Atheism and Ad Absurdum

[Moral Orel]

Moral rules are correct to the extent they satisfy values.

And values are subjective, so morals are subjective.

 

[durangodawood]

And values are subjective, so morals are subjective.

We experience having values subjectively. But many values are built into us biologically as a matter of objective fact.

 

[Moral Orel]

We experience having values subjectively. But many values are built into us biologically as a matter of objective fact.

Everything we subjectively experience is because of biological facts. Your statement holds no significance.

Let's look at your previous example of murder. Let's say we have Billy and Bob. Billy and Bob are both thinking about murdering each other. If either one of them goes through with it then the victim will experience physical harm, that's an objective fact. But so what? Why would it be incorrect to cause physical harm? Well Billy has empathy as a result of the biological processes in his brain (more objective facts), so he values human life and doesn't want to see anyone murdered and chooses not to. He made the correct decision based on his values. Bob on the other hand lacks empathy, he's a psychopath. He murders Billy and has fun doing it. He doesn't have the empathy that comes from specific biological processes in his brain that Billy did (more objective facts), so he doesn't value human life. He too made the correct choice based on his values.

Who made the correct decision? If morality is objective, then only one of them can be correct. Choosing murder is correct or incorrect. If they're both right, then morality is entirely subjective because it differs from person to person. I would hazard a guess that you think Bob made the incorrect choice. Tell me why. His choice was correct to the extent that it satisfied his values, so what could possibly be wrong with his choice?

 

[stevil]

Was in a friend's wedding not too long ago and got into an argument with one of our other friends concerning slavery in the Bible. Not sure what he was ultimately trying to point out (maybe trying to get the moral high ground as an Atheist), but the debate transitioned to how he could objectively prove that slavery is wrong. He kept referring to "human wellness" as a moral principle that could be proven objectively. I asked him if the move to improve human evolution by removing the "inferior" peoples would be justified as morally right (even though there existed those that believed that). His response was "that's ridiculous because no one would believe that and neither would you." Okay, so I brought up the cultures/nations that believe that slavery is a justifiable and morally acceptable part of life (Not too many left). Again, his response: "Freedom is an aspect of human wellness. If they are not free then they are not well." This finally led to how he could objectively define a value term such as "wellness", which he replied "anything good for humans to live well. Anyone who believes that wellness involves extreme harm for some future goal is just insane." Any thoughts?

What does the title of the thread have to do with your first post in this thread. I don't get the connection?

 

[stevil]

1. We must agree that human wellness of all people is the ultimate goal of society. This is the starting point.

It is not possible to support the wellness of all people.
Resources are limited and hence we must compete against each other for those resources.

 

[Redac]

Just because you can point to a moral issue that any reasonable person will agree on, does not make morality objective. Can you objectively demonstrate why murder is wrong?

You're straying awfully close to appealing to something objective here. Why qualify the statement by saying that any "reasonable" person would agree that murdering their neighbor is wrong? If I've understood things correctly so far, a statement like "murdering your neighbor is wrong" is very much like, say, telling someone you think tofu is nasty. Why would it then be unreasonable for someone to think killing their neighbor is morally acceptable? This would be functionally equivalent to giving an opinion on the best flavor of ice cream, and you wouldn't say someone who has a different preference isn't being "reasonable," would you? Why would an appeal to reason demonstrate that that person is incorrect in their thinking?

And if you're going to say something along the lines of it being unreasonable because it would bring negative consequences to the murderer, that's not an argument for it actually being wrong to kill their neighbor, that's just an argument for it not being the most convenient thing for that person to do right now.

 

[Ken-1122]

You're straying awfully close to appealing to something objective here. Why qualify the statement by saying that any "reasonable" person would agree that murdering their neighbor is wrong?

When I said any "reasonable" person would agree, I was voicing my opinion on what is reasonable or not; I was not stating it as an objective fact.

If I've understood things correctly so far, a statement like "murdering your neighbor is wrong" is very much like, say, telling someone you think tofu is nasty. Why would it then be unreasonable for someone to think killing their neighbor is morally acceptable? This would be functionally equivalent to giving an opinion on the best flavor of ice cream, and you wouldn't say someone who has a different preference isn't being "reasonable," would you? Why would an appeal to reason demonstrate that that person is incorrect in their thinking?

And if you're going to say something along the lines of it being unreasonable because it would bring negative consequences to the murderer, that's not an argument for it actually being wrong to kill their neighbor, that's just an argument for it not being the most convenient thing for that person to do right now.

The only thing the 2 statements "tofu is nasty" and "murder is wrong" have in common is that they are both subjective statements. Everything else is different which is why nobody cares concerning my view of the taste of tofu, but everybody cares concerning my view of the morality of murder

 

[durangodawood]

Everything we subjectively experience is because of biological facts. Your statement holds no significance.

I dont think so. There's various values that are dependent not on biology but on culture, and so some of them differ among the various groups even as our biology remains identical.

Also, it sounds like you agree that subjective experience can have a basis in the objective conditions of being a human.... which was kind of my point.

....Let's look at your previous example of murder. Let's say we have Billy and Bob. Billy and Bob are both thinking about murdering each other. If either one of them goes through with it then the victim will experience physical harm, that's an objective fact. But so what? Why would it be incorrect to cause physical harm? Well Billy has empathy as a result of the biological processes in his brain (more objective facts), so he values human life and doesn't want to see anyone murdered and chooses not to. He made the correct decision based on his values. Bob on the other hand lacks empathy, he's a psychopath. He murders Billy and has fun doing it. He doesn't have the empathy that comes from specific biological processes in his brain that Billy did (more objective facts), so he doesn't value human life. He too made the correct choice based on his values.

Who made the correct decision? If morality is objective, then only one of them can be correct. Choosing murder is correct or incorrect. If they're both right, then morality is entirely subjective because it differs from person to person. I would hazard a guess that you think Bob made the incorrect choice. Tell me why. His choice was correct to the extent that it satisfied his values, so what could possibly be wrong with his choice?

There are way more Billys than Bobs in the world. Probably because a society of Bobs would have died out as an objectively assessable outcome of the Bobs untenable morality.

 

[variant]

Who made the correct decision? If morality is objective, then only one of them can be correct. Choosing murder is correct or incorrect. If they're both right, then morality is entirely subjective because it differs from person to person. I would hazard a guess that you think Bob made the incorrect choice. Tell me why. His choice was correct to the extent that it satisfied his values, so what could possibly be wrong with his choice?

Morality is intersubjective, it comes from the interplay between conscious human minds based upon their values. The case of Billy and Bob is too simple to represent the two existing within a human society that values human life.

And, there are constraints on what moralities a conscious society CAN have because of objective things like:

There are way more Billys than Bobs in the world. Probably because a society of Bobs would have died out as an objectively assessable outcome of the Bobs untenable morality.

So, value has objective (and subjective) components based upon biology and reality that play into an intersubjective morality based upon how we process those values in society.

 

[Moral Orel]

There are way more Billys than Bobs in the world. Probably because a society of Bobs would have died out as an objectively assessable outcome of the Bobs untenable morality.

So your argument is that Billy is correct because there are more people like him than Bob?

 

[BigV]

It is not possible to support the wellness of all people.
Resources are limited and hence we must compete against each other for those resources.

I agree with you on resources being limited and the need for competition. In some sense, competition makes us all better. However, there is a fine line. It's one thing to compete fairly and it's another to kill your competition.

 

[durangodawood]

So your argument is that Billy is correct because there are more people like him than Bob?

Billy's morality aligns better with the objective facts of how people want to live, in this case: free from constant fear of being murdered by your neighbor. Billy's morality probably also has its origins in that fact about how people typically, naturally, objectively prefer to live. Thats my argument.

 

[Moral Orel]

Billy's morality aligns better with the objective facts of how people want to live, in this case: free from constant fear of being murdered by your neighbor. Billy's morality probably also has its origins in that fact about how people typically, naturally prefer to live. Thats my argument.

Does that make Billy correct and Bob incorrect? If so, how so? If not, do you see that what you keep saying has no bearing on the objectivity of morality?

 

[durangodawood]

Does that make Billy correct and Bob incorrect? If so, how so? If not, do you see that what you keep saying has no bearing on the objectivity of morality?

Yes. Billy believes in a correct rule for a society that typical people naturally and objectively want to live in.

The way I phrase that indicates how "correctness" in this case derives from and depends on facts about the human species.

Now, if youre looking for some transcendent/absolute notion of "correct" that exists disconnected from the facts of life....well, you should get religion. In the Abrahamic faiths that how they do it: propose an absolute morality given to us by divine decree.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes. Billy believes in a correct rule for a society that typical people naturally and objectively want to live in.

Well, Billy and Bob both possess their values naturally, they were born with and without empathy as a result of biological processes in their brains, respectively, as I stated in my hypothetical. And stating that it's an objective fact that people have a certain value doesn't have an impact on the objectivity of that value. I mean, I feel bored right now. It's an objective fact that I feel bored, but that doesn't make my feeling objective. So all you have left is "typical". So it does seem to be the case that you think Billy is correct because there are more people that feel like him than Bob.

The way I phrase that indicates how "correctness" in this case derives from and depends on facts about the human species.

It's a fact that some humans lack empathy completely and have no value for human life. Why are they incorrect? Simply because most other people do? Other than your appeal to popularity, everything you keep saying applies to Bob just as much as it applies to Billy.

ETA Why are you putting "correct" in scare quotes? And "correctness"? As if you might ask: 2+2=4, is that "correct"? There are varying degrees of accuracy, there are not varying degrees of "correctness" that are open to opinion. If it's open to opinion, then it has nothing to do with being correct.

 

[durangodawood]

Well, Billy and Bob both possess their values naturally, they were born with and without empathy as a result of biological processes in their brains, respectively, as I stated in my hypothetical. And stating that it's an objective fact that people have a certain value doesn't have an impact on the objectivity of that value. I mean, I feel bored right now. It's an objective fact that I feel bored, but that doesn't make my feeling objective. So all you have left is "typical". So it does seem to be the case that you think Billy is correct because there are more people that feel like him than Bob.


It's a fact that some humans lack empathy completely and have no value for human life. Why are they incorrect? Simply because most other people do? Other than your appeal to popularity, everything you keep saying applies to Bob just as much as it applies to Billy.

ETA Why are you putting "correct" in scare quotes? And "correctness"? As if you might ask: 2+2=4, is that "correct"? There are varying degrees of accuracy, there are not varying degrees of "correctness" that are open to opinion. If it's open to opinion, then it has nothing to do with being correct.

As I said "correct" is conditional on what typical humans need to live well. Some of those needs are not just opinion. They are fact, and can be observed the same we'd scientifically study any aspect of animal behavior.

Yes, of course "typical" matters. We came up as a social species, and extreme minority notions of morality that are destructive to the group will naturally be rejected, for entirely practical survival reasons that arent just opinion.

The scare quotes are there because "correct" has a ton of baggage we need to be aware of, mainly around the religious notion of correctness backstopped by some presumed absolute.

 

[Moral Orel]

As I said "correct" is conditional on what typical humans need to live well. Some of those needs are not just opinion. They are fact, and can be observed the same we'd scientifically study any aspect of animal behavior.

Yes, of course "typical" matters. We came up as a social species, and extreme minority notions of morality that are destructive to the group will naturally be rejected, for entirely practical survival reasons that arent just opinion.

See, you're still talking about some values as though they are the objectively correct values to have. None of them are. There are objective facts about how to "live well", but "living well" is not objectively valuable.

The scare quotes are there because "correct" has a ton of baggage we need to be aware of, mainly around the religious notion of correctness backstopped by some presumed absolute.

No, you simply need to acknowledge that "correct" and "incorrect" aren't the right words to use when talking about morality because it isn't objective at all.

Once we agree on some value, we can make objective statements about how to best achieve that value, sure. But the values are subjective whether they are programmed biologically or not, so it is all based on subjectivity.

 

[durangodawood]

See, you're still talking about some values as though they are the objectively correct values to have. None of them are. There are objective facts about how to "live well", but "living well" is not objectively valuable.....

Really?

Any scientific observation of human behavior indicates otherwise. We can see what humans value by observing how they behave. Yes there's a subjective experience of valuing. But there are also the objective facts about what human animals (and other animals) value.

 

[Moral Orel]

Really?

Yes, really.

Any scientific observation of human behavior indicates otherwise. We can see what humans value by observing how they behave. Yes there's a subjective experience of valuing. But there are also the objective facts about what human animals (and other animals) value.

Again, it's a fact that most humans value life, that doesn't mean it is a fact that life is valuable. Are you starting to see the distinction yet? You're still trying to say that: most humans value life, therefore life is in fact valuable. Argument from popularity. Life is only valuable to the humans that it is valuable to. It isn't valuable to those humans who it isn't. Neither of those groups are correct or incorrect because those aren't proper words to use when discussing peoples' likes and dislikes.

 

[durangodawood]

....Again, it's a fact that most humans value life, that doesn't mean it is a fact that life is valuable. Are you starting to see the distinction yet?...

OK, help me out. When you deny that "life is in fact valuable"... what precisely are you denying?

My understanding is ideas like "valuable" require a subject. It makes zero sense to just assert (or deny) "valuable" without reference to a subject. Who's your subject here?