Morality Does Not Exist

[WWFStern]

With respect to today’s subject, I am in the minority even among atheists. Few non-believers—no matter how strongly they reject traditional Christian morality—are willing to call moral issues strictly matters of opinion. However, I remain a steadfast moral relativist despite the rarity of my breed. Morality is, at its heart, a subject about which no facts exist. Murder is bad…Altruism is good…Theft is bad – These are nothing more than statements of opinion and expressions of personal taste. Although this bold assertion might seem shocking and offensive to some, I hope to explicate my position by way of two pertinent analogies: weather and movies.

Weather conditions can be classified as “good” or “bad” (or somewhere in between those). Personally, I enjoy the heat. My ideal weather would be 90 degrees and blazingly sunny. If I awoke tomorrow and those were the conditions, I would classify the weather as “good.” However, nothing intrinsically is good about those conditions. Given alternate preferences (for example, preference for snow and wind), the aforementioned conditions would be considered “bad” weather. To me, 90 degrees is “good.” To hypothetical individual A, 90 degrees is “bad.” There is no method by which to discern the intrinsic “goodness” of weather—no existing scientific instrumentation is up to the task. And so, we must conclude that no weather intrinsically is either good or bad. Those concepts are coherent only in the eyes of the beholder, and one opinion is just as good as any other, since none could be considered objectively correct.

Movies can be classified as “good” or “bad” (or somewhere in between those). Personally, I enjoy slasher movies. My ideal flick would be a gory slasher story on the order of Friday the 13th or Texas Chainsaw Massacre. If I went to the multiplex on Saturday night and saw a movie similar to the one I just described, I would classify that film as “good.” However, nothing intrinsically is good about that hypothetical film. Given alternate preferences (for example, love stories or historical dramas), the aforementioned flick might well be considered “bad.” To me, slasher movies are “good.” To hypothetical individual A, slasher movies are “bad.” There is no method by which to discern the intrinsic “goodness” of films—no existing scientific instrumentation is up to the task. And so, we must conclude that no movie is either good or bad. Those concepts are coherent only in the eyes of the beholder, and one opinion is just as good as any other, since none could be considered objectively correct.

Morality (the study of “good” versus “bad”) is precisely the same as my two examples. Morality cannot be gauged, measured, quantified or tested in the scientific sense. There are no measurable units of morality comparable to inches, ounces, volts or calories. Unless, and until, a reliable “morality meter” is invented by an enterprising scientist, moral claims must be recognized for what they truly are: statements of unsubstantiated opinion masquerading as universal standards to which we should submit.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Silly statement, the title of the thread. Morality exists whether or not you think it has any bearing on objective reality- cultural entities not only exist but have a considerable effect on our experience and the balance of the human and global ecosystem. And because of this, it is possible to measure the worth of a cultural system given certain parameters. If your goal is, for instance, longevity of life or societal solidarity, a moral system that encourages random homicide would be distinctly maladaptive, comparative to a system of alternate goals. And the maladaptation could easily be established in your preferred language of numbers and statistics.

 

[Stinker]

I do not see one's weather preference as a moral issue.

When one says that they enjoy slasher movies I think that they probably enjoy the sensation of being frightened without being in any real danger.

If one said that they enjoy movies in which women get raped, I think everyone would then be thinking about how wrong his morality is.

 

[Asimov]

Although this bold assertion might seem shocking and offensive to some, I hope to explicate my position by way of two pertinent analogies: weather and movies.

Not shocking or offensive. More misguided and irrational.

Morality (the study of “good” versus “bad”) is precisely the same as my two examples.

By the way, morality isn't the study of good versus bad. Your strawman characterization of the subject betrays your ignorance, or your intellectual dishonesty towards it.

Morality cannot be gauged, measured, quantified or tested in the scientific sense.

Descriptively? It can.

There are no measurable units of morality comparable to inches, ounces, volts or calories.

Morality isn't a system of measurement.

Unless, and until, a reliable “morality meter” is invented by an enterprising scientist, moral claims must be recognized for what they truly are: statements of unsubstantiated opinion masquerading as universal standards to which we should submit.

Not really, again your strawman characterization betrays your ignorance.

 

[Voegelin]

With respect to today’s subject, I am in the minority even among atheists. Few non-believers—no matter how strongly they reject traditional Christian morality—are willing to call moral issues strictly matters of opinion..

Not that unusual. Corliss Lamont, a director of the ACLU for 22 years and who has a rather large fan base today, wrote in the Philosophy of Humanism:

"The Humanist refuses to accept any Ten Commandments or other ethical precepts as immutable and universal laws never to be challenged or questioned. We bow to no alleged moral authority either past or present."

Of course, as Max Eastman pointed out in this letter to him urging him to stop supporting Joseph Stalin, Corliss Lamont was a liar. His life long, unwavering embrace of socialist totalitarianism would indicate he did have objective moral values, twisted as they were.

 

[PhysicsUndergrad]

I am an atheist/agnostic (can't make up my mind, maybe i just don't have the "chutzpa" to say that a god doesn't exist). Anyways, you are correct in saying that there aren't many in your camp, and for good reason. Granted I believe that a so called "moral authority" does not exist and the ten commandments certainly aren't it, I would propose that morality stems in fact from evolution/survival of the fittest. Murder, theft, rape etc. put strain on a society and therefore injure its ability to be successful. Just as generosity and helping your fellow man aid in its sucess. Another example that atheism doesn't neccessarily mean "godless immorality" (although it can )

 

[Spherical Time]

I don't believe in an objective morality, but I believe in intersubjective morality. So, the phrase "Morality Does Not Exist" seems silly to me.

 

[levi501]

You're absolutely right morality can be looked at as simply a matter of opinion based on the perceptions of the individual.
While morality is relative to the individual it is also relative to the culture as well.
As a society we use the word morality in a generic way to describe what is generally agreed upon as right.
He attempt to establish consistent rules in which to determine right and wrong. When someone acts outside these rules we can say they are acting immoral.
This in no keeps people from holding personal beliefs(morals) that run contrary to what's generally accepted by society.

btw - saying morality doesn't exist is as empty as saying happiness doesn't either.

 

[TheBellman]

I agree with the position expressed in the OP, although I don't think the argument given is a particularly good one.

 

[Rowan]

WWFStern ~

I don't see how your weather and slasher film analogies are valid. People are relativists according to their personal tastes; we're individuals. I myself love slasher movies and my best friend can't stand them. I love to sleep during storms and my friend can't sleep to the sound of the thunder. I don't see how you connect this to moral relativity.

Which kind of morality are you trying to say is relative? You mentioned both altruism and theft. Altruism is a personal moral, I believe, while actions such as crimes are deemed immoral because they harm society. The morals of a society (if they are good morals, IMHO) look after its citizens, while personal morality looks after the very personhood of humankind.

I think that humans are naturally relativists in a way. In the moment of doing an action, they will justify their actions as right in their minds. However, that doesn't make them right. I know I do this, but I know that I'm not right all the time. Hitler justified his actions, but that didn't make him right. Looking at his personal opinion of what right was, people are less inclined to just say "...it was right for him...".

Would saying he was wrong make one a believer in objective morality? Just wondering.

 

[WWFStern]

A companion essay, with further reflections and explanation...


Ever since I jumped back into the debate about whether “morality” is objective or simply a matter of opinion, I’ve been asked to clarify my nihilistic view that morality—as a natural, objective concept—does not exist. And, I am happy to do so.

The problem with morality is this: It is a term without a concept. Or, at least, without a single one capable of being proved correct. An individual could define morality, quite literally, in countless ways; and, each one of those definitions would be equally correct, since there is no evidence available to support one morality conception’s veracity or another’s falsehood. Sam Harris, for example, defines moral actions as those that increase human happiness. On the other hand, in his mind, immoral actions increase human suffering. While that conception of morality seems sensible, it is totally unburdened by evidence. In his book The End of Faith, Harris simply declares that human happiness and suffering are the relevant factors with regard to morality. I could make an entirely different declaration, and be equally correct (as well as equally lacking in actual supporting evidence).

At the risk of being repetitious, I will list three possible conceptions of morality. Note, these are only three among innumerable others.


(1). Morality relates to human-to-human interaction. Moral actions increase happiness, while immoral actions increase suffering.

(2). Morality relates to human-to-environment interaction. Moral actions benefit the environment, while immoral actions harm the environment. Human happiness/suffering is not relevant.

(3). Morality relates to human-to-frog interaction. Moral actions benefit frogs, while immoral actions harm frogs. Human happiness/suffering is not relevant.


Sam Harris would argue neither (2) nor (3) is the correct notion of morality (as neither one places human happiness/suffering at the core of the issue). But, given the absolute dearth of evidence on the matter, (1), (2) and (3) all are equally plausible conceptions of morality. Indeed, the precise opposite of (1)—that morality relates to human-to-human interaction, and that moral actions increase suffering, while immoral actions increase happiness—also is equally as plausible a definition as any other is.

At the risk of being forced to eat my words, I challenge any of my readers to argue—with actual evidence—that one morality conception is more correct than another morality conception. If, collectively, we choose to define morality in some particular way simply out of speciocentric self-interest, that means that, while morality exists, it has no relationship with the natural universe or the true order of things. That is, genocide only would be immoral because—if speciocentric self-interest is the Key Factor—genocide manifestly runs counter to that self-interest. But to allege that Homo sapiens sapiens’ self-interest inherently is relevant to “morality” would be to make an assertion without the benefit of evidence. Human self-interest easily could be replaced by another Key Factor, such as the primacy of the environment or the supremacy of frogs.

The other perplexing thing about morality is the inconsistency with which it is applied. If two lions are fighting over a gazelle carcass, and one lion kills the other, has that lion committed an “immoral” act? If not, then why, in a similar case, would a human be guilty of immorality? Nobody ever talks about duck-billed platypuses behaving immorally, or geese being the picture of moral perfection. Why are Homo sapiens sapiens subject to moral strictures? We are, after all, just another animal species roaming around this planet. We live on the same evolutionary Tree of Life as lions, platypuses and geese. And yet, when it comes to morality, we pretend that we’re not animals like all the rest of our brethren. The truth is--we are. On this planet, we, like all animals, eat, sleep and reproduce.

From where did morality spring?

Why was its noose tied around the neck of our poor species?

And where is the elusive evidence to justify its existence as a scientific, natural concept?

 

[Asimov]

A companion essay, with further reflections and explanation whilst I conveniently ignore the replies and forego discussion to talk over everyone.

So that's how it's going to be.

Ever since I jumped back into the debate about whether “morality” is objective or simply a matter of opinion, I’ve been asked to clarify my nihilistic view that morality—as a natural, objective concept—does not exist. And, I am happy to do so.

False dichotomy.

Morality exists as a natural, abstract concept. It's intersubjective, not relative.

Or, at least, without a single one capable of being proved correct. An individual could define morality, quite literally, in countless ways; and, each one of those definitions would be equally correct,

No, you're mistaking a moral system for the definition of morality.

Harris simply declares that human happiness and suffering are the relevant factors with regard to morality. I could make an entirely different declaration, and be equally correct (as well as equally lacking in actual supporting evidence).

They are relevant factors, did he say that they are the utmost determining factors?

Please quote exactly what he said, chapter and page number...in context.

(1). Morality relates to human-to-human interaction. Moral actions increase happiness, while immoral actions increase suffering.

(2). Morality relates to human-to-environment interaction. Moral actions benefit the environment, while immoral actions harm the environment. Human happiness/suffering is not relevant.

(3). Morality relates to human-to-frog interaction. Moral actions benefit frogs, while immoral actions harm frogs. Human happiness/suffering is not relevant.

Again, wrong. Morality studies ethical dilemmas, it can apply to anything in regards to human behaviour. Including those three you cited.

Back later....

 

[Asimov]

At the risk of being forced to eat my words, I challenge any of my readers to argue—with actual evidence—that one morality conception is more correct than another morality conception. If, collectively, we choose to define morality in some particular way simply out of speciocentric self-interest, that means that, while morality exists, it has no relationship with the natural universe or the true order of things. That is, genocide only would be immoral because—if speciocentric self-interest is the Key Factor—genocide manifestly runs counter to that self-interest. But to allege that Homo sapiens sapiens’ self-interest inherently is relevant to “morality” would be to make an assertion without the benefit of evidence. Human self-interest easily could be replaced by another Key Factor, such as the primacy of the environment or the supremacy of frogs.

All sentient beings have moral status, because they can feel pain, so it's not just frogs that need to be considered.

All sentient beings who are capable of reasoning have moral status and moral responsibility. This is because they can conceptualize their actions and label them as right or wrong.

Moral systems which are not logically valid are invalid.
Therefore, some moral systems are superior to others.

I have thus proven you wrong.

If two lions are fighting over a gazelle carcass, and one lion kills the other, has that lion committed an “immoral” act? If not, then why, in a similar case, would a human be guilty of immorality?

Because humans have moral responsibility and lions have no concept of morality.

From where did morality spring?

Conceptualization and the need for society to have foundations of behaviour which we can condemn and condone.

Why was its noose tied around the neck of our poor species?

It wasn't, we created it.

And where is the elusive evidence to justify its existence as a scientific, natural concept?

The observation of societal beings and the observations of human populations.

 

[levi501]

Morality exists as a natural, abstract concept. It's intersubjective, not relative.

semantics.

No, you're mistaking a moral system for the definition of morality.

no he's not.

All sentient beings have moral status, because they can feel pain, so it's not just frogs that need to be considered.

I assume by moral status you mean they should be considered in moral decisions simply because they feel pain?
If this is what you're saying, you've shown no reason why it's true.

All sentient beings who are capable of reasoning have moral status and moral responsibility. This is because they can conceptualize their actions and label them as right or wrong.

Moral responsibility is rather self-evident as the OP says it's subjective to the individual. This doesn't mean they have to use your metric of pain.

Moral systems which are not logically valid are invalid.

Therefore, some moral systems are superior to others.

I agree, but a system is logically invalid thus inferior when it's been proven contradicting and inconsistent.

I have thus proven you wrong.

no you haven't.

 

[The Nihilist]

Asimov, why does that a thing feels pain give it a moral status? If viruses felt pain, we would still endeavor to kill them. Why do you even think we have moral responsibility? How could you possibly hope to prove such a thing?
Yes, morality is pretend and any attempt to ground it is arbitrary. Next question.

 

[Asimov]

Asimov, why does that a thing feels pain give it a moral status? If viruses felt pain, we would still endeavor to kill them. Why do you even think we have moral responsibility? How could you possibly hope to prove such a thing?
Yes, morality is pretend and any attempt to ground it is arbitrary. Next question.

Nice handwave, buddy.

The attempt at answering those questions is what this thread is about, so if you're not even going to consider them then leave thread. I'm not interested in discussing with people who have no desire to analyze morality.

 

[The Nihilist]

Oh, I'm interested in it alright. I have a considerable background in ethics, and at the end of the day, it really comes down to a sort of he said she said. Theories of virtue are every bit as flakey as utilitarianism, which is every bit as flakey as Kantian ethics, which is every bit as flakey as every other sort of pie in the sky morality. The only description of ethics that makes any sense at all is the concept of ethics as a sort of implicit social contract, probably driven by brain chemistry. That is to say, it's made up. If you think you've got something more substantial, I'm listening, but I also think that if you had it, we'd have seen it already.

 

[Asimov]

semantics.

No, relative is different than subjective. Morality concerns all of humanity and it's interactions with itself, the environment and the organisms living with it.

A moral code that is relative (that is, reliant upon individual beliefs and emotions) is not the same thing as a moral code that is intersubjective - much like the scientific method, it relies on falsification by other rational beings to refine moral theories into something cohesive and applicable to reality.

I assume by moral status you mean they should be considered in moral decisions simply because they feel pain?
If this is what you're saying, you've shown no reason why it's true.

Because harm is causing others pain. Any being that can feel pain can be harmed...morality deals with a code of values that allows us all to live together in mutual benefit without harm - harm is deleterious in a mutually beneficial system.

Moral responsibility is rather self-evident as the OP says it's subjective to the individual. This doesn't mean they have to use your metric of pain.

So?

I agree, but a system is logically invalid thus inferior when it's been proven contradicting and inconsistent.

So? He asked me to prove that any moral system is superior to another. I stated that any moral system which is logically invalid is inferior to a logically valid moral system...thus some moral systems are superior to others.

 

[Asimov]

The only description of ethics that makes any sense at all is the concept of ethics as a sort of implicit social contract, probably driven by brain chemistry. That is to say, it's made up. If you think you've got something more substantial, I'm listening, but I also think that if you had it, we'd have seen it already.

I'm a contractarian, and I use social contracts through logic and reason for my idea of ethics.

It is made up, and I never said it wasn't.

"From where did morality spring? Conceptualization and the need for society to have foundations of behaviour which we can condemn and condone."

 

[Uphill Battle]

Would you say the morality is truly relative?

Why? the vast majority of people would say that murder is morally wrong. Insert a group that believes that it isn't. Their morality will be squelched by that of the majority.

But then, using the same Majority rules morality, The Nazi's were morally correct to extinguish Jews, as their majority ruled. Owning and selling of slaves was at one point morally just fine, as the majority of white landowners thought it was.

I ask you, was the Holocaust or Slavery ever Just and moral?