Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

Uh, no.

All that it means is that I need to accept that other people may have different ideas about morality. Doesn't mean I should accept those views, doesn't mean I should allow them to bring those views to the table.

So people gather around the table and bring their subjective views and you say that you can deny someone's moral position. Why is that, because you don't like their position and therefore think they are wrong. If so on what basis are you determining they are objectively wrong. After all it is not just your table but everyones.

I don't like seafood. I have to acknowledge that some people love it, but that doesn't mean I have to accept it when offers to take me out for a lobster dinner.

That is not what I am talking about. I am saying the person who likes seafood should be able to take that position to offer it to you in the first place. So if someone says that taking other people's possessions or any number of depraved or abhorrent moral positions is OK even if you may disagree they have to be included at the table of subjective morality. That's because there is no objective way to measure that anyone's moral position is wrong.

You may think their position is depraved but it may be OK to another and you cannot deny their right to express and promote that. Otherwise, you are taking an objective position. The point I was making is that call it nature or God's laws people intuitively know certain things are objectively wrong and we act that way by taking objective positions all the time. Theoretically subjective moral positions don't work in practice as people act/react in an objective way.

 

[stevevw]

So whats your bottom line basis for declaring a bad moral view "objectively wrong"?

I think we are already creating the bottom line by the way we act in denying certain moral positions and saying they are wrong and don't belong in our society. things like murder, stealing, rape, abuse, etc. These morals are in line with God's law and people know these moral truths intuitively.

The problem is in an atheistic secular and pluralistic society we have to be all-inclusive and cannot take any particular position generally. So this is where things diverge from say Christianity. For example, where Christians may disagree with abortion secular society says it is legal. So though there are some basic morals that everyone knows and follows there are others that conflict.

Religions are relegated to the sidelines where the State does not support one over the other. Though some will argue that western nations built their societies on Christian values. IMO because secular society has to be all-inclusive this undermines them being able to have a clear and united foundation for morality and this can often cause a lot of conflicts and problems and will always lead to degrading rather than strengthen morals.

 

[stevevw]

So let me see if I've got this straight; Christians believe their morals come from God, who never changes? But Christians are constantly changing! If you look at the moral beliefs of Christians today and compare them to what Christians believed 100 years ago, you will see a big difference in beliefs. How can constantly changing beliefs come from a non changing God?

God's laws haven't changed. People may have misinterpreted them or tried to justify something under them but the laws/morals haven't changed.

 

[Strathos]

Yeah, but surely you can see how it's a total non-answer, right?

If you lack faith, it's the only way you can get an answer.

 

[Kylie]

So people gather around the table and bring their subjective views and you say that you can deny someone's moral position. Why is that, because you don't like their position and therefore think they are wrong. If so on what basis are you determining they are objectively wrong. After all it is not just your table but everyones.

I will not deny that they have those positions. If I disagree with their positions I will explain why I disagree.

But I am NOT concluding that they are objectively wrong. I've got no idea how you figured that.

That is not what I am talking about. I am saying the person who likes seafood should be able to take that position to offer it to you in the first place. So if someone says that taking other people's possessions or any number of depraved or abhorrent moral positions is OK even if you may disagree they have to be included at the table of subjective morality. That's because there is no objective way to measure that anyone's moral position is wrong.

Okay, they can offer it to me. I never said they couldn't offer it, did I? If you had actually READ my post, you'd have seen that I said I am under no obligation to ACCEPT that offer.

You may think their position is depraved but it may be OK to another and you cannot deny their right to express and promote that. Otherwise, you are taking an objective position. The point I was making is that call it nature or God's laws people intuitively know certain things are objectively wrong and we act that way by taking objective positions all the time. Theoretically subjective moral positions don't work in practice as people act/react in an objective way.

Where in the world do you get the idea I am taking an OBJECTIVE position about this? I have been constantly stating the morality is SUBJECTIVE.

You keep claiming that things are objectively wrong, but you never support that claim.

 

[Kylie]

If you lack faith, it's the only way you can get an answer.

Or maybe you get nothing.

Funny how the "You'll find out when you die" argument always seems to be the Christians saying, "When you die, you'll find out that I'm right."

 

[stevevw]

Good example. Good argument... for subjective morality.
There are rules. These rules are set... and maybe agree on. They are not "discovered"... and they can be arbitrary and subjective.
How would the "objective" situation look like? If there was an objective rule to not use blue folders? This objective rule might even be hidden... "undiscovered". The student would be objectively wrong to use a blue folder... even if he hadn't yet "discovered" this rule.
Now he has. He has broken the objective rule... and has to face the consequences.
Is there such a rule? All the teachers say: yes. The student is not having a right of choice of his own folder-colour... he is objectively wrong.
The student may think this is "unfair". He is still objectively wrong. He is deviant. His moral conscience is seared. He is a sociopath. Everyone else uses non-blue folders... except the immorals.

Is that better? What method would someone use to "discover" this objective rule... and why would such a rule exist?

A different example. I am sitting in my car, setting the signal to right and take the right turn. Brakes screech, the oncomming traffic piles up, angry shouts fill the air.
Oops... I am driving in the UK.
I have broken their rules. These rules are not "objective"... I can do such a manoeuver just fine here in Germany. I am not objectively wrong for doing so... and still I am wrong doing so in the UK, or any other left-driving country.

Subjective rules exist, and they work quite fine. They are not arbitrary... they are based on agreement... forced or convinced. But the very existence of different-side-driving systems shows - functioning systems - demonstrates that there is no need for objective rules in these cases.

The example supports objective morality. Despite the student advocating subjective morality he acted like there was objective morality. As mentioned earlier people’s action/reactions speak more about the truth of their morals than what they say as in the case of the student's essay as opposed to his reaction for getting an F.

The blue folder example is only meant as an example to show the difference between what people say and how they react. The teacher isn’t pushing his morals onto the student but rather applying the students own subjective ideas back onto the student to show how unreal they are. Obviously, a blue folder is not about morality. Morals have a lot more significance and meaning than a blue folder.

Morals are discovered in that people’s reactions are intuitive and deep-seated. It is part of them rather than something learnt. People from different parts of the world, remote places will have the same reaction. Unless the person is not of the right mind they will react if their child is abused regardless of culture, race, place or time.

But that is subjective. It is their subjective judgement that this action happening to them is morally wrong. If they in turn then change their views on this action happening to others or not... that doesn't matter. It remains situational, it remains subjective.

I am talking about what a person holds a particular moral view than something is not not wrong but then acts like it is wrong when it happens to them. It shows they are taking a hypocritical position and are expressing an unreal moral idea because it cannot be put into practice in their own life. Their reaction shows how they really feel despite them making claims to the contrary.

No. That is just wrong... not morally, linguistically. "Except" means just that. "There is a general number of cases where X is the rule... and there are other cases where this rule is not applicable."
It is quite to opposite: if there were objective morals, there would be no use for the word "exception" (in moral context)... because there could be no exceptions... this action would always be right or wrong.
You are implying that all these, always, are invalid excuses, exceptions or justifications.
If you can and do live according to such a moral code... applause for you. You would be an... exception.

Your misunderstanding the exceptions. The objective moral not to kill always stands. But there can be an exception, justification or compromise of that moral if it conflicts with another objective moral. If someone tries to kill your family, you have a moral obligation to protect them. You may get into a fight and kill the person in protecting your family’s life. So, the objective moral to protect life and the objective moral not to kill come into conflict.

That is one of the rare exceptions for taking someone life. If you did not protect your family’s life you would be culpable of murder yourself. But this is not changing the objective moral not to kill but rather accommodating a rare situation (relative). It is still wrong to kill, and the person has still breached the moral not to kill. But they have a good moral reason compared to killing based on greed, rage, or other immoral motives.

This a nice example. Too bad that it is false.
Hindus (not necessarily Indians) consider cows as a special symbol for life and the Mother Goddess. Reincarnation can, according to the, happen as all kinds of animals, and the majority of Hindus has no special reverence for other animals. Still, cows are "sacred" even for non-vegetarian Hindus.
So not killing (or eating) cows is not a matter of not wanting to kill a person... it is a question of blasphemy.

You might want to consider the punishment for blasphemy according to the source of your "objective morals". It was only when it became inconvenient for a sizeable portion of the population that blasphemy stopped to be a capital offence in Christianity... and it wasn't until the advent of secular governments that it stopped to be a legal offence at all... sometimes that took a loooong time, and there are still Christian countries where it is an offence that is harshly punished.

Seems that the discovery of the objective moral that it is wrong to punish someone for their beliefs is still not finished.

OK well some religions like Hindus regard some animals as sacred because people come back as animals and therefore killing them is like killing a person. The point is the moral not to kill people remains objective but some cultures and societal situations apply that moral different. But that doesn't make the moral subjective.

And that brings us back, at last, to the real problem: there simply is no way to "discover" these elusive objective morals.

As mentioned earlier with the link I posted we can determine objective morals through lived moral experience. All people act and react morally the same way despite what they say.

 

[stevevw]

If morality does not come from human thought, but some imperative of human nature, which imperative of human nature does it come from? Please be specific.

That's a hard question to answer and even harder to validate. All I can say IMO is that the evidence shows people intuitively know that some things are objectively right or wrong. If there are objective morals then they have to come from beyond the subject (humans). So it is a case of determining whether this is nature or some lawgiver. I have posted the argument for a moral lawgiver (the Christian God).

If it is natural then it would need to be some aspect of human existence that we cannot explain or fully understand yet. Like consciousness where some people believe and have some evidence pointing to it having an immaterial aspect maybe there are laws that govern the immaterial aspects of life like morals. The evidence seems to support that objective morals are a sort of law that acts like laws of physics so maybe at this stage, we just don't know if you want to disregard God.

 

[stevevw]

Wait, what?

"We are justified in believing that objective morals exist on the ground of our moral experience ..."​

So they're saying that morality is objective, and they know this because of our subjective view of morality?

I think you may have misunderstood what they said. They said we are justified for making morality objective based on our moral experience. Similar to how we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience. This is different to views and opinions. As mentioned earlier there is quite a bit of evidence that shows the way people act/react and live out their morals as opposed to what they say about their morals that point to them they knew there are objective morals. People may claim certain things about morals being subjective and present different views. But when people are wronged we all act/react similarly as though the moral wrong is objectively wrong.

This is also seen in the way societies and nations or organizations like the UN have certain morals that they say are applicable to all and make others follow them. It is woven through all societies and all times. People may call these different names but there are always similar moral values. Everyone believes and has this same knowledge of certain rights and wrongs and we play them out one way or another. To deny this is the case one would have to come up with very strong evidence (a defeater) that would render objective morals irrelevant and unsupported just as much as any evidence would have to be to deny the way the physical world operates around us. IE

Such a defeater would have to show not merely that our moral experience is fallible or defeasible but that it is utterly unreliable, that we may apprehend no objective moral values or duties whatsoever. Our moral experience is so powerful, however, that such a defeater would have to be incredibly powerful in order to overcome our experience, just as our sense experience is so powerful that a defeater of my belief in the world of physical objects I perceive would have to be incredibly powerful in order for me to believe that I have no good reason to think that I am not a brain in a vat of chemicals or a body lying in the Matrix.

That is how strong the lived moral experience is as support for objective morality.

 

[Freodin]

The example supports objective morality. Despite the student advocating subjective morality he acted like there was objective morality. As mentioned earlier people’s action/reactions speak more about the truth of their morals than what they say as in the case of the student's essay as opposed to his reaction for getting an F.

The blue folder example is only meant as an example to show the difference between what people say and how they react. The teacher isn’t pushing his morals onto the student but rather applying the students own subjective ideas back onto the student to show how unreal they are. Obviously, a blue folder is not about morality. Morals have a lot more significance and meaning than a blue folder.

Nope, sorry, you are wrong here. At least you are consistently wrong.
The proponents of "objective morals" like to assert that "subjective morals" means... anything goes, there is no way to determine how to act, and there are no rules, no rules at all.
That is a strawman.

As long as you cannot acknowledge this error in your argumentation, there is reason to continue this discussion.

Morals are discovered in that people’s reactions are intuitive and deep-seated. It is part of them rather than something learnt. People from different parts of the world, remote places will have the same reaction. Unless the person is not of the right mind they will react if their child is abused regardless of culture, race, place or time.

That now is a fallacy, of the No True Scottsman kind.
You cannot assert that "[All] people will have the same reaction"... and then admit that there are people who do not... but simply exclude them because "they are not of the right mind".

I am talking about what a person holds a particular moral view than something is not not wrong but then acts like it is wrong when it happens to them. It shows they are taking a hypocritical position and are expressing an unreal moral idea because it cannot be put into practice in their own life. Their reaction shows how they really feel despite them making claims to the contrary.

Again, that is using an overly simplistic approach of "black and white" morals.

Your misunderstanding the exceptions. The objective moral not to kill always stands. But there can be an exception, justification or compromise of that moral if it conflicts with another objective moral. If someone tries to kill your family, you have a moral obligation to protect them. You may get into a fight and kill the person in protecting your family’s life. So, the objective moral to protect life and the objective moral not to kill come into conflict.

It's amazing how you can make a such a case for situational morals... and then claim that "objective moral always stands".
And it is quite telling that you can go from "communists take over your government" to "someone tries to kill your family".
It shows where you subjective views of morality lie.
It also shows, very clearly, that you simply cannot escape subjective morality.
If you have two "objective" morals, that can come into conflict... they it must necessarily means that the individual has to decide... based on their subjective evalutation... which of them to follow.

That is one of the rare exceptions for taking someone life. If you did not protect your family’s life you would be culpable of murder yourself. But this is not changing the objective moral not to kill but rather accommodating a rare situation (relative). It is still wrong to kill, and the person has still breached the moral not to kill. But they have a good moral reason compared to killing based on greed, rage, or other immoral motives.

Morals are rules, guidelines for actions. They do not exist independently. They are always imbedded in realistic contexts.
If there are "good moral reasons" to kill... then that means this killing, in that situation, for these reasons... was morally good. That is what "good moral reasons" means.

OK well some religions like Hindus regard some animals as sacred because people come back as animals and therefore killing them is like killing a person. The point is the moral not to kill people remains objective but some cultures and societal situations apply that moral different. But that doesn't make the moral subjective.

Err, no. the point is that you are misrepresenting the belief of others, in order to support your argument.
I corrected your false interpretation... and you simply keep repeating it. First you made a mistake... now you are promoting a falsehood.
Is that part of your objective morality? Or an exception: "You shall not lie... except when it suits your goals"?

As mentioned earlier with the link I posted we can determine objective morals through lived moral experience. All people act and react morally the same way despite what they say.

If that is your measure, your ultimate measure... fine.

So you would agree that neither abortion nor homosexuality - some of the most discussed "moral" questions here - are objectively wrong?

 

[stevevw]

I will not deny that they have those positions. If I disagree with their positions I will explain why I disagree.

But I am NOT concluding that they are objectively wrong. I've got no idea how you figured that.

OK, I must have misunderstood you. When you said the person with the different morals is not welcome at the table I assumed it was everyone's table. The table rather than my table IE
Doesn't mean I should accept those views, doesn't mean I should allow them to bring those views to the table.

If it was your table then that's OK. But if it was everyone's table (societies table) then by saying they are not welcome you are more or less saying their position is wrong. The moment you take the position of saying your moral position is the correct one and the other persons are not you are taking an objective position. True subjective morality has to acknowledge that everyone's view is just as valid and should be included.

Okay, they can offer it to me. I never said they couldn't offer it, did I? If you had actually READ my post, you'd have seen that I said I am under no obligation to ACCEPT that offer.

Yes and that's when I clarified the difference between your table and everyone's table. That's an important distinction as to what I was meaning.

Where in the world do you get the idea I am taking an OBJECTIVE position about this? I have been constantly stating the morality is SUBJECTIVE.

You keep claiming that things are objectively wrong, but you never support that claim.

Sorry, my bad grammar. I never was good at English. When I said "you" I didn't mean you personally but people generally. I am speaking hypothetically and generally to explain how under subjective morality people have to include all views even if they are horrible to some in the system of subjective morality. The moment someone says that certain moral views cannot be included because they are wrong is the moment they take an objective position. The reality is we as a society are always taking objective positions and saying certain moral positions are objectively wrong.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You'll just have to wait and see where it gets you in the end.

There we go. When you've been forced into the "You'll find out when you die" corner, the game's over.

I often say the worst part of being an atheist is I won't get to say "told you so."

 

[Ken-1122]

God's laws haven't changed. People may have misinterpreted them or tried to justify something under them but the laws/morals haven't changed.

My morality hasn't changed either; like your God; nobody chooses to follow them! So.... you admit; Christian morality is subjective?

 

[Ken-1122]

I am talking about what a person holds a particular moral view than something is not not wrong but then acts like it is wrong when it happens to them. It shows they are taking a hypocritical position and are expressing an unreal moral idea because it cannot be put into practice in their own life. Their reaction shows how they really feel despite them making claims to the contrary.

You seem to keep making the same mistake. What you are failing to understand is that people react when they see wrong. Whether that wrong falls under objectivity or subjectivity, is something that doesn't even cross their minds at the moment. To suggest someone is going to think it is okay to steal because it is only subjectively wrong, or will refrain from stealing because they feel it is objectively wrong is absurd.

 

[Ken-1122]

So if someone says that taking other people's possessions or any number of depraved or abhorrent moral positions is OK even if you may disagree they have to be included at the table of subjective morality. That's because there is no objective way to measure that anyone's moral position is wrong.

But there is a subjective way to measure someone's moral position is wrong; and it isn't because I (or somebody else) proclaim it's objectively wrong. Can you guess what that is?

 

[Strathos]

Or maybe you get nothing.

Funny how the "You'll find out when you die" argument always seems to be the Christians saying, "When you die, you'll find out that I'm right."

Well if you're right, then nothing ever mattered in the first place, so there's really no point in arguing about it at all then.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well if you're right, then nothing ever mattered in the first place, so there's really no point in arguing about it at all then.

What if you're both wrong? What if God does exist, but you're praying to the wrong one, and this real God keeps getting madder and madder each time you ignore him and pray to your fake one? You'd be better off not praying at all.

 

[Strathos]

What if you're both wrong? What if God does exist, but you're praying to the wrong one, and this real God keeps getting madder and madder each time you ignore him and pray to your fake one? You'd be better off not praying at all.

The God I know and have met spiritually is Jesus Christ.

 

[stevevw]

But there is a subjective way to measure someone's moral position is wrong; and it isn't because I (or somebody else) proclaim it's objectively wrong. Can you guess what that is?

Yes, its to proclaim it is subjectively wrong. It is only wrong according to the subject (the person saying it is wrong). But that means nothing objectively as far as morality is concerned. It equates to saying you like blue while the other person likes green.

Under subjective morality, a person cannot claim another person is wrong and must allow all moral positions at the table. As soon as you say another is wrong you are taking an objective position because you cannot determine whether the other person is objectively wrong. You can only say they take a different moral position to you but not the wrong one.

 

[Kylie]

They said we are justified for making morality objective based on our moral experience. Similar to how we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience.

The big difference that we can measure the world of physical objects and come up with precise values which can be measured by others who agree. The values and measurements can be used in calculations, and the validity and accuracy of those calculations can be used to verify the accuracy of the original measurements and values we got.

Can you do that with morality? No. Different thing.