said any such thing!
Of course, a subjective moralist can set laws. A group of people can subjectively decide to agree on a set of principles and frame them as laws.
Trouble is... what if some people don't agree with those laws?
The lawgivers can only tell those people that they are "wrong" by using the following definition of "wrong": What fails to conform to our opinion.
So such laws are therefore imposed without any reference to any kind of objective standard of morality. So this goes back to one of my earlier points: Might is Right under subjective morality.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
You have a nervous system, don't you? If I prick you will you not bleed? If I hit you will you not be in pain? These are natural and pretty much universal. As is not wanting to be in pain.
The moral point you are making from this observation is nonsensical. If morality is based on the avoidance of pain, then we would not require anyone to go out to work - especially jobs of a necessary but onerous nature; we would have no justice system; there would no discipline of any kind anywhere (and I am not necessarily talking about corporal punishment, because any discipline involves a certain degree of pain); there would few medical procedures. Most sports would be banned at schools...
But I suppose you could argue that it's OK to kill unborn babies, because some wise head somewhere probably reckons they don't feel pain. (/ despair)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
You're still stuck on the idea that without some objective universal standard we cannot set laws to govern our society...
I never said any such thing!
Of course, a subjective moralist can set laws. A group of people can subjectively decide to agree on a set of principles and frame them as laws.
Trouble is... what if some people don't agree with those laws?
The lawgivers can only tell those people that they are "wrong" by using the following definition of "wrong": What fails to conform to our opinion.
So such laws are therefore imposed without any reference to any kind of objective standard of morality. So this goes back to one of my earlier points: Might is Right under subjective morality.
You keep saying this as if we're all supposed to respond with "Gasp! NO!"
The State enforces its laws by various means of force. Yes. And?
When some people don't agree with those laws, conflict arises. Yes. And?
If the conflict is severe enough, the State may resort to overt force to quell the dissent. Yes.
None of this is especially revelatory or shocking. It's what actually happens. From the existence of a police force onwards, there are mechanisms that authority uses to enforce compliance with its laws.
[ 23. July 2012, 11:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo
You keep saying this as if we're all supposed to respond with "Gasp! NO!"
If you say so, orfeo.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
You're still stuck on the idea that without some objective universal standard we cannot set laws to govern our society...
I never said any such thing!
Of course, a subjective moralist can set laws. A group of people can subjectively decide to agree on a set of principles and frame them as laws.
Trouble is... what if some people don't agree with those laws?
The lawgivers can only tell those people that they are "wrong" by using the following definition of "wrong": What fails to conform to our opinion.
So such laws are therefore imposed without any reference to any kind of objective standard of morality. So this goes back to one of my earlier points: Might is Right under subjective morality.
And as Might is Right is an objective standard, subjective morality is always objective. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
But show me your objective standard of morality. Line by line. Or are you saying that you have a subjective standard of morality and just can't understand why it works.
quote:
The moral point you are making from this observation is nonsensical. If morality is based on the avoidance of pain, then we would not require anyone to go out to work - especially jobs of a necessary but onerous nature; we would have no justice system;
No. Your hypersimplistic understanding is nonsensical. First that is a factor not the only factor. Second people would farm - starvation is painful. People would have a justice system - it's less painful than having certain unjust factors happen. People would build shelters and treat patients. Because the alternatives are painful. Likewise discipline. It is needed in part to prevent further pain.
quote:
But I suppose you could argue that it's OK to kill unborn babies, because some wise head somewhere probably reckons they don't feel pain. (/ despair)
For about the fourth time in this one thread, if you want to talk about abortion take it to Dead Horses.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's just that I don't know what you want us to do with the "Might is Right" proposition. All you're saying is that rules can be imposed upon people without their consent.
To me as a lawyer/legislative drafter, this is pretty much self-evident. There is a process for formulating laws and for changing laws, and it involves elections and political lobbying and so forth, but at the end of the day if you're on the losing side of that kind of argument, the law gets made over your personal objections.
And there is nothing in legal systems that recognises a kind of 'conscientious objection' right so that you can get a law to not apply to you on the grounds you don't agree with it. When the criminal law changes, the government doesn't do a mail-out with a return envelope asking "are you okay with this? Please tick Yes or No and we'll put it on your file". There is one statute book in a jurisdiction that sets out the rules for everyone in that jurisdiction.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
But show me your objective standard of morality. Line by line. Or are you saying that you have a subjective standard of morality and just can't understand why it works.
If "subjective" simply describes "what an individual believes to be true", then of course my morality could be described as "subjective". In the same way, my belief that the earth is not flat is also "subjective". In fact, the entire content of human cognition is subjective, according to that definition - including the word "objective".
But I am using the term "subjective" to denote ideas that cannot exist in any form outside of any human mind (and by "human mind" I include all humanly devised information storage and retrieval systems, such as books, computers etc.). In other words, the ideas have originated in the human mind.
Of course, it is true (within my view of reality) that an idea can exist both in the human mind and outside it (i.e. in the mind of God). So therefore it can be "subjective - objective" (using the term "subjective" in the definition of my first paragraph above).
Now it seems to me that the philosophical naturalist also affirms objective ideas, but he would define those as ideas which are confirmed by nature: what works within the external physical world. Hence the claims of science. If this is not true, then, of course, the claims of science are nonsense.
Now you seem to be promoting a form of morality which is "objective" in the naturalistic sense. You seem to be suggesting that our morality should be based on the principle of the avoidance of pain, even if there is an unavoidable trade off between different levels of pain. This is based on the natural functioning of the human nervous system.
Even if this principle could be considered "objective" from a natural point of view, I fail to see how it could possibly cover every moral eventuality. Take freedom of speech and psychological pain. What a Christian or an atheist says, for example, could cause pain to certain people hearing these views. We could argue that freedom of speech trumps the inflicting of psychological pain, on the basis that censorship causes pain. But how would we measure the greater pain? What standard is used to judge whether the pain of having one's beliefs derided is greater or less than the pain of censorship? Clearly that standard is entirely arbitrary.
So your idea of "what works" based on the pain principle is entirely subjective, and therefore unworkable, other than by fiat of authority.
But it is clear from this thread that we see the need for some concept of universal values. Nature cannot provide these, so it follows that we need a worldview which can provide them. The reason why certain "subjective" moral principles work is precisely because they are grounded in a higher moral reality. That is why many Christians argue that our moral sense is evidence for God (but... and this is extremely important... that is not the same as saying that unbelievers have no moral sense. In fact, that is the very opposite of what is being said.)
As for abortion... yes, I understand the policy of the Ship re DH. All I can do therefore is leave the matter with you. This is a vitally important issue which calls into question the integrity of atheistic morality, and appealing to internal procedure to pretend it isn't is rather bad form, in my view. Of course, we could discuss it in DH, but are we really up for swimming in that never ending whirlpool?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
That is why many Christians argue that our moral sense is evidence for God (but... and this is extremely important... that is not the same as saying that unbelievers have no moral sense. In fact, that is the very opposite of what is being said.)
Yes - I agree with this statement 100%
But, once again, what practical value does it have? No-one can be sure what the mind of God is on morality - especially in the grey areas (and there are many, many more grey areas than the DH you keep sneaking into the discussion)
So we still have to go with what the majority believes to be right.
Don't we?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So we still have to go with what the majority believes to be right.
Don't we?
All moral change in society starts with somebody doing something that the majority doesn't yet believe to be right, or protesting at something that the majority doesn't yet believe to be wrong.
(Also, which majority? Humanity, nation state, local community?)
There's a comparison with change in scientific doctrine. Experiments that have been universally (among practicing scientists) truly and decisively refuted a theory or decided between two theories have been vanishingly rare. Scientific change happens because people change their minds for a variety of reasons. And such things as the interests of people funding scientific research, control over scientific journals, and so on, have a great influence over which theories are accepted. Nevertheless, one would think that something of the point of scientific enquiry would be loss if we decided to talk about scientific theories as if the interests of the people who fund them was all that determined which ones were accepted.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, a subjective moralist can set laws. A group of people can subjectively decide to agree on a set of principles and frame them as laws.
Trouble is... what if some people don't agree with those laws?
Then they can lobby, argue, cajole and otherwise try to persuade society to change the laws. And if they can make a good and persuasive enough case for their beliefs then they will succeed.
But what happens under an objective system of law? If you define your laws as being true regardless of what anyone happens to believe, then you are ruling out the possibility of someone who disagrees being able to change them.
So I'm going to turn the question round and ask you: what if some people don't agree with those objective laws? What happens to them then?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, a subjective moralist can set laws. A group of people can subjectively decide to agree on a set of principles and frame them as laws.
Trouble is... what if some people don't agree with those laws?
Then they can lobby, argue, cajole and otherwise try to persuade society to change the laws. And if they can make a good and persuasive enough case for their beliefs then they will succeed.
But what happens under an objective system of law? If you define your laws as being true regardless of what anyone happens to believe, then you are ruling out the possibility of someone who disagrees being able to change them.
So I'm going to turn the question round and ask you: what if some people don't agree with those objective laws? What happens to them then?
Can someone just clarify. Is the argument in this thread "Morality is not subjective" or is it "life would be unfair if morality were subjective"?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Then they can lobby, argue, cajole and otherwise try to persuade society to change the laws. And if they can make a good and persuasive enough case for their beliefs then they will succeed.
Define what you mean by "good and persuasive". What would such people appeal to, if there is no objectively valid rationale to appeal to?
quote:
But what happens under an objective system of law? If you define your laws as being true regardless of what anyone happens to believe, then you are ruling out the possibility of someone who disagrees being able to change them.
So I'm going to turn the question round and ask you: what if some people don't agree with those objective laws? What happens to them then?
You're asking the wrong person, because I have already explained that this is not my understanding of objective morality. Therefore your comment is a straw man.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If "subjective" simply describes "what an individual believes to be true", then of course my morality could be described as "subjective".
Newsflash: Unless you can point to a literal list of rules that could be read by a third party who would, if he followed those rules, come to exactly the same moral conclusions you did then your morality is subjective.
quote:
But I am using the term "subjective" to denote ideas that cannot exist in any form outside of any human mind (and by "human mind" I include all humanly devised information storage and retrieval systems, such as books, computers etc.). In other words, the ideas have originated in the human mind.
In short you are making up your own definitions. And given you are making up your own definitions no wonder you are projecting things.
quote:
Of course, it is true (within my view of reality) that an idea can exist both in the human mind and outside it (i.e. in the mind of God).
In the mind of God from my perspective would not be functionally different from in a human mind if God actually existed. So you're creating a distinction without a difference. Further, as God is a completely sucky communicator, it is irrelevant to us on earth.
That is unless you are going all out and saying that the only basis for morality is following what God says is good.
quote:
Even if this principle could be considered "objective" from a natural point of view, I fail to see how it could possibly cover every moral eventuality.
When you can show me that your God has literally given you doccuments covering every possible moral eventuality this will be a distinction with a difference. Until then you are in exactly the same position.
quote:
As for abortion... yes, I understand the policy of the Ship re DH. All I can do therefore is leave the matter with you.
No. All you can do is abide by the policy. Rather than knowing that I won't respond to your attempt to derail the thread here attempt to use what you consider a massacre to score some cheap rhetorical points. Or is this a civil disobedience campaign to attempt to get the policy changed?
If you want to take up abortion as an issue, we have Dead Horses. If not, why do you persistently and willfully keep bringing it up outside Dead Horses? (If the Ship had a report button I would be using it).
And @Dafyd, there's one thing we can agree on in this thread anyway. "All moral change in society starts with somebody doing something that the majority doesn't yet believe to be right, or protesting at something that the majority doesn't yet believe to be wrong."
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Then they can lobby, argue, cajole and otherwise try to persuade society to change the laws. And if they can make a good and persuasive enough case for their beliefs then they will succeed.
Define what you mean by "good and persuasive". What would such people appeal to, if there is no objectively valid rationale to appeal to?
Again? They would appeal to whatever shared moral assumptions they happen to have.
Go on, ask what happens if there are absolutely no shared moral assumptions at all. We haven't had that part of this discussion for at least a day...
quote:
You're asking the wrong person, because I have already explained that this is not my understanding of objective morality. Therefore your comment is a straw man.
Perhaps, but I'm struggling to see how your definition of objective morality isn't, in fact, subjective. In practice if not by definition.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
Can someone just clarify. Is the argument in this thread "Morality is not subjective" or is it "life would be unfair if morality were subjective"?
Of course life would not be "unfair" if morality were subjective, because "unfair" would then be defined in whatever way people liked. "Fair" would simply describe the morality of the day. So for those who, as per Godwin's Law, should not be mentioned, killing the members of a certain race is "fair". This is what "subjective morality" means. If that is not the case, then morality is not subjective, but defined by an objective standard of fairness. And then we would need to ask how this concept of "fairness" is justified.
As for this thread, I think it's a matter of taking from it what you will. As for me, given that I am responsible for the OP, I am trying to make the point that if morality is subjective - and believed to be subjective - then protesting against other people's morality is absurd. Even those who are trying to defend subjective morality are talking as though morality is anything but, because they are assuming a moral rationale to which we can appeal and around which we can come to a consensus.
In fact, I would like to ask Marvin and Justinian how they define the word "fairness" and with what justification.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
Newsflash: Unless you can point to a literal list of rules that could be read by a third party who would, if he followed those rules, come to exactly the same moral conclusions you did then your morality is subjective.
Well thank goodness for that! At last we're getting somewhere. You acknowledge that my morality is objective, because there are millions of people who agree that it is wrong to commit murder, adultery, to exploit others, to steal etc etc.
It seems that there is an objective basis to morality after all.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
But I am using the term "subjective" to denote ideas that cannot exist in any form outside of any human mind (and by "human mind" I include all humanly devised information storage and retrieval systems, such as books, computers etc.). In other words, the ideas have originated in the human mind.
In short you are making up your own definitions. And given you are making up your own definitions no wonder you are projecting things.
Subjective: 1. belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered. 2. of, relating to, or emanating from a person's emotions, prejudices, etc. 3. relating to the inherent nature of a person or thing; essential. 4. existing only as perceived and not as a thing in itself. (Collins)
In other words, subjective ideas are not valid outside the perception of the thinking subject.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Of course, it is true (within my view of reality) that an idea can exist both in the human mind and outside it (i.e. in the mind of God).
In the mind of God from my perspective would not be functionally different from in a human mind if God actually existed. So you're creating a distinction without a difference.
Well clearly there is an objective difference between the perfect mind of the creator of the whole universe, and fallible human minds. In fact, without this perfect mind there is no basis to rationality at all, it being merely a subjective emergent property of an entirely materialistic, and therefore mindless, process.
quote:
Further, as God is a completely sucky communicator, it is irrelevant to us on earth.
It takes two for communication to succeed.
quote:
That is unless you are going all out and saying that the only basis for morality is following what God says is good.
Given that God is the creator of our rationality, then there can actually be no concept of "good" contrary to the mind of God. It's not about arbitrary definitions; it's about the nature of something called "reality".
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Even if this principle could be considered "objective" from a natural point of view, I fail to see how it could possibly cover every moral eventuality.
When you can show me that your God has literally given you doccuments covering every possible moral eventuality this will be a distinction with a difference. Until then you are in exactly the same position.
"Documents covering every possible moral eventuality"?? Where the hell did that straw man argument come from? You really have a very strange view of God. No wonder you don't believe in him. In fact neither do I believe in such a "God". In case it hadn't occurred to you, God is the creator of the human mind, which he expects us to use in concert with the moral conscience he has also given to us. (There is also the influence of the Holy Spirit, but since you're an atheist, it's pointless trying to talk about that.)
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Etymological Evangelical
As for abortion... yes, I understand the policy of the Ship re DH. All I can do therefore is leave the matter with you.
No. All you can do is abide by the policy. Rather than knowing that I won't respond to your attempt to derail the thread here attempt to use what you consider a massacre to score some cheap rhetorical points. Or is this a civil disobedience campaign to attempt to get the policy changed?
I am abiding by the policy, which is why I wrote "I will leave the matter with you". What is it about those words that you don't understand?
In fact, it might be a good idea if you also decided to abide by the policy, given that you have included some commentary on what you think my view of abortion is, hence you are discussing a DH subject here. Naughty naughty.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
