Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

Refer to his words on the matter

Like he is an authority.

Well, if you want to treat him as an authority - fine.

But he isn't.

Like I said - I'm parsimoniously re-using his work. Why multiply identical ideas beyond necessity?

You aren't stupid - you know that 2+2/2 has no definite answer unless an authority on operator precedence is chosen, so why are you acting stupid?

[Immanuel Can]

The source of authority for Theism is reality. Theism believes there's a God...

If you insist that your faith is a calculation, then you are simply doing the numbers wrong.

No, I wouldn't say so. How one does the numbers depends on the data one provides for oneself. If a person does not really investigate, he's got access to limited data; and from that limited data, he may conclude he knows all there is to know, and the probability calculation looks one way. But if he had more data, it would look quite another way.

But we shall see. Regardless of personal estimates, most often the probable eventually turns into the real.

I don't take any comfort from a conviction that God doesn't exist, but unlike you, nor do I take any comfort from a conviction that God does exist.

Okay: can I ask about that?

Which of the following (or something else) is closest to a fair reading of your beliefs on that:

1) There may or may not be a God, and I simply don't know.

That is the fairest reading of both our beliefs.

It's not how my belief goes, but if it's yours, then thank you for that information. I don't want to end up assuming you hold a position you don't hold, and this is helpful.

If somebody offers you an irrational axiom, or one for which they have no rationale you should believe, why would you "not care" and just believe them?

I don't just believe irrational claims.

But that was precisely my point: you shouldn't. And THAT is why reason is important: without a proper rationale for something, there's no reason to believe it. So one can't just "not care" about that, except by "not caring" about reasons.

You are offering 'God exists', and again, it is one hypothesis, but your rationale isn't strong enough to persuade anyone who doesn't already share your belief.

I think that for somebody possessing my data set, it's more than strong enough; it's conclusive.

Is it moral for you to undertake a responsibility you are not equipped for?

What "responsibility" would that be? I may be equipped, or I may not: it will depend on what "responsibility" is in view.

[popeye1945]

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.

Humanity created religion and is the source of all compassion which is the seed of all morality. Religion just usurped through a false claim that compassion/morality was handed down by some supernatural force. All meaning, values and judgments are biologically dependent, take away the conscious subject and the physical world is utterly meaningless. Religion, like all human creations, is a biological extension, a biological expression of humanity. Religion is for those who cannot think, or will not think, would they be delusional if they could think, don't think so. Biological consciousness is the measure and meaning of all things. All three of the desert religions are the creations of our ignorant ancestors. Again, Atheism is not a belief system, there is no special name for those who do not believe that Elvis is still alive and living in upper Mongolia, just plain folks. So, you have the floor, enlighten me!

Let's not even contest all that you say there. Let's pretend it's true. It's not, but this is a "let's pretend" kind of exercise: I needn't even bother to refute it, since it's all made up anyway.

How will believing any of that myth fix the fundamental ethical problem inherent to Atheism itself -- namely,that if you take Atheist assumptions at the base of your worldview, there is no warrant or justification for insisting on any morality or any ethics?

Only a believer would express such a lack of FAITH in humanity. If you found nothing of a credible nature in what I have posted I would not think much of your ability to think. Morality is based on the self-interest of one's own biology. If you wish to base your understandings on the ignorance of our ancestors who knew little to nothing of the world and how it works it a very large group of retards. I think they are happy, are you happy? I hope you are happy you should get something out of it. There is no atheist assumptions, we just don't believe in fairytales. Get your thumb out of your ass and maybe you'll have a thought.

[Peter Holmes]

Humanity created religion and is the source of all compassion which is the seed of all morality. Religion just usurped through a false claim that compassion/morality was handed down by some supernatural force. All meaning, values and judgments are biologically dependent, take away the conscious subject and the physical world is utterly meaningless. Religion, like all human creations, is a biological extension, a biological expression of humanity. Religion is for those who cannot think, or will not think, would they be delusional if they could think, don't think so. Biological consciousness is the measure and meaning of all things. All three of the desert religions are the creations of our ignorant ancestors. Again, Atheism is not a belief system, there is no special name for those who do not believe that Elvis is still alive and living in upper Mongolia, just plain folks. So, you have the floor, enlighten me!

Let's not even contest all that you say there. Let's pretend it's true. It's not, but this is a "let's pretend" kind of exercise: I needn't even bother to refute it, since it's all made up anyway.

How will believing any of that myth fix the fundamental ethical problem inherent to Atheism itself -- namely,that if you take Atheist assumptions at the base of your worldview, there is no warrant or justification for insisting on any morality or any ethics?

Only a believer would express such a lack of FAITH in humanity. If you found nothing of a credible nature in what I have posted I would not think much of your ability to think. Morality is based on the self-interest of one's own biology. If you wish to base your understandings on the ignorance of our ancestors who knew little to nothing of the world and how it works it a very large group of retards. I think they are happy, are you happy? I hope you are happy you should get something out of it. There is no atheist assumptions, we just don't believe in fairytales. Get your thumb out of your ass and maybe you'll have a thought.

I'm with you on much of this. Theistic moral objectivism is a contradiction in terms. It's subjectivism pretending not to be - and without actual evidence anyway.

But I don't think any explanation of where morality comes from has a moral entailment. For example, you say: 'Morality is based on the self-interest of one's own biology.' No conclusion about moral rightness and wrongness follows from that, even if it's true.

[Will Bouwman]

If you insist that your faith is a calculation, then you are simply doing the numbers wrong.

No, I wouldn't say so. How one does the numbers depends on the data one provides for oneself.

To anyone but you, the suggestion that one chooses "the data one provides for oneself" is an admission of confirmation bias.

If a person does not really investigate, he's got access to limited data; and from that limited data, he may conclude he knows all there is to know, and the probability calculation looks one way. But if he had more data, it would look quite another way.

You are describing the problem of induction as if it doesn't apply to you.

Which of the following (or something else) is closest to a fair reading of your beliefs on that:

1) There may or may not be a God, and I simply don't know.

That is the fairest reading of both our beliefs.

It's not how my belief goes...

Well again, to anyone but you, that is exactly how your belief goes. Underdetermination is just a fancy name for the fact that there are always at least two sides to every story.

You are offering 'God exists', and again, it is one hypothesis, but your rationale isn't strong enough to persuade anyone who doesn't already share your belief.

I think that for somebody possessing my data set, it's more than strong enough; it's conclusive.

You have a sample of one - a biased sample of one, who thinks he is immune to the problem of induction and doesn't understand underdetermination. Whatever your data set, only you could find it conclusive. That doesn't mean you are necessarily wrong, it just means that of the over 8 billion people currently alive, only you believe that your data set is the one that, processed according to your probability calculation, is the one that most closely mirrors reality.

Is it moral for you to undertake a responsibility you are not equipped for?

What "responsibility" would that be?

In fairness, I am using 'moral' to mean what is good for other humans in the here and now, rather than what will bring them closer to your God for whatever is left of eternity once they die.

I may be equipped, or I may not: it will depend on what "responsibility" is in view.

I am happy to be wrong on this, but it seems to me that you assume some responsibility to bring to our attention your belief that thinking as you do will pay enormous dividends. The downside to this bargain is that anyone you fail to persuade will be worse off than had you never intervened. What calculation are performing to persuade you of some net worth to people other than yourself?

[Immanuel Can]

Humanity created religion and is the source of all compassion which is the seed of all morality. Religion just usurped through a false claim that compassion/morality was handed down by some supernatural force. All meaning, values and judgments are biologically dependent, take away the conscious subject and the physical world is utterly meaningless. Religion, like all human creations, is a biological extension, a biological expression of humanity. Religion is for those who cannot think, or will not think, would they be delusional if they could think, don't think so. Biological consciousness is the measure and meaning of all things. All three of the desert religions are the creations of our ignorant ancestors. Again, Atheism is not a belief system, there is no special name for those who do not believe that Elvis is still alive and living in upper Mongolia, just plain folks. So, you have the floor, enlighten me!

Let's not even contest all that you say there. Let's pretend it's true. It's not, but this is a "let's pretend" kind of exercise: I needn't even bother to refute it, since it's all made up anyway.

How will believing any of that myth fix the fundamental ethical problem inherent to Atheism itself -- namely,that if you take Atheist assumptions at the base of your worldview, there is no warrant or justification for insisting on any morality or any ethics?

Only a believer would express such a lack of FAITH in humanity.

It has nothing to do with "having faith" in anything at all. Rather, it's a very straightforward logical deduction from Atheism's own first principles to the ineluctable conclusion those Atheist presuppositions require us to believe.

Atheism begins with the supposition that there is no God. Hence, recourse to God as an explanation for the legitimacy of morality is not available to Atheism.

So to what can Atheism turn, in order to secure various moral imperatives for the general good of humanity?

Things have been suggested: to personal wishes, to a society, to unlegitimized rights-talk, and now to your "faith in humanity." But everything suggested is inadequate. It's all contingent, all local, all limited and all are utterly incapable of being defended against the very simple question of a child, "Why?"

So Atheism itself provides nothing we can use to substantiate a moral imperative. And that means that if we want to be Atheists, we have to live without moral imperatives (or, as Joseph Margolis, the Atheist puts it, "without principles"), or we will have to adopt a lie...something we know is not justifiable or imperative, and pretend that it is imperative -- a rearguard strategy that also fails at the first skeptical attack.

None of this problem I have described above even involves a Theist. It's all 100% inherent to Atheism itself, which is the only ideology I have needed to mention to point out the problem.

So the problem is not that I lack "faith in humanity"; it's that Atheists lack the courage of their own convictions, and cannot live like Atheists.

[Immanuel Can]

If you insist that your faith is a calculation, then you are simply doing the numbers wrong.

No, I wouldn't say so. How one does the numbers depends on the data one provides for oneself.

To anyone but you, the suggestion that one chooses "the data one provides for oneself" is an admission of confirmation bias.

I'm speaking about the obvious opposite: not that we should "choose" our data, as you put it, but that one CAN illegitimately do so, as Atheists do.

If a person does not really investigate, he's got access to limited data; and from that limited data, he may conclude he knows all there is to know, and the probability calculation looks one way. But if he had more data, it would look quite another way.

You are describing the problem of induction as if it doesn't apply to you.

I'm merely describing it as it DOES apply to Atheism. I said nothing about myself.

You are offering 'God exists', and again, it is one hypothesis, but your rationale isn't strong enough to persuade anyone who doesn't already share your belief.

I think that for somebody possessing my data set, it's more than strong enough; it's conclusive.

You have a sample of one...

No, I'm not using myself as a "data set." I'm talking about the complete set of data that are available to anybody in observable creation. Any particular person will have, at any given time, only part of that total data set, it's true. But there's a very great difference between accepting the total data set available to one, and pre-selecting out (on the basis of nothing but antipathy to God) only those data that do not seem to contradict Atheism. A properly sampled data set is going to favour the God hypothesis, I would say; and sustaining closeness to that hypothesis, as Atheism does, will require the pre-selecting of a much narrower data set.

Not impossible to do: but impossible to do on a random or open basis.

I may be equipped, or I may not: it will depend on what "responsibility" is in view.

I am happy to be wrong on this, but it seems to me that you assume some responsibility to bring to our attention your belief that thinking as you do will pay enormous dividends.

No, you're correct.

Telling a person his house is on fire will render to him the "enormous dividends" of saving his life. Failing to tell him will render to him the "dividends" of being immolated. So it would be better to tell a man what "enormous dividends" are available in such a case than to leave him to the "dividends" that happen if he does not. Fair enough.

The downside to this bargain is that anyone you fail to persuade will be worse off than had you never intervened.

Perhaps. But not much worse, if any.

Inestimable gains on the one hand, or minor inconvenience on the other? I would think the choice is pretty clear, wouldn't you?

[Peter Holmes]

Atheism begins with the supposition that there is no God. Hence, recourse to God as an explanation for the legitimacy of morality is not available to Atheism.

But recourse to any team's god doesn't provide an explanation for the legitimacy of morality. The argument 'A says X is morally wrong; therefore X is morally wrong' is a non sequitur fallacy, for any agent.

I wonder when you'll tire of pushing this fallacy - of the special pleading you need to maintain it.

[Skepdick]

But recourse to any team's god doesn't provide an explanation for the legitimacy of morality. The argument 'A says X is morally wrong; therefore X is morally wrong' is a non sequitur fallacy, for any agent.

And yet "Humans say this color is red; therefore this color is red" is perfectly valid reasoning...

So strange.

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism begins with the supposition that there is no God. Hence, recourse to God as an explanation for the legitimacy of morality is not available to Atheism.

But recourse to any team's god doesn't provide an explanation for the legitimacy of morality.

That's a totally separate question.

Let us imagine it were true: it would not help Atheism with its own problem.

It would be an et tu quoque fallacy to suppose that if Theism "doesn't provide an explanation for the legitimacy of morality" (though it actually does; but let that be, because it's not necessary to show in order for the point to remain true) that Atheism automatically therefore must be able to do so. Atheism fails on it's own basis, in this regard. It needs no input from Theism in order to fail to rationalize morality; it does it all by itself.

[popeye1945]

Let's not even contest all that you say there. Let's pretend it's true. It's not, but this is a "let's pretend" kind of exercise: I needn't even bother to refute it, since it's all made up anyway.

How will believing any of that myth fix the fundamental ethical problem inherent to Atheism itself -- namely,that if you take Atheist assumptions at the base of your worldview, there is no warrant or justification for insisting on any morality or any ethics?

Only a believer would express such a lack of FAITH in humanity.

It has nothing to do with "having faith" in anything at all. Rather, it's a very straightforward logical deduction from Atheism's own first principles to the ineluctable conclusion those Atheist presuppositions require us to believe.

Atheism begins with the supposition that there is no God. Hence, recourse to God as an explanation for the legitimacy of morality is not available to Atheism.

So to what can Atheism turn, in order to secure various moral imperatives for the general good of humanity?

Things have been suggested: to personal wishes, to a society, to unlegitimized rights-talk, and now to your "faith in humanity." But everything suggested is inadequate. It's all contingent, all local, all limited and all are utterly incapable of being defended against the very simple question of a child, "Why?"

So Atheism itself provides nothing we can use to substantiate a moral imperative. And that means that if we want to be Atheists, we have to live without moral imperatives (or, as Joseph Margolis, the Atheist puts it, "without principles"), or we will have to adopt a lie...something we know is not justifiable or imperative, and pretend that it is imperative -- a rearguard strategy that also fails at the first skeptical attack.

None of this problem I have described above even involves a Theist. It's all 100% inherent to Atheism itself, which is the only ideology I have needed to mention to point out the problem.

So the problem is not that I lack "faith in humanity"; it's that Atheists lack the courage of their own convictions, and cannot live like Atheists.

This is a dishonest approach; you are trying to infer that atheism is a belief system when it is a lack of belief. The is no moral imperative even for the believer, unless you consider fantasy a moral imperative. Moralities' proper subject is the survival and well-being of the biological self both of the individual and in the expanded concept of the self, which is the foundation of civilization. Again, atheism is not a belief or an ideology, you're trying to put the two positions within the same context, the same playing-field which is highly dishonest.

[Immanuel Can]

Only a believer would express such a lack of FAITH in humanity.

It has nothing to do with "having faith" in anything at all. Rather, it's a very straightforward logical deduction from Atheism's own first principles to the ineluctable conclusion those Atheist presuppositions require us to believe.

Atheism begins with the supposition that there is no God. Hence, recourse to God as an explanation for the legitimacy of morality is not available to Atheism.

So to what can Atheism turn, in order to secure various moral imperatives for the general good of humanity?

Things have been suggested: to personal wishes, to a society, to unlegitimized rights-talk, and now to your "faith in humanity." But everything suggested is inadequate. It's all contingent, all local, all limited and all are utterly incapable of being defended against the very simple question of a child, "Why?"

So Atheism itself provides nothing we can use to substantiate a moral imperative. And that means that if we want to be Atheists, we have to live without moral imperatives (or, as Joseph Margolis, the Atheist puts it, "without principles"), or we will have to adopt a lie...something we know is not justifiable or imperative, and pretend that it is imperative -- a rearguard strategy that also fails at the first skeptical attack.

None of this problem I have described above even involves a Theist. It's all 100% inherent to Atheism itself, which is the only ideology I have needed to mention to point out the problem.

So the problem is not that I lack "faith in humanity"; it's that Atheists lack the courage of their own convictions, and cannot live like Atheists.

This is a dishonest approach; you are trying to infer that atheism is a belief system when it is a lack of belief.

I'm not "inferring" it. I'm saying it plainly: Atheism is the denial of the existence of God. Anything less than that is merely some form of agnosticism, and not Atheism at all.

Moralities' proper subject is the survival and well-being of the biological self

Its "proper" subject? What make it "proper"? Even to say that there is something "proper" to a particular view of rights is invoking something universal.

But "well-being" is an entirely uninformative orientation point. We can have no definite idea what is means at all. To some, perhaps it means having the most pleasant garden; to others, the freedom to pollinate as many females as one wishes. There's no moral information in "well-being."

And "survival"? That's not a moral imperative. Nature kills things all the time. Even whole species die out.

And "self"? One thing we can be quite sure of is that morality is relational, not solipsistic. So it always involves other people, and the negotiation of "self"-interest against the interests of others.

So all of that is just so obviously wrong in so many ways.

[popeye1945]

It has nothing to do with "having faith" in anything at all. Rather, it's a very straightforward logical deduction from Atheism's own first principles to the ineluctable conclusion those Atheist presuppositions require us to believe.

Atheism begins with the supposition that there is no God. Hence, recourse to God as an explanation for the legitimacy of morality is not available to Atheism.

So to what can Atheism turn, in order to secure various moral imperatives for the general good of humanity?

Things have been suggested: to personal wishes, to a society, to unlegitimized rights-talk, and now to your "faith in humanity." But everything suggested is inadequate. It's all contingent, all local, all limited and all are utterly incapable of being defended against the very simple question of a child, "Why?"

So Atheism itself provides nothing we can use to substantiate a moral imperative. And that means that if we want to be Atheists, we have to live without moral imperatives (or, as Joseph Margolis, the Atheist puts it, "without principles"), or we will have to adopt a lie...something we know is not justifiable or imperative, and pretend that it is imperative -- a rearguard strategy that also fails at the first skeptical attack.

None of this problem I have described above even involves a Theist. It's all 100% inherent to Atheism itself, which is the only ideology I have needed to mention to point out the problem.

So the problem is not that I lack "faith in humanity"; it's that Atheists lack the courage of their own convictions, and cannot live like Atheists.

This is a dishonest approach; you are trying to infer that atheism is a belief system when it is a lack of belief.

I'm not "inferring" it. I'm saying it plainly: Atheism is the denial of the existence of God. Anything less than that is merely some form of agnosticism, and not Atheism at all.

Don't you see how childish your insistence on your knowing who or what this pathetic anthropomorphic god is? I take it you're referring to one of the three desert religion gods -- yes? It is such a poor argument, how many gods do YOU not believe in? I take it you are being particular are you not, so you do not believe in a whole host of gods yourself. Do you insist your god looks like me, I am better looking than you. All of the gods of our ancestors are really small gods, not up to the grandeur of the great mystery of existence. It is quite logical to believe that we all belong to something larger than ourselves, that is quite obvious to all thinking people, but this simplistic supernatural creature who looks like us and has a bad temperament is a sorry endeavor. It would make much more sense if the meaning of god or gods was the great mystery that would makes sense.

Moralities' proper subject is the survival and well-being of the biological self

Its "proper" subject? What make it "proper"? Even to say that there is something "proper" to a particular view of rights is invoking something universal. But "well-being" is an entirely uninformative orientation point. We can have no definite idea what is means at all. To some, perhaps it means having the most pleasant garden; to others, the freedom to pollinate as many females as one wishes. There's no moral information in "well-being." [/quote]

What makes it the proper subject of human morality is that it is about the survival and well-being of our common biology. Only clouded thinking could not relate to the common/universal of human biology. Religion is a construct of that biology; it is biological extension and/or a biological expression of said biology. Our ancestors had shit for brains, not their fault, they knew nothing of the world or its mysteries, you do not have that excuse. Tell me were you born into a particular desert religion, early programing is more understandable in having these absurd beliefs.


And "survival"? That's not a moral imperative. Nature kills things all the time. Even whole species die out.
And "self"? One thing we can be quite sure of is that morality is relational, not solipsistic. So it always involves other people, and the negotiation of "self"-interest against the interests of others.
So all of that is just so obviously wrong in so many ways.
[/quote]

Survival is the first principle of life; all life forms struggle to stay in existence, and that is a practical imperative built into every organism. Nature is devoid of morality and cares not for the individual but only for the species. Only life itself is capable of compassion and empathy willingly lessening of suffering of its fellow creatures. Morality is only necessary in the context of the group, pack, or society, in the wilderness, in isolation it is utterly useless. When you speak of morality as relational, you're just underlining my point, what could be more relational than the commonest of our being our biology. No, the only rational foundation for human morality is our common biology, its survival and its well-being.

[Peter Holmes]

Atheism begins with the supposition that there is no God. Hence, recourse to God as an explanation for the legitimacy of morality is not available to Atheism.

But recourse to any team's god doesn't provide an explanation for the legitimacy of morality.

That's a totally separate question.

Let us imagine it were true: it would not help Atheism with its own problem.

It would be an et tu quoque fallacy to suppose that if Theism "doesn't provide an explanation for the legitimacy of morality" (though it actually does; but let that be, because it's not necessary to show in order for the point to remain true) that Atheism automatically therefore must be able to do so. Atheism fails on it's own basis, in this regard. It needs no input from Theism in order to fail to rationalize morality; it does it all by itself.

You can misrepresent what I, as an atheist, believe as much as you like, in order to shift the burden of proof, which remains with those who claim that their team's god exists.

Atheism is no more a belief system than is a-fairyism. So your claim that atheism entails any conclusions, let alone moral ones, is plainly and flatly false - much as you need a straw man to attack.

To point out that 'recourse to any team's god doesn't provide an explanation for the legitimacy of morality' is not to claim that atheism does provide such legitimacy. And I note that you make no attempt to rebut that logical point - because you can't. And precisely here, theistic moral objectivism collapses.

You want to 'rationalise morality', and your theism - like any other appeal to authority - fails to do so. Whether there's any other way that succeeds is the actual 'totally separate question'.

[Skepdick]

You can misrepresent what I, as an atheist, believe as much as you like, in order to shift the burden of proof, which remains with those who claim that their team's god exists.

Wow. There's so much confusion in this statement.

Either it's a fact that God exists; or it's a fact that God doesn't exist. If you reject the laws of logic say so!

Both sides (theism and atheism) refuse to take up the burden for justifying what they assume is a fact- fine. Nobody can make you do what you don't want to do, but lets think about this some more. Shall we?

Non-existence proofs carry a significantly greater burden than existence proofs. In practical terms - proving that there is NO needle in the haystack requires you to canvas the entire haystack, whereas with existence proofs you can stop searching as soon as you find the needle.

It's a fact that neither side wishes to burden itself.
It's a fact that both sides owe the "evidentiary debt" necessary to justify their beliefs - they owe the burden they refuse to take up.

And it's a fact that atheism owes a much greater debt than theism.

This says nothing about which side holds a true belief, but it tells us everything about which side carries a greater burden for their beliefs.

And, of course this is basic fucking reasoning!

Let X be the weight of evidence necessary to justify the non-existence of God if it were true.
let Y be the weight of evidence necessary to justify the existence of God if it were true.

It's an undeniable logical fact that X > Y

Talk about a heavy burden...