Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

Has anyone claimed that morality and atheism are connected?

Good question. And I think there's a reason why IC needs and wants to make the connection.

Yes, because, as he sees it, it makes it easier for him to make a sort of straw man out of it. If you notice, he is always trying to present atheism as some sort of belief system, and always capitalises the word as if to prove it. Then everything an atheist does, or thinks, is solely an act of defiance against God. He just doesn't get that common or garden atheism just means leading a life without thought, reference to, or interest in, God. He is determined to make atheism much more than that. And then he seems to think it all justifies the ridiculous situation of his trying to argue that we are not experiencing our experiences when we talk about morality.

The existence or non-existence of gods has nothing to do with morality - unless you believe that moral rightness and wrongness depend on your team's god: 'if my team's god doesn't exist, then there can be no morality - no rational distinction between moral rightness and wrongness'.

That this is a form of moral subjectivism goes without saying. Theistic moral objectivism is moral subjectivism pretending not to be. A person who thinks moral rightness and wrongness depend on any agent is, by definition, not a moral objectivist. If there are moral facts, then what anyone thinks about them is irrelevant.

So IC's moral argument amounts to a special pleading fallacy.

The failure of ontological arguments for the existence of any team's god means that theistic moral arguments don't even make it to the starting post. But if they did, they're disqualified anyway.

In my understanding of what morality is, it has to be subjective; if it were not, it wouldn't be morality. Morality is about what you feel to be right and wrong, not what some authority or other tells you is right and wrong.

Agreed, by and large. But I think there are more and less rational arguments for moral opinions - even if they are just opinions. In other words, we can usually explain why we think something is morally right or wrong - and the reasons we give are the substance of moral discussions and disagreements.

But yep - 'this is morally right/wrong because X says it is' has no place in a rational moral discussion. That kind of appeal to authority is as fallacious in moral argument as it is in any other kind.

[Harbal]

we can usually explain why we think something is morally right or wrong

Yes, but the principles we base our moral judgements on are as subjective as the judgements themselves. You could base your moral judgement on the "golden rule" type of principle, or you might simply be guided by empathy, where you simply hate to see anyone suffering what you know from personal experience to be emotional or physical adversity. These principles cannot be tested against any objective measure for soundness; their value lies solely in the estimation of those who hold to them. And the point is, it works. We don't all go around stealing from each other, or cheating on our partners at every opportunity, and even though we don't have any rational argument for sticking to our principles, we generally do. IC knows this perfectly well, but his dogmatism will never allow him to acknowledge it.

and the reasons we give are the substance of moral discussions and disagreements.

And that is why IC claims our reasons are invalid; simply because the are subject to disagreement. That argument is absurd, of course, but, for some reason, we are still foolish enough to engage with him on the matter, thus dignifying his ludicrous assertions with a response.

[Iwannaplato]

And that is why IC claims our reasons are invalid; simply because the are subject to disagreement.

Yes, he's probably noticed that his reasons are subject to disagreement...from atheists, from agnostics, from other theists.

[Peter Holmes]

we can usually explain why we think something is morally right or wrong

Yes, but the principles we base our moral judgements on are as subjective as the judgements themselves. You could base your moral judgement on the "golden rule" type of principle, or you might simply be guided by empathy, where you simply hate to see anyone suffering what you know from personal experience to be emotional or physical adversity. These principles cannot be tested against any objective measure for soundness; their value lies solely in the estimation of those who hold to them. And the point is, it works. We don't all go around stealing from each other, or cheating on our partners at every opportunity, and even though we don't have any rational argument for sticking to our principles, we generally do. IC knows this perfectly well, but his dogmatism will never allow him to acknowledge it.

and the reasons we give are the substance of moral discussions and disagreements.

And that is why IC claims our reasons are invalid; simply because the are subject to disagreement. That argument is absurd, of course, but, for some reason, we are still foolish enough to engage with him on the matter, thus dignifying his ludicrous assertions with a response.

Again, agreed. At the end or bottom of any moral argument, there's always a moral judgement, which is subjective.

What I'm trying to get at is this. I want to say that there are better reasons for having, maybe, kindness as a moral principle or value, rather than unkindness. I know there's no fact of the matter - and that 'better than' is nothing more than another subjective valuation.

But I think there are reasons for why human communities have developed moral principles and values - and have often widened their scope to include out-groupers and even some non-human species - so that the 'feeling' you appeal to as the foundation for moral judgements doesn't come from nowhere.

In other words, I don't think moral subjectivity entails some kind of radical moral autonomy, of the kind that IC projects onto atheists. As social animals, our subjectivity is, as it were, collective.

Sorry - just groping for this.

[Harbal]

What I'm trying to get at is this. I want to say that there are better reasons for having, maybe, kindness as a moral principle or value, rather than unkindness. I know there's no fact of the matter - and that 'better than' is nothing more than another subjective valuation.

Well, there is a practical, logical -and even selfish- reason to treat others with kindness, I suppose. We all want to be treated with kindness, and the best way to bring that about is to treat others with kindness in the hope that they will reciprocate. And that is what happens most of the time; I open a door for someone who is struggling with two or three bags of shopping, and they smile and say thank you, and we are both left with a feeling of good will towards each other. Only a small, trivial thing, I know, but it makes us feel good, and that is reason enough to continue doing it.

But perhaps the better reasons you are looking for need to be bigger, and more significant, than my example.

But I think there are reasons for why human communities have developed moral principles and values - and have often widened their scope to include out-groupers and even some non-human species - so that the 'feeling' you appeal to as the foundation for moral judgements doesn't come from nowhere.

Our success as a species is undoubtedly due to our intelligence, but it seems to me that we would not have done nearly so much with that intelligence were it not for our capacity for creating sophisticated social structures that would not be able to function without a human nature that includes a sense of morality. Our achievements are built on cooperation, and it is difficult to successfully collaborate with people who treat you with total disrespect. It makes sense to me that a sense of morality has been naturally selected into us during the course of our evolution.

We are born with a potential for moral sensibility, but it is not pre-programmed with any content; we mainly absorb that from our social environment. I suppose what we direct our moral attitudes towards (only those of our own group, outsiders, other animals, etc.) is a matter of our influences.

In other words, I don't think moral subjectivity entails some kind of radical moral autonomy, of the kind that IC projects onto atheists. As social animals, our subjectivity is, as it were, collective.

Yes, it is no coincidence that the members of any particular society, at any given time in history, tend to hold similar moral values, which is probably the biggest argument for dismissing moral objectivity. If slavery were objectively wrong, how could any society of people have ever thought it okay? A group of subjective opinions that happen to broadly coincide does not somehow bring about objectivity.

[FlashDangerpants]

What I'm trying to get at is this. I want to say that there are better reasons for having, maybe, kindness as a moral principle or value, rather than unkindness. I know there's no fact of the matter - and that 'better than' is nothing more than another subjective valuation.

Suppose evolution had gone a different way and the equivalent of humans had evolved from sharks or tigers...

We come more or less directly from a set of moneys that formed intricate, competitively hiearchical, social groups with a strong emphasis on collective action, loyalty and cooperation. Survival within those troupes required the knowing of one's place, but to thrive (and pass on genes) they would need to be ambitious for a higher status.

A society of non-simian people might evolve instead from some pack hunting predator that doesn't form intricate social hiearchies, all they do is keep the strongest males around and evict the weaker ones. Millions of years later, two legged creatures with really sharp teeth and claws have a modern society based on honour and the duty of the strong. Aside from that they have broadly similar society to us, except with tails. The modern technologicval society needs subservient males for its workforce, so the old practice of expelling them is no longer tolerated, some countries have applied the same sort of rationale to allow females of lower status (those with 6 or fewer nipples) to leave the harem and work in female appropriate workplaces (butchers and brothels).

What's different? They can have all the same basics of moral reason as any simian human society, but they have completely different wants because evolution fashioned them from a different ecological niche than the one that it crapped humanity from. My point here is that the moral judgments aren't the basic component of morality, they are the outputs of a system. Practical reason is about choosing what to do about a problem or about a want.

Anyone trying to manufacture a system of morality starting with rules, or principles, or even virtues has got the cart front side of the horse. What we want is a whole bunch of things, we all want to feel good, we all want agency and freedom, we all want to have the most/best stuff, and we all want a fair share of the stuff. Those desires don't match. They just don't add up to a coherent moral framework, to satisfy one desire is almost always to frustrate another. But that's sort of ok, they are inputs to the system, not outputs.

Because we are of simian derivation, we are pre-configured to trade for and between those things which we desire. Social contracts and all that stuff, where I give up some liberty to rob people in return for safety from getting my shit stolen.

Were we members of the shark genus, we might not be so configured, we would have some sort of contest where the winner gets what he wants and the loser gets what he deserves and that would be justice to us. For that society, talk of kindness is weakness, and weakness is disgusting, to choose to be weak is evil, there's probably a God who says so, if you annoy him you get nailed to two planks of wood. His symbol is actually those two planks of punishment for the unholy weak. A more scientific moral take they have is that kindness is a form of weakness that is contrary to evolutionary best practice and the inherent oughtness of the brain to constantly seek out prey in both food and social terms.

The whole "oughtnesses" thing VA does may be total bullshit, but the brain stuff is relatively true. We are built and pre-ordained to desire certain things appropriate to a cooperative monkey that fears for his place in a confusing society. Kindness is one of those things, and while it could have been otherwise given the fickle attitudes of nature, we should probably be glad it went that way.

[Immanuel Can]

This is a philosophy-Forum and the protocol and default is, those who make positive claims has the onus to prove their claim.

Then the Atheist should stop short of saying, "God doesn't exist," and stop at, .."In my limited experience, I know nothing of God."

But how many Atheists do you know who are happy to be that modest and honest? Certainly not any of the well-known ones. And not any here, it would seem.

Not too sure of your point.

Better reread, then. It's pretty obvious.

Atheism doesn't warrant any stronger claim. Honest Atheism has to be just a personal confession of ignorance -- it can't be more, without requiring evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

No flaws, we simply do not believe you, by the way,...

And yet, I can prove it to you beyond any reasonable doubt. I can prove Atheism isn't just "flawed," but is totally useless for morality.

All I have to do is ask you to give me one moral precept...just one...that is grounded in Atheism, and if you can do it, you win. If you can't...

You can't.

Has anyone claimed that morality and atheism are connected?

Yes. Peter, for example, thinks that morality can be in some sense real, while being merely "subjective." Of course, he's oblivious to what a contradiction that is: it's like saying, "There's a duty that isn't a duty." For "moral" implies "intersubjectively binding (or "something we all are committed by", something "universal"), and "subjective" implies "not binding at all."

So yes, there are definitely irrational and inconsistent Atheists, when the subject of morality comes up. And I'm thankful that most Atheists are better than their Atheism, in that respect. I would rather they be inconsistent but objectively moral than that they should choose to act on Atheist subjectivism.

We all should be glad, actually.

[Harbal]

Has anyone claimed that morality and atheism are connected?

Yes. Peter, for example, thinks that morality can be in some sense real, while being merely "subjective."

It seems everyone other than you, apart from VA, who doesn't think it for entirely different reasons to yours, also thinks what Peter thinks. You are the one who is out of step. That doesn't mean you are wrong, of course; you are wrong for other reasons. But the fact is that none of us are saying that morality is subjective according to atheism. It would be a meaningless thing to say, anyway, as the only thing atheism says is that there isn't God. Morality is a driving force within us, as is love, hate, envy, and any other number of emotions. If you don't accept that subjective morality is real, you also have to dismiss those other things as not being real, which would include your supposed love of God. After all, it's just a feeling, right?

[Peter Holmes]

What I'm trying to get at is this. I want to say that there are better reasons for having, maybe, kindness as a moral principle or value, rather than unkindness. I know there's no fact of the matter - and that 'better than' is nothing more than another subjective valuation.

Suppose evolution had gone a different way and the equivalent of humans had evolved from sharks or tigers...

We come more or less directly from a set of moneys that formed intricate, competitively hiearchical, social groups with a strong emphasis on collective action, loyalty and cooperation. Survival within those troupes required the knowing of one's place, but to thrive (and pass on genes) they would need to be ambitious for a higher status.

A society of non-simian people might evolve instead from some pack hunting predator that doesn't form intricate social hiearchies, all they do is keep the strongest males around and evict the weaker ones. Millions of years later, two legged creatures with really sharp teeth and claws have a modern society based on honour and the duty of the strong. Aside from that they have broadly similar society to us, except with tails. The modern technologicval society needs subservient males for its workforce, so the old practice of expelling them is no longer tolerated, some countries have applied the same sort of rationale to allow females of lower status (those with 6 or fewer nipples) to leave the harem and work in female appropriate workplaces (butchers and brothels).

What's different? They can have all the same basics of moral reason as any simian human society, but they have completely different wants because evolution fashioned them from a different ecological niche than the one that it crapped humanity from. My point here is that the moral judgments aren't the basic component of morality, they are the outputs of a system. Practical reason is about choosing what to do about a problem or about a want.

Anyone trying to manufacture a system of morality starting with rules, or principles, or even virtues has got the cart front side of the horse. What we want is a whole bunch of things, we all want to feel good, we all want agency and freedom, we all want to have the most/best stuff, and we all want a fair share of the stuff. Those desires don't match. They just don't add up to a coherent moral framework, to satisfy one desire is almost always to frustrate another. But that's sort of ok, they are inputs to the system, not outputs.

Because we are of simian derivation, we are pre-configured to trade for and between those things which we desire. Social contracts and all that stuff, where I give up some liberty to rob people in return for safety from getting my shit stolen.

Were we members of the shark genus, we might not be so configured, we would have some sort of contest where the winner gets what he wants and the loser gets what he deserves and that would be justice to us. For that society, talk of kindness is weakness, and weakness is disgusting, to choose to be weak is evil, there's probably a God who says so, if you annoy him you get nailed to two planks of wood. His symbol is actually those two planks of punishment for the unholy weak. A more scientific moral take they have is that kindness is a form of weakness that is contrary to evolutionary best practice and the inherent oughtness of the brain to constantly seek out prey in both food and social terms.

The whole "oughtnesses" thing VA does may be total bullshit, but the brain stuff is relatively true. We are built and pre-ordained to desire certain things appropriate to a cooperative monkey that fears for his place in a confusing society. Kindness is one of those things, and while it could have been otherwise given the fickle attitudes of nature, we should probably be glad it went that way.

I think this all makes sense. What we call morality - moral rightness and wrongness/good and evil - comes from our biological and (arguably) social evolution as a species. Which could have been different, and may easily not have happened at all.

Is that a fair summary?

[iambiguous]

So yes, there are definitely irrational and inconsistent Atheists, when the subject of morality comes up. And I'm thankful that most Atheists are better than their Atheism, in that respect. I would rather they be inconsistent but objectively moral than that they should choose to act on Atheist subjectivism.

Again, what is missing here is a context. Rational/irrational, moral/immoral, consistent/inconsistent in regard to what set of circumstances?

Then the part where those on a religious path -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- note what they construe the proper distinction to be, and those on a secular path -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies -- note what they construe the proper distinction to be.

And then, finally, those here participating in a philosophy forum. Those on one of these -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy -- paths weighing in on the role that philosophy might play in pinning down the most rational and virtuous behaviors given that set of circumstances.



Of course, I have come to believe that until someone on one of these paths is able to convince me that their own convictions do in fact reflect an objective deontological assessment of the human conditions...one able to be demonstrated such that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace it...I'm still in the philosophical hole I've dug myself down into.

This one:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values I can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

I can only come here and ask those who are not down in that hole themselves to note for me why, in regard to a set of circumstances involving "conflicting goods", they are not.

[FlashDangerpants]

I think this all makes sense. What we call morality - moral rightness and wrongness/good and evil - comes from our biological and (arguably) social evolution as a species. Which could have been different, and may easily not have happened at all.

Is that a fair summary?

Yes. A viable story can be told (before IC goes too wild, I am suggesting it is a sufficient one not at this stage a necessary one) in which the way in which humans evolved provides causal explanation for all of our most universifiable desires. Among the many universifiable desires we share, a subset are relevant in the formation of moral desires, and those are what provide us with our basic evaluative forms of moral life - everything from honour and kindness to honesty and fairness.

It would be just lovely if we could make a survey of all the things of this sort that we can find expressed by tribes that live up the Amazon, and the occupants of a mountain yurts in Kamchatka and take note of all the familair looking ones and just agree that now we have a map of all of morality. But sadly the collection to be unearthed will be shown to lack design or any natural hiearchy, and thus there cannot be found any harmony among them. So often justice is unfair, or fairness is unjust.

To steal a little from something I read in a Simon Blackburn book but cannot accurately quote without doing a shit ton of digging.... We use logic and reason to make sense of things, to keep track of what propositions we have committed to, and to maintain consistency between our future self who wants to commit to new propositions and our past self who already has committed to so many. There was some other stuff about being tied to a tree, iirc that's really about the consistency thing....

The reasoning that we construct for the purposes of holding consistent positions in the area of morality has all the normal conditionals. If p then q... if you are already committed to the principle that lies are wrong, then you will not lie. Or you can do a modus ponens if we you are naughty and want to really piss off anyone who gets confused by Frege: If slavery is wrong then I will not buy a slave, slavery is wrong - so I won't be doing that.

Unlike some other areas of logic though, the inputs are at war with each other. In what other realm of reason is everything always a controversy? We talk about moral realativism as the big bad because we want the right to say other societies are bad for tolerating or promoting that which we consider evil. But we don't have agreement within our own society about whether we should feed the hungry and shelter the homeless, we even have people - some of them on this forum - who have been known to recommend certain types of murder.

The people who take the awful positions on such matters always have the ability to express their beliefs in entirely logical terms. How that works is the subject of the next level of investigation though, which exceeds the remit of what I am trying to get across today.

What I've written in the last couple of posts generally supports any and all forms of moral antirealism, because the sole intent is to show that no reference to religion of any sort, nor any explcit attempt to uncover moral facts about the universe, is required to hold a working language and logic of morality that meets the standards of what we actually have available to us today and fulfils the functions of what we apes use our moral reason for in real life.

[Immanuel Can]

Has anyone claimed that morality and atheism are connected?

Yes. Peter, for example, thinks that morality can be in some sense real, while being merely "subjective."

It seems everyone other than you, apart from VA, who doesn't think it for entirely different reasons to yours, also thinks what Peter thinks.

Then that would just suggest a lot of people are wrong.

But the fact is that none of us are saying that morality is subjective according to atheism.

It has to be. What objective precept can the worldview premised on Atheism generate?

Morality is a driving force within us, as is love, hate, envy, and any other number of emotions.

So is sex, greed, violence...No light is shed on the moral situation by saying "there's a driving force for X in us."

Here's the Atheistic problem, in a nutshell. There are two cultures. One believes that rape is wrong. The other believes that rape a virtuous action that restores the honour of an offended family by giving them vengeance. These two cultures live in the same country -- yours.

To know which one of these cultures is doing evil, and which is doing something virtuous, we will have to judge them with reference to a third code of some kind, a code that transcends both, a universal and objective code.. But Atheism does not allow there to exist such a code: no entity exists capable of grounding a transcendent, universal moral code.

So now, which culture is doing the moral and virtuous thing, and which is doing the wicked thing? They can't both be doing the right thing, since it's the opposite thing. So which one will you pick, and on what basis that cannot immediately be dismissed as you simply being prejudiced in favour of your own culture?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Then the Atheist should stop short of saying, "God doesn't exist," and stop at, .."In my limited experience, I know nothing of God."

But how many Atheists do you know who are happy to be that modest and honest? Certainly not any of the well-known ones. And not any here, it would seem.

Not too sure of your point.

Better reread, then. It's pretty obvious.

Atheism doesn't warrant any stronger claim. Honest Atheism has to be just a personal confession of ignorance -- it can't be more, without requiring evidence.

Not in my case.

As a non-theist I have argued:
New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Do you have a counter to the above?

That God has to exists for theists is a psychological issue.
When this psychological issue is resolved, the person will be a non-theist.

The above approach have been adopted by Buddhism-proper since 2500 years ago.
Buddhism-proper [or its equivalent] is not adopted by the majority because Buddhism at present is too advanced for them due at their current psychological states.

It is trending at present [theism % reducing] where the average human is improving on his psychological spiritual state toward the future, whence they will be ready to give up theism for other non-theistic self development programs [not necessary Buddhism].

[Immanuel Can]

Not too sure of your point.

Better reread, then. It's pretty obvious.

Atheism doesn't warrant any stronger claim. Honest Atheism has to be just a personal confession of ignorance -- it can't be more, without requiring evidence.

Not in my case.

In every case of Atheism. If you're just an agnostic, then the problem is different, of course.