Is morality objective or subjective?

[Atla]

Our distant ancestors weren't very good at hand-to-hand combat against lions and wolves and rhinos etc. And if the tribes keep dying, eventually the species dies, so humans evolved the tribal morality to increase the survival and well-being of the tribe. Which is, again, probably the origin of today's human morality obviously.

Not at all obvious. What serves the fittest is not letting himself die for the tribe, to which he owes (morally: "oughts") nothing anyway, but making sure he gets ahead...which is what evolution "wants" or causes to happen anyway.

The whole point is that survival itself isn't a moral imperative either, hence there's no reason to believe in objective morality.

That's assumptive, of course...not proven.

You're right that survival isn't a moral imperative, and nothing else is, either...unless God objectively has ordered it so. But the question begged is, "Does God exist?"

Again, "survival of the fittest" also means "survival of the tribe" and "survival of the species". We are here now, so we didn't go extinct by killing each other back in Africa.

If only God can save the idea of objective morality, than perhaps that idea isn't very likely to be correct. Although I think the universe could also be inherently moral without a God, anything is possible. We just don't see a good enough reason to believe in either of these possibilities.

[Immanuel Can]

Again, "survival of the fittest" also means "survival of the tribe" and "survival of the species". We are here now, so we didn't go extinct by killing each other back in Africa.

It doesn't, actually.

Survival just means "survival," on any terms possible to the individual. After that, the mechanics of evolution simply take care of everything: whoever dies, dies, whoever lives, lives. Evolution has no special reservation for "tribes" or "species" that it does not have for "individuals." It's equally indifferent to all, and to whatever happens.

If only God can save the idea of objective morality, than perhaps that idea isn't very likely to be correct.

That's assumptive, again. It would only be a problem if we were certain that God doesn't exist. And are we? How did we get certain? Maybe we'd better see what evidence would make us feel certain, our our certainty could be unwarranted.

And if we make a mistake about that, we could end up afoul not only of morality, but of the God who gave it to us. If the Atheists are right, then nothing serious follows if we choose to believe in morality anyway, or even if we choose to believe in God in spite of Atheism. Nothing's left to care what we do, one way or the other, so long as it suits us until we die.

But if they're wrong...

[Atla]

It doesn't, actually.

Survival just means "survival," on any terms possible to the individual. After that, the mechanics of evolution simply take care of everything: whoever dies, dies, whoever lives, lives. Evolution has no special reservation for "tribes" or "species" that it does not have for "individuals." It's equally indifferent to all, and to whatever happens.

Nonsense - the planet is full of social species. Just take ants or bees for example. Survival of ONLY the individual?

That's assumptive, again. It would only be a problem if we were certain that God doesn't exist. And are we? How did we get certain? Maybe we'd better see what evidence would make us feel certain, our our certainty could be unwarranted.

And if we make a mistake about that, we could end up afoul not only of morality, but of the God who gave it to us. If the Atheists are right, then nothing serious follows if we choose to believe in morality anyway, or even if we choose to believe in God in spite of Atheism. Nothing's left to care what we do, one way or the other, so long as it suits us until we die.

But if they're wrong...

Nothing is certain. Maybe God exists and will send all theists to hell, for believing in him without evidence. Maybe God hates such cowardice.

[Harbal]

I'm sure that when we exercise our moral judgement, and act upon it, we all experience the same emotional and psychological effect, regardless of where our moral sensibilities come from.

That's plausible. But it's also trivial. That we have a particular "feeling" doesn't mean that "feeling" is right, or even that it corresponds to reality. When we were children, we "felt" that a bad man was hiding under the bed at night, and the "feeling" was perhaps powerful to us. But it was also untrue...we hope.

My point is only that having a "feeling" doesn't make something moral. It doesn't even make it necessarily realistic.

I think morality is purely a matter of personal feeling, that's what makes it morality, otherwise it is just a rule following process, and no matter how morally authoritative you insist the rule maker is, no one has to agree with you.

[Immanuel Can]

It doesn't, actually.

Survival just means "survival," on any terms possible to the individual. After that, the mechanics of evolution simply take care of everything: whoever dies, dies, whoever lives, lives. Evolution has no special reservation for "tribes" or "species" that it does not have for "individuals." It's equally indifferent to all, and to whatever happens.

Nonsense - the planet is full of social species. Just take ants or bees for example. Survival of ONLY the individual?

Nobody said that. What I said was that evolution does not prevent tribal extinction anymore than it prevents individual extinction. It's totally indifferent to either. Evolution has no opinions about what outcomes "should" happen. Whatever happens, just happens.

Nothing is certain. Maybe God exists and will send all theists to hell, for believing in him without evidence. Maybe God hates such cowardice.

Well, I never recommend belief without evidence, nor should anybody. However, it would be funny "cowardice" if people believed in a God AND He exists. That would rather seem wise.

But it might be cowardice if He does exist and somebody refused even to entertain the possibility.

[Immanuel Can]

I think morality is purely a matter of personal feeling, that's what makes it morality, otherwise it is just a rule following process, and no matter how morally authoritative you insist the rule maker is, no one has to agree with you.

But "feelings" are vapours. They come and they go. Different people have different ones." They don't mean much, unless they're anchored to facts. Me having the "feeling" I want your Ferrari doesn't justify me stealing it from you, and doesn't make my theft "moral." I suspect you'd have quite different "feelings," if I did that.

"No one has to agree with you?" Well, if by "has" you only mean that oftentimes they can get away with doing differently, you're right...at least temporarily. I may get away with your Ferrari. But if by "has" you mean, "has a moral duty to," then I think that's the matter under discussion and debate at the moment, rather than a certainty we've established here.

[Atla]

Nobody said that. What I said was that evolution does not prevent tribal extinction anymore than it prevents individual extinction. It's totally indifferent to either. Evolution has no opinions about what outcomes "should" happen. Whatever happens, just happens.

I didn't claim anything of the sort. Evolution is just a part of the way the world has taken from a simpler state such as the Big Bang to present-day humanity. It's just how it happened. There is this popular delusion though that evolution is somehow "driven".

[Harbal]

I think morality is purely a matter of personal feeling, that's what makes it morality, otherwise it is just a rule following process, and no matter how morally authoritative you insist the rule maker is, no one has to agree with you.

But "feelings" are vapours. They come and they go. Different people have different ones." They don't mean much, unless they're anchored to facts. Me having the "feeling" I want your Ferrari doesn't justify me stealing it from you, and doesn't make my theft "moral." I suspect you'd have quite different "feelings," if I did that.

"No one has to agree with you?" Well, if by "has" you only mean that oftentimes they can get away with doing differently, you're right...at least temporarily. I may get away with your Ferrari. But if by "has" you mean, "has a moral duty to," then I think that's the matter under discussion and debate at the moment, rather than a certainty we've established here.

If feelings are vapours, then so are beliefs. Your belief in God could evaporate tomorrow, then where would you be morality wise? It's happened to others, and there's no guarantee it won't happen to you. If it did happen, I'm sure you wouldn't start stealing Ferraris, would you?

[Immanuel Can]

There is this popular delusion though that evolution is somehow "driven".

Yes. It's an anthropomorphization of evolution, as if "Evolution" were a god that superintends the things that happens, making sure only the good things survive and only the bad ones die.

A crazy idea indeed...but when one thinks one has banished God, one always finds a substitute, it seems, something else around which to organize life-projects and to secure one's confidence that things will somehow turn out as they should. So we can understand the human impulse toward that, even if we know it's nonsensical, given what evolution is supposed to be, scientifically.

[Immanuel Can]

If feelings are vapours, then so are beliefs.

Beliefs aren't feelings.

If you believe the sun will come up tomorrow, it's not because you just "feel" it will. Though, of course, you may. You have reasons.

Your belief in God could evaporate tomorrow, then where would you be morality wise? It's happened to others, and there's no guarantee it won't happen to you. If it did happen, I'm sure you wouldn't start stealing Ferraris, would you?

Honestly?

If I REALLY believed there were no God -- I mean, believed it in the way that people believe a thing when they act on it routinely -- I think my life would be very different than what it is. Common sense would tell me there was a lot I could get away with that I had perhaps been telling myself I could not; and since death ends all, and it's a massive tragedy if I'm not perfectly happy for one second of the precious life that's continually slipping away from me, I think I'd be inclined to review my moral commitments thoroughly.

I'm not afraid to do what I have to do to get ahead, if it comes to that. Why let any residual squeamishness turn one into a coward? It doesn't make sense. And I think I'd see the simple logic of that, and live accordingly....that is, if I REALLY believed there were no God.

And that's about as frank as I can be about that. But others might choose differently. They might choose to retain a belief in morality in spite of what they knew to be true, if only to prevent the chaos they feared might break out if they didn't, or because they were afraid to act boldly on what they genuinely believed to be true. If that were not what people would do, why are there so many Atheists who still insist on behaving in conventionally-moral ways? Doesn't their belief teach them that they don't need to do that, except when it's in their strategic interest?

[Harbal]

If feelings are vapours, then so are beliefs.

Beliefs aren't feelings.

If you believe the sun will come up tomorrow, it's not because you just "feel" it will. Though, of course, you may. You have reasons.

Your belief in God could evaporate tomorrow, then where would you be morality wise? It's happened to others, and there's no guarantee it won't happen to you. If it did happen, I'm sure you wouldn't start stealing Ferraris, would you?

Honestly?

If I REALLY believed there were no God -- I mean, believed it in the way that people believe a thing when they act on it routinely -- I think my life would be very different than what it is. Common sense would tell me there was a lot I could get away with that I had perhaps been telling myself I could not; and since death ends all, and it's a massive tragedy if I'm not perfectly happy for one second of the precious life that's continually slipping away from me, I think I'd be inclined to review my moral commitments thoroughly.

I'm not afraid to do what I have to do to get ahead, if it comes to that. Why let any residual squeamishness turn one into a coward? It doesn't make sense. And I think I'd see the simple logic of that, and live accordingly....that is, if I REALLY believed there were no God.

And that's about as frank as I can be about that. But others might choose differently. They might choose to retain a belief in morality in spite of what they knew to be true, if only to prevent the chaos they feared might break out if they didn't, or because they were afraid to act boldly on what they genuinely believed to be true. If that were not what people would do, why are there so many Atheists who still insist on behaving in conventionally-moral ways? Doesn't their belief teach them that they don't need to do that, except when it's in their strategic interest?

I only know that I feel it would be wrong to go stealing Ferraris, whereas you, it seems, only think it wrong because God says so. Well I don't believe in God, and couldn't even if I wanted to, so I must rely on myself to keep me from stealing expensive cars. It's not that I want to play God, but you leave me no choice.

[Atla]

If feelings are vapours, then so are beliefs. Your belief in God could evaporate tomorrow, then where would you be morality wise? It's happened to others, and there's no guarantee it won't happen to you. If it did happen, I'm sure you wouldn't start stealing Ferraris, would you?

You're talking to a guy with no conscience. Of course he would steal anything if he could get away with it, if his religion didn't get in the way.

[popeye1945]

All that is known is known subjectively, nothing is known outside of subjectivity. All experience/knowledge/meaning is subjective until the conscious subjective subject bestows meaning upon a meaningless world. That is the true meaning of Nihilism, when one knows that the physical world in the absence of a conscious SUBJECTIVE subject is utterly meaningless, and that consciousness is the measure and meaning of all things. Morality is bestowed from the subjective consciousness to the physical world in the forms of norms, rules, systems of behaviors' and institutions that uphold those sentiments, such as the law, constitutions and the churches. All of which are biological extensions of subjective consciousness.

[Immanuel Can]

I only know that I feel it would be wrong to go stealing Ferraris, whereas you, it seems, only think it wrong because God says so. Well I don't believe in God, and couldn't even if I wanted to, so I must rely on myself to keep me from stealing expensive cars. It's not that I want to play God, but you leave me no choice.

Well, if you ever changed your mind...why shouldn't you? Only your squeamishness is holding you back, because you believe there is no objective moral truth you are obligated to adhere to...

I appreciate your inconsistency: that even if you believe as an Atheist, you happen not to live as if Atheism were the truth.

[Immanuel Can]

All that is known is known subjectively, nothing is known outside of subjectivity. All experience/knowledge/meaning is subjective until the conscious subjective subject bestows meaning upon a meaningless world. That is the true meaning of Nihilism, when one knows that the physical world in the absence of a conscious SUBJECTIVE subject is utterly meaningless, and that consciousness is the measure and meaning of all things. Morality is bestowed from the subjective consciousness to the physical world in the forms of norms, rules, systems of behaviors' and institutions that uphold those sentiments, such as the law, constitutions and the churches. All of which are biological extensions of subjective consciousness.

I'm sorry; you're confusing epistemology with ontology. A common mistake, but still a mistake.

Then you're confusing the assumed epistemology with morality. A second category error.

Just sayin'.