Where does morality come from?

[Moral Orel]

No, I said that just pushing your views onto others takes an objective position. It seems your scenario is pushing a certain position onto Shemp. Even bashing him to conform.

Nope, that doesn't happen in my scenario at all. It pushes Shemp to act a certain way, it doesn't matter what he believes about morality.

full of moral objective appeals IE why do Moe, Larry, and Curly not like stealing.

There are zero moral objective appeals. They don't like stealing because they like using the stuff they have.

Likes and dislikes have no ultimate reference to say they are the best position to like. It is like convincing Shemp that because Moe, Larry, and Curly like Chocolate cake Shemp should as well when he hates chocolate cake. There is no ultimate reason Shemp should force himself to like chocolate cake.

No one told Shemp to not like stealing anymore, they told him not to do it anymore, huge difference. Just because there's no objective reason to like or dislike things doesn't mean people don't like and dislike things they have no reason to. People are still going to feel feelings.

 

[Moral Orel]

And you care that I'm suffering when you steal my t.v. remote, right?

I was going to respond the same way Hans did, only without the smilie. In all seriousness, I wouldn't steal a remote from you if I cared that it hurt you, so I'm afraid I still miss your point. If you suffer the loss, and I suffer as a result of empathy for your loss, then we're both feeling feelings. What's the connection to my hypothetical Stooges scenario?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was going to respond the same way Hans did, only without the smilie. In all seriousness, I wouldn't steal a remote from you if I cared that it hurt you, so I'm afraid I still miss your point. If you suffer the loss, and I suffer as a result of empathy for your loss, then we're both feeling feelings. What's the connection to my hypothetical Stooges scenario?

Shemp is a sociopath. That's all, so he can be objectively 'discounted' if it is known, or even very heavily surmised, by the Stooges that he 'likes' stealing and will likely always like stealing. So, there is an objective, even if not absolute, quality inherent to, and intuited by, the Stooges. And it goes without saying, objectively, that we wouldn't include Shemp in that 95% of those who intuitively don't and won't like stealing from others.

That's my basic contention, even if it's not a full fledged argument.

 

[Speedwell]

Shemp is a sociopath. That's all, so he can be objectively 'discounted' if it is known, or even very heavily surmised, by the Stooges that he 'likes' stealing and will likely always like stealing. So, there is an objective, even if not absolute, quality inherent to, and intuited by, the Stooges. And it goes without saying, objectively, that we wouldn't include Shemp in that 95% of those who intuitively don't and won't like stealing from others.

That's my basic contention, even if it's not a full fledged argument.

Or maybe Shemp is of the opinion that the Stooge brothers should posses property in common (as some societies do) and so appropriating it from one another is not a problem.

 

[Moral Orel]

Shemp is a sociopath. That's all, so he can be objectively 'discounted' if it is known, or even very heavily surmised, by the Stooges that he 'likes' stealing and will likely always like stealing.

Discounted how? If his behavior can be controlled in the ways I described in my scenario, he can still be a productive member of society. Sure, he'll always like stealing, but he likes not being beaten to a bloody pulp more, so he never does it. Why discount him for a preference he has that doesn't affect anyone anymore?

So, there is an objective, even if not absolute, quality inherent to, and intuited by, the Stooges.

Nope. The Stooges don't like stealing because they like using the stuff they have, and if it's stolen they can't use it anymore. They don't need to intuit anything about the nature of stealing as good or evil.

And it goes without saying, objectively, that we wouldn't include Shemp in that 95% of those who intuitively don't and won't like stealing from others.

Who cares what people like if they don't do the thing that we don't like?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Or maybe Shemp is of the opinion that the Stooge brothers should posses property in common (as some societies do) and so appropriating it from one another is not a problem.

That could be, but this won't discount the scenario where Shemp is a part of the very same society (or of the same social tradition) that Larry, Curly and Moe are a part of, rather than from some other, completely different society.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Discounted how? If his behavior can be controlled in the ways I described in my scenario, he can still be a productive member of society. Sure, he'll always like stealing, but he likes not being beaten to a bloody pulp more, so he never does it. Why discount him for a preference he has that doesn't affect anyone anymore?

I don't think you understand what I mean by, and the context in which, I'm discerning the analytic act of 'discounting.' My whole focal point is upon subjective versus objective notions about ethics and morality. I'm not focusing upon and vetting out the who, why, what, where and when, and how of containing sociopaths.

I'm trying to get at the point that there is some amount, even if just a trace, of objectivity within the nature of moral intuitions.

Nope. The Stooges don't like stealing because they like using the stuff they have, and if it's stolen they can't use it anymore. They don't need to intuit anything about the nature of stealing as good or evil.

They do it whether they realize it or not.

Who cares what people like if they don't do the thing that we don't like?

That's a different scenario than the one I brought up with the t.v. remote.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Of course, stealing is immoral everyone knows that. Why do you think the legal system makes stealing illegal.

The short answer is that it's hard for society to exist if you cannot own property. It's got nothing to do with "morality".

I am talking more than disagreeing. When people say the other person is wrong for having their moral position *snip*

That's disagreement....that's literally disagreement. You say chocolate is better than vanilla....I say you're wrong, vanilla is better than chocolate.

You keep saying that it's more than disagreement....but you keep referring to verbal disagreements. At what point does it involve more than just a person saying "I think you're wrong because reasons."?

They are no longer just thinking their subjective view applies to them but also applies to the other person. In other words, they are saying you don't have a right to have your view, you should be seeing things like me.

I disagree. Nobody actually says "you don't have a right to your view"....and what's more is they would be wrong if they did. Everyone has a right to their view.

I have already told you this. They go to the point of pushing their moral views on others.

By telling people they disagree with them?

It is not a case of brains but more about conscience. People can't help it because they know right and wrong within themselves.

They don't know right from wrong....we already established that.

Furthermore if you spend a significant amount of time trying to convince people that your morals are right and theirs are wrong....I'd have to say that isn't a bright person.

And it is not just people doing it to each other but organizations are forcing their moral values on employees, the UN is forcing it on Nations, Governments are forcing their moral values on citizens.

Care to give some examples?

This is the lived moral experience as referred to in the logical argument I posted earlier where we can be justified to believe that there are objective morals based on our lived moral experience just as we are justified to believe the physical world is what it is based on our lived moral experience.

People arguing with you is "lived moral experience"?

They can continue to disagree with others so long as they don't force their view onto others if they want to claim subjective morality.

What's the difference? You describe disagreement and forcing as exactly the same.

Have you ever forced someone to follow your morals? If so...how?

Yeah, that's a natural thing for humans to do even if people believe in objective morals.

I think that's a simplistic view of things. There are times when people agree and understand forced morals even if they disagree with the loss of freedom or that it is annoying. Entire organizations and governments do it and people accept it.

Laws are not the same as morals.

Ultimately right or wrong. Not just right or wrong according to individual views.

Morals don't exist apart from individual views.

No, but by imposing your moral position on them and telling them they should act a certain way you are an objective position that you know your view is "morally right that it also applies to others. What objective reference point do you have to even know the other person's moral position is wrong to do that.

Nobody has "an objective reference point". Remember a few posts back when I tried to get you to name one and you couldn't?

Yes even if there are objective morals many people will act the same way they do. But for Christians, we follow God's moral laws so we don't act like everyone IE adultery is a sin, sex before marriage is wrong, abortion is wrong. These are acceptable things for a secular society.

This rather clearly contradicts what you said earlier about governments and laws.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure. The acceptance of ethical codes and conduct, along with the moral agency to act upon that acceptance, is a part of the warp and woof of a Psychologist's job, or that of an F.B.I. agent, or even that of a scientist working in a wide range of dozens of various research and technological fields. The fact that there is a recognition that ethical codes and fitting moral compliance is a must should indicate a basic intuition that ethics and morality isn't a matter of taste nor merely an optional aspect of life.

There. I've cut to the chase.

Ethical codes of conduct for specific jobs exist to encourage a job to be done correctly.

An FBI agent who plants evidence on suspects is not doing his job correctly. His ultimate goal being to enforce the law....the law is not enforced by his arrest of innocent suspects.

Likewise, a psychologist has a job to diagnose and treat mental illness. If they just prescribe anxiety medication to everyone regardless of symptoms....they aren't doing their job correctly.

 

[Ken-1122]

Then a person's claim can only apply to themself. They can claim whatever they want so long as they don't turn that claim about their moral views into a moral they want to force on others.

No, when someone makes a claim, they can apply that claim any way they want! There is nothing stopping them from doing that.

Because its your logic.

When I come to new information; whether it is something independent of my own view, a different way of looking at things, or whatever; if it makes sense to me, I make it a part of my logic. I suspect most honest people are this way.

I don't know. I think everyone thinks hate speech is wrong.

The way hate speech is defined is very subjective. The way many define hate speech, a lot of people see nothing wrong with such speech.
What about abortion and transgender rights? Are you gonna claim everybody agrees on those issues too? Or do I need to show you they don't.

How does what I just said make you think I don't understand subjective morality.

First you said-It is only subjective if the person doesn't push their morals onto others. It becomes an objective position when they push that position onto others and say that others should have the same morals as themselves.
As you can see from the below definition; that which is objective is always verifiable; that which is subjective is not subject to verification. This idea of yours that a subjective position (magically) becomes objective the moment someone pushes that view on somebody else; this indicates you don’t understand objectivity or subjectivity when applied to morality
Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms

So they don't react when their child is being bashed and sexually abused.

I said nothing about sexual assault, or being bashed; I said “abused”. What is often labeled abuse, many don’t have a problem with it.

OK sorry about that. I hadn't had time to respond as there were many posts to reply to. You said that God belief is not required to recognize evil. I posted the video to explain that good and evil cannot exist without God. Here is what the video was basically saying.

The existence of evil is one of the greatest supports for God. When people raise the problem of evil I always ask them what do they mean by evil. People find it hard to give a definition of evil. But when they think about it evil is when things are not the way they ought to be.

I don’t know the type of people he usually talks to, but for me evil is such an easy term to define. I disagree with his definition. My car is not running right; it isn’t running the way it ought to be running. Should I take my car to the mechanic because it’s evil?
I ought to give the waitress an 18% tip, but I'm cheap so I only tipped her at 10%. Am I evil?

Keep in mind that the objection of evil is based on the existence of evil as a real feature of the world and not just a difference of opinion or a subjective view.

No; I recognize evil, not as a feature of the real world, just a judgment label I attach to some things I find extremely objectionable.

It is a matter of dealing with the real problem of evil in the world. What they mean then if someone raises an objection to the problem of evil is there must be a standard of good that is transcendent that is in the world which evil turns out to be a departure from.

I have my own standard of good, as do most people I suspect.

C.S.Lewis says I would not have known what crooked was unless I knew what straight was. You don’t know a bad portrait unless you knew what the original was like to compare with.

I don’t need to see the original in order to appreciate a copy.

So in order for someone to complain about the problem of evil there must be some transcendent standard of good that it departs from.

And that standard comes from people who judge evil or good.

That can only be the case if God exists. So a person in any coherent way cannot even raise the problem of evil unless there first is a God that gives a definition of what good is

People who don’t even believe in God raise the problem of evil all the time! That alone should tell you your argument fails.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't think you understand what I mean by, and the context in which, I'm discerning the analytic act of 'discounting.' My whole focal point is upon subjective versus objective notions about ethics and morality. I'm not focusing upon and vetting out the who, why, what, where and when, and how of containing sociopaths.

I'm trying to get at the point that there is some amount, even if just a trace, of objectivity within the nature of moral intuitions.

The point I was making to Steve was about how some proponents of objective morality seem to think morality falls apart without objectivity and no one should tell people to not do things we feel are bad. My point was that's what we all already do all the time. I've seen you echo the same sentiment as Steve in this thread too, so I was happy to continue that point with you. I've already been here for a few weeks talking about all the objective facts surrounding morality, I don't really care to start that discussion from scratch again.

They do it whether they realize it or not.

Why do you think it's a result of intuition as opposed to things like social pressure, conditioning, empathy, etc?

That's a different scenario than the one I brought up with the t.v. remote.

Sure, but that was a point about empathy, yes? We feel suffering when we notice other people suffering. So if I see you suffering because your TV is stuck on the Lifetime Network and you can't change the channel, I'll feel bad because you feel bad. I don't want to feel bad, so I won't cause you to feel bad because that makes me feel bad.

I also want to add that you're still throwing the term "sociopath" around pretty carelessly. If Shemp steals, sees people in anguish over the loss of their property, and feels nothing for them, then sure, that's a good sign of sociopathy. Not all immoral people are sociopaths, though. Who was it that said, "We are not a rational species, we are a rationalizing species"? If Shemp convinces himself that you aren't really all that hurt by a loss of a remote, then he might not feel bad without a lack of empathy.

 

[stevevw]

When I saw this link, my first thought was of that awful PragerU (sic) video, but it turned out to be worse -- a WLC fan. But that's not why I responded, it was rather because the whole paragraph wouldn't have existed if hadn't misused some words. I'm here to help clear this up...

First, let's start back a few posts

Steve said:

Now Ken objected (correctly) to the use of the term "atheist worldview" when you should have written "in a universe without a god" or "in a godless universe".

But a worldview is based on assumptions, beliefs, and propositions that someone uses in interpreting the world they live in. It is a perspective from which a person sees and interprets the world. It is a persons beliefs about life and the universe. So in that sense its a worldview. A Christian worldview or perspective says God exists, created life gives people a purpose, and has set moral laws through his word the Bible. An atheist's worldview encompasses the same things in saying God doesn't exist, people evolved, determine their own purpose, and create their own morals.

So atheists address the same things as believers in God that determine the world, purpose, and morals but take the opposite position that God doesn't have any influence on those things. Therefore this is a worldview.

You then replied (repeated quote):

wherein you go fully into the notion that "atheism = non-existence of god" instead of as a belief position.

The strongest form of atheism states there is no God. But I will concede that people do also take a belief position. But for the sake of this argument about morals, the question is where do morals come from. The article and I are saying that if someone does not appeal to a God to ground morals then it doesn't matter if it is a belief that there is no God or that there is not God they have no ground for their moral position.

So let me help you with a few terms, including ones that might be better for a more precise discussion:

"non-believer": this is a very descriptive and very appropriate if the topic is the personal source of morals. For example, you might ask "If believers get their morals from the scriptures/teachings of their religion, where do non-believers get theirs?" The only difficulty with this term is that in certain contexts (those with a religious in-group, like CF) non-believer can mean those who don't follow the dominant religion or belief (here on CF, that would be all non-Christians including Jews, Muslims, Hindus).

Not really as the first thing that an objective moral position takes is that to ground morals and have a reference point to measure them there needs to be some sort of transcendent being independent of humans. It doesn't have to be a specific god untile we begin to determine the specific measures of what is right or wrong. But the fact that there needs to be an independent transient being can be established.

"atheist": a general non-believer, non-believer in all religions/gods. Even if you want to define atheist as someone who positively believes that no gods exist (or could exist), it is still only a belief and is does not determine if a god exists or not.

Either way, they have no reference point for good and evil. Yet the atheists will claim that there is evil in the world. They would need a positive belief in some sort of transcendent being to establish this.

"secular": non-religious, particularly when things, activities, or organizations can be divided by religion. For example religious and secular music, or a bible college versus a secular state university, etc. Most for-profits are secular. This term is some times used by non-religious people to describe themselves, as in "Oh, I'm not religious, I'm secular.", or to disentangle ones jewish identity as a "secular jew" (that is having a jewish ethnic identity, but not practicing judiaism). One very relevant usage for this discussion is "secular morality" as a blanket term for moral systems that are not derived from religious precepts.

There is a term that is often used in the pejorative, but when used properly here can be quite powerful:

"godless" (adj.) I like this term, but only for the question of whether there is a god or not (that is not for beliefs about the question). Thus a "godless universe" is a universe without a god. Likewise, "godless morality" would be morality in a universe without a god (or perhaps morality not generated by a divinity). Unfortunately, the most common uses of this word do not fit this limited usage: "godless communism" when it was meant "secular communism" (perhaps additionally with "anti-religious" tacked on), and "godless heathen" when it is meant "non-religious/non-believing fun-lover" .

Now, I can't quite tell if Steve meant "godless universe" or was talking about secular morality in the first posting.

Putting aside the "belief" questions, we get to the possible states of morality, regardless if we recognize them in our beliefs and personal moral codes or not (wait, are you going fully on topic?)

1. "Natural, intrinsic morality": Morality as a feature of the universe itself. Every being must follow it, even gods. (I doubt this is the case as there are clear differences in the basic forms of human and non-human animal moral systems.)

2. "Divinely impose morality": A god gives morality to the conscious beings.

3. "Secular morality": Moral systems not derived from the intrinsic properties of the universe, nor imposed by a god. I should note that a god could create the universe (or not) and leave morality to the various beings to work out themselves.

In a godless universe, only 1 & 3 are possible. In a universe with a god any of them could be true, including combinations of 1&2.

So primarily all these examples are speaking about a universe either without a god of some sort. But if a god this god could either be personal and have a relationship with us and therefore set moral values for us or impersonal god who sets no moral values such as in Deism.

The point is any position that only encompasses humans and the material world even including naturalism can only appeal to the limits of that realm. As morality is personal and immaterial this cannot be seen as some sort of physical law in nature. So there are only humans who can create and determine moral values. As opposed to some transcendent entity or call it god independent of humans whose morals are set and measured by.

There is a clear distinction here. Any moral values contained within a material existence are limited to human views. Yet humans act like there are moral values beyond this like they believe there is evil in the world and not just as a matter of personal opinion. This points to there being some fixed reference point to measure moral values outside humans and the material. Because morals are personal and immaterial this reference point needs to also be transcendent and personal.

 

[Kylie]

@stevevw , please don't forget my last post 1323.

 

[stevevw]

No, when someone makes a claim, they can apply that claim any way they want! There is nothing stopping them from doing that.

But if they applied that claim to another person who believes the opposite and states that this person must follow their moral values then they are denying the other person the right under subjective morality to hold their moral position. By doing that they are more or less doing what some people claim about religions, imposing an objective morality.

When I come to new information; whether it is something independent of my own view, a different way of looking at things, or whatever; if it makes sense to me, I make it a part of my logic. I suspect most honest people are this way.

But when you impose that view onto others and expect them to be the same you are forcing your logic and view onto them. It is fine for you to have your own position but under subjective morality, it cannot be forced on others because they have their own position they want the right to claim.

The way hate speech is defined is very subjective. The way many define hate speech, a lot of people see nothing wrong with such speech.
What about abortion and transgender rights? Are you gonna claim everybody agrees on those issues too? Or do I need to show you they don't?

Well yes, abortion is taking a life and everyone knows that unjustly taking a life is morally wrong. The transgender issue itself is a contentious issue. I am not sure if someone who thinks they are the opposite sex is a moral issue. It is the discrimination that goes along with it that is wrong. But just because an issue is hard to define doesn't mean it cannot be defined or that it is subjective.

First you said-It is only subjective if the person doesn't push their morals onto others. It becomes an objective position when they push that position onto others and say that others should have the same morals as themselves.
As you can see from the below definition; that which is objective is always verifiable; that which is subjective is not subject to verification. This idea of yours that a subjective position (magically) becomes objective the moment someone pushes that view on somebody else; this indicates you don’t understand objectivity or subjectivity when applied to morality
Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms

So tell me if subjective morality only applies to the person's own view how is it still subjective when they expect others to follow the same moral views. They have gone from just applying it to themselves to now applying it to others. They are now saying there is only one moral position for this moral value and it applies to everyone.

The reason a subjective view/claim becomes objective is that the person has moved from having a view and making a claim which is based on words and thought which is hard to measure as people think and say things they don't really mean. To an action/reaction which contradicts their thoughts and claims and can be measured and is a true representation of what they believe.

I said nothing about sexual assault, or being bashed; I said: “abused”. What is often labeled abuse, many don’t have a problem with it.

We have to determine what you mean by abuse. It usually means treated badly, violently, misused, with bad effects.

I don’t know the type of people he usually talks to, but for me evil is such an easy term to define. I disagree with his definition. My car is not running right; it isn’t running the way it ought to be running. Should I take my car to the mechanic because it’s evil?
I ought to give the waitress an 18% tip, but I'm cheap so I only tipped her at 10%. Am I evil?

So what do you define evil as?

No; I recognize evil, not as a feature of the real world, just a judgment label I attach to some things I find extremely objectionable.

So say a sexual abuser of children is only evil in your view but not ultimately evil.

I have my own standard of good, as do most people I suspect.

So why is you standard of good ultimately good.

I don’t need to see the original in order to appreciate a copy.

But how do you know its a cope if you haven't seen the original?

And that standard comes from people who judge evil or good.

Who says their judgment is reliable to determine if it is ultimately good or evil.

People who don’t even believe in God raise the problem of evil all the time! That alone should tell you your argument fails.

How can they protest about evil if they don't have some independent measure of what evil is? For all, they know what they thought was evil was good and what they thought was good was evil. How can we trust them.

 

[stevevw]

Again with the extreme example. Why do moral objectivists always go with the extreme examples to prove their case? Why don't you guys ever use less extreme examples? Surely if there is an objective morality it will apply just as much to the issue of whether it is wrong to lie about whether someone looks good in that particular suit. So, what is the objective moral position on that? If someone is wearing a suit that looks bad, and they ask me what I think, do I tell them they look like the dog's breakfast, or do I lie and tell them they look great? What does your objective morality say about that?

Sorry I got bogged down with all the posts and forgot. Obvious examples of objective morality are used as it cuts out the need to spend more time determining and explaining things. Remember we only have to show 1 example of objective morality to establish there are objective moral values. So showing an obvious one is only needed without complicating things.

The point is everyone knows that not telling a person the truth is a lie whether big or small. They also know that pointing out that they may not look the best is better in the long run. But there is a fine balance between whether you hurt a person or they can handle the truth. But none of this disproves that a person is still lying. The lie that avoids hurting a person which may be a bigger wrong is less of a wrong that a bigger lie. As mentioned there are degrees of wrongs.

No. Why do you think that subjective morality demands that I let them do this?

Because under subjective morality, they are doing nothing wrong as there are no ultimate moral values and therefore no one should take an objective moral position. They are just carrying out their subjective view which is right according to them. By stopping them you are imposing your view onto them and denying them their right to express their subjective moral position.

If you can't understand why keeping our society running smoothly is a good thing for us, then I certainly can't help you.

I can understand that as one subjective view but this doesn't tell us why it is wrong. It only tells us how we know it is wrong. This is an evolutionary reason and survival of the species, therefore, a genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy tries to disprove objective morality by showing how it came about rather than why something is wrong. Like if someone said the only reason a person believes that the earth is round rather than flat is that they were born in the 20th century where this is a popular view. Therefore your view is invalid.

That would be silly. It is true that if you were born in ancient Greece you might have believed that the Earth was flat, but simply telling how your belief came to originate does nothing to invalidate that belief. If moral values, for example, are gradually discovered rather than gradually invented then mankind’s gradual and fallible the apprehension of the realm of objective moral values no more undermines the objectivity of that realm than our gradual fallible apprehension of the world discovered by natural science undermines the objectivity of that realm.

So long as moral values are gradually discovered rather than gradually invented, that is consistent with saying they are objective. So the fact that you can show that there are cultural and even biological influences that cause you to believe in certain moral values does nothing to undermine the objectivity of those values. That is to commit the genetic fallacy.
Moral Argument (part 3) | Reasonable Faith

No, it's not.

First of all, not everyone shares those views.

Secondly, it only comes close to working in extreme cases. What about the example I used of the guy in the bad suit? What's the objectively moral thing to say in that case?

As pointed out in obvious cases like asking people if they like it if their child was sexually abused they would be saying that this was wrong most of the time other than if they were not of the right mind. I cannot think of someone saying it was good that their child was sexually abused.

As I also pointed out in the example with the bad suit, most people know that they have told a porky and often say later I just couldn't tell the person the truth as I felt it would have hurt their feelings. The fact that they acknowledged the bad suit shows that they knew something was wrong that needed to be said. The fact they didn't say it shows they held back on being honest.

I honestly don't know how to explain empathy to you. If you have empathy then I don't see how you could not understand what I am saying.

I am not asking you to explain empathy but why there is such a thing as empathy which is associated with a good moral when under subjective morality there are no ultimate moral values. So any moral value like empathy, kindness, or justice has no meaning.

Remember C. S. Lewis when he said why was I complaining about an unjust universe if there was no idea of justice. Or know a crooked line if there was not a straight line to compare with. Under subjective morality, because there is no ultimate reference point outside human personal opinions to measure the value of a moral like empathy then empathy means nothing. So appealing to it is meaningless.

I will come back to answer the rest of your post soon.
Regards Steve.

 

[Kylie]

Sorry I got bogged down with all the posts and forgot. Obvious examples of objective morality are used as it cuts out the need to spend more time determining and explaining things. Remember we only have to show 1 example of objective morality to establish there are objective moral values. So showing an obvious one is only needed without complicating things.

The trouble is that if there is an objective morality, ANY moral issue will have an objectively true solution, and yet you insist on using the extreme ones like murder and child abuse. While I freely admit that most people share a common moral position regarding these issues, that does not make them OBJECTIVE. All you are doing is taking a common subjective opinion and claiming that it is objective just because it is common.

The point is everyone knows that not telling a person the truth is a lie whether big or small. They also know that pointing out that they may not look the best is better in the long run. But there is a fine balance between whether you hurt a person or they can handle the truth. But none of this disproves that a person is still lying. The lie that avoids hurting a person which may be a bigger wrong is less of a wrong that a bigger lie. As mentioned there are degrees of wrongs.

And can you objectively tell me which is worse?

Because under subjective morality, they are doing nothing wrong as there are no ultimate moral values and therefore no one should take an objective moral position. They are just carrying out their subjective view which is right according to them. By stopping them you are imposing your view onto them and denying them their right to express their subjective moral position.

I don't know where you get this idea from. If someone steals from me, I'm gonna be ticked off, even though my moral opinion is subjective.

I can understand that as one subjective view but this doesn't tell us why it is wrong. It only tells us how we know it is wrong. This is an evolutionary reason and survival of the species, therefore, a genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy tries to disprove objective morality by showing how it came about rather than why something is wrong. Like if someone said the only reason a person believes that the earth is round rather than flat is that they were born in the 20th century where this is a popular view. Therefore your view is invalid.

This only works if there is an objective external standard by which we can measure it. You have not demonstrated that such a standard exists, and you have demonstrated a mechanism by which we can measure things against this as-yet unseen standard.

That would be silly. It is true that if you were born in ancient Greece you might have believed that the Earth was flat, but simply telling how your belief came to originate does nothing to invalidate that belief. If moral values, for example, are gradually discovered rather than gradually invented then mankind’s gradual and fallible the apprehension of the realm of objective moral values no more undermines the objectivity of that realm than our gradual fallible apprehension of the world discovered by natural science undermines the objectivity of that realm.

Except the shape of the earth is an objective fact - it is not different shapes for different people based on their personal opinions.

And, BTW, the Greeks knew the Earth was round.

So long as moral values are gradually discovered rather than gradually invented, that is consistent with saying they are objective. So the fact that you can show that there are cultural and even biological influences that cause you to believe in certain moral values does nothing to undermine the objectivity of those values. That is to commit the genetic fallacy.
Moral Argument (part 3) | Reasonable Faith

And moral values ARE invented. That's why some countries have done away with the death penalty, because their moral values have changed.

As pointed out in obvious cases like asking people if they like it if their child was sexually abused they would be saying that this was wrong most of the time other than if they were not of the right mind. I cannot think of someone saying it was good that their child was sexually abused.

And again you use the extreme case, despite the fact that you should be able to point out how it works even using much milder cases.

As I also pointed out in the example with the bad suit, most people know that they have told a porky and often say later I just couldn't tell the person the truth as I felt it would have hurt their feelings. The fact that they acknowledged the bad suit shows that they knew something was wrong that needed to be said. The fact they didn't say it shows they held back on being honest.

No, the fact that they held back was because they had empathy with the person and knew that if the positions were reversed they'd be very embarrassed if someone said, "That outfit looks like a herd of camels with dysentry used you as a latrine."

I am not asking you to explain empathy but why there is such a thing as empathy which is associated with a good moral when under subjective morality there are no ultimate moral values. So any moral value like empathy, kindness, or justice has no meaning.

The fact that there are no objective moral values doesn't mean we can't imagine what it would be like if we were in someone else's position.

Is that something you have trouble with?

Remember C. S. Lewis when he said why was I complaining about an unjust universe if there was no idea of justice. Or know a crooked line if there was not a straight line to compare with. Under subjective morality, because there is no ultimate reference point outside human personal opinions to measure the value of a moral like empathy then empathy means nothing. So appealing to it is meaningless.

It's easy to tell is a line is crooked. Pick any point and see if it makes a 180 degree angle. If it does not, then the line is crooked at that point.

C S Lewis was wrong.

 

[stevevw]

The trouble is that if there is an objective morality, ANY moral issue will have an objectively true solution, and yet you insist on using the extreme ones like murder and child abuse. While I freely admit that most people share a common moral position regarding these issues, that does not make them OBJECTIVE. All you are doing is taking a common subjective opinion and claiming that it is objective just because it is common.

But as I have explained several times now it is more than just a common morality shared. It is one that people impose on each other. It is one that organizations and societies impose on others. If subjective morality was all there is then why should anyone believe or take seriously any moral value imposed on them by others when there is no way to determine it is ultimately the right thing to do.

As there are no objective morals subjective morals are only an indication of a different position, a like or dislike, preference or opinion. It would be like imposing on everyone that they must like chocolate cake.

And can you objectively tell me which is worse?

The point is they are both always wrong despite thinking they have turned a wrong into a right for that situation. They have merely allowed a lesser wrong to avoid a greater wrong. The thing is people think that because a person has been allowed to lie in that situation that this then makes lying OK. It doesn't and lying is still wrong.

Obviously a lie that prevents greater harm is no as bad a lie that outrightly deceives someone for a personal gain or to intentionally cause more harm. But none of this would make sense under subjective morality as there is no reference point to measure all this.

I don't know where you get this idea from. If someone steals from me, I'm gonna be ticked off, even though my moral opinion is subjective.

That is the contradictory thing about subjective morality. Because how do you know that you're being ticked off isn't because you know it is objectively wrong to steal. You may tell yourself it is a subjective position but that doesn't make sense because as mentioned many times there is no ultimate measure that makes stealing wrong under subjective morality.

Your own subjective views tell us nothing about whether stealing is objectively wrong. It is merely a different position from others, a like or dislike. The person who steals from you hasn't done anything wrong. That is their subjective position which they believe is good. How can you judge them to be morally wrong for doing something they think is good?

This only works if there is an objective external standard by which we can measure it. You have not demonstrated that such a standard exists, and you have demonstrated a mechanism by which we can measure things against this as-yet unseen standard.

No all I am doing is showing the fallacy of subjective morality and how the explanations it uses for morality do not explain why something is wrong. I can make a case that if there are no objective moral values and then can be no ultimate right or wrong and therefore any appeal to something being morally wrong is meaningless.

Except the shape of the earth is an objective fact - it is not different shapes for different people based on their personal opinions.
And, BTW, the Greeks knew the Earth was round.

You have missed the point. It is showing an example of a logical fallacy. Using evolution in that people created morals by deciding to cooperate and not kill as this made society run smoother to explain how the moral not to kill came about does not automatically prove subjective morality. It is what is called the genetic fallacy. So long as moral values are gradually discovered rather than gradually invented, which is consistent with saying they are objective.

So the fact that you can show that there are cultural and even biological influences that cause you to believe in certain moral values does nothing to undermine the objectivity of those values.

And moral values ARE invented. That's why some countries have done away with the death penalty, because their moral values have changed.

How have their moral values changed? You are confusing a relative situation with the objectivity of moral values. Why did they stop the death penalty? I suggest because they decided that killing is wrong. Isn't that consistent with the objective moral that killing is wrong. The fact that some countries think the death penalty is OK or not doesn't change the fact that killing is wrong.

Remember that there are degrees of wrong with objective morals. Killing in self-defense is still wrong but it is not as bad as killing in first-degree murder. Lying to save the Jews from the Nazi's is still morally wrong but not as bad as giving the Jews up to the Nazi's and sending them to be killed. So the fact that some countries may think the death penalty is justified doesn't mean they think it is a good moral. They just think it is less a wrong and a justified reason for punishment.

Other nations who decide against the death penalty does not change the fact that they all believe killing is always wrong. It is just in some situations like killing in self-defense, war and as a punishment for a serious crime like murder that the taking of a life is less wrong but certainly not morally good.

And again you use the extreme case, despite the fact that you should be able to point out how it works even using much milder cases.

The point is to prove objective morals exist you only have to show 1 example whether extreme or not. The fact that no person would be OK with saying it is morally good to sexually abuse their child shows that people know it is always wrong, therefore objective. But anyway I did show you that people even know little lies to avoid hurting someone are wrong by the fact they are in conflict about doing it in the first place.

No, the fact that they held back was because they had empathy with the person and knew that if the positions were reversed they'd be very embarrassed if someone said, "That outfit looks like a herd of camels with dysentry used you as a latrine."

But once where are you getting the value for empathy from if morals have no reference point to value them. You cant know what empathy is unless you have an independent measure outside yourself. IE you cant know a crooked line with there being a straight line. So empathy would just be similar to a preference for something rather than have any moral value. I suggest the fact that you do know about empathy is that we do have the knowledge of objective morals within us in the first place.

The fact that there are no objective moral values doesn't mean we can't imagine what it would be like if we were in someone else's position.

It is not just about imagining being in someone else's position. People can imagine that when it is associated with envy and other morals. It is more about love IE love others as you love yourself and probably kindness, justice, and generosity. But we cannot know these things without some independent measure outside human personal views. Personal views give us no grounding for morality so all those moral values are meaningless. I suggest you are actually appealing to objective morals in the first place to know the value of them.

Is that something you have trouble with?

No, I don't have any trouble with this. I think whether we believe in objective morality or not people know about empathy and these other moral values.

It's easy to tell is a line is crooked. Pick any point and see if it makes a 180 degree angle. If it does not, then the line is crooked at that point.

You're missing the point. We only know that a 180 degree lone is straight because we have a crooked one to compare with. Actually it's the other way around but the points the same. It is the same for morals we can only tell love if there is hate, kindness if there is meanness, unjust if there is justice. Under subjective morality, we don't have any reference point to tell these moral values. They are only preferences like tastes for something and have no value.

Anything people try to use to account for why you can know moral values like relating to the person or appeals to other qualities are only appealing to other moral values that people also have no reference point with. I have already gone through the genetic fallacy. So the logical conclusion is there must be objective morals if we are able to know these moral values.

C S Lewis was wrong.

How was he wrong. It makes sense if we are to complain about injustice in the universe we would have to have justice to measure it by. C.S.Lewis was asking how can we appeal to justice or evil in the universe like it was a real thing (not just an opinion) if we did not have some sort of grounding beyond ourselves to measure these things. It makes a lot of sense just like we cannot know a crooked line without there being a straight line.

 

[stevevw]

Someone, please help me.

 

[Speedwell]

Someone, please help me.

You're not doing all that badly. But you really need to learn more about secular moral philosophy. Trying to argue against a position that you only know about from apologists for your own side is too difficult.

 

[Ken-1122]

But if they applied that claim to another person who believes the opposite and states that this person must follow their moral values then they are denying the other person the right under subjective morality to hold their moral position. By doing that they are more or less doing what some people claim about religions, imposing an objective morality.

So! But that doesn’t magically make it an objective moral issue!

But when you impose that view onto others and expect them to be the same you are forcing your logic and view onto them. It is fine for you to have your own position but under subjective morality, it cannot be forced on others because they have their own position they want the right to claim.

Where is it written that if you believe morality is subjective, you are not allowed to force your moral views on others? Where are these rules you speak of?

Well yes, abortion is taking a life and everyone knows that unjustly taking a life is morally wrong. The transgender issue itself is a contentious issue. I am not sure if someone who thinks they are the opposite sex is a moral issue. It is the discrimination that goes along with it that is wrong. But just because an issue is hard to define doesn't mean it cannot be defined or that it is subjective.

People take lives all the time; otherwise we wouldn’t be able to eat. It isn’t about taking life, but taking human life. The abortion issue is when does the sperm and egg become a person.
The transgender issue is’nt about is it okay to believe you are another sex, but should everybody be required to treat you like another sex. IOW should biological males be allowed to use public restroom and shower facilities for biological females and visa versa. Everybody does not agree on that.

So tell me if subjective morality only applies to the person's own view how is it still subjective when they expect others to follow the same moral views. They have gone from just applying it to themselves to now applying it to others. They are now saying there is only one moral position for this moral value and it applies to everyone.

Subjective morality has never been about my views apply only to me, and someone else’s views applies only to them, and they are both equal. It has been about the ability to recognize that others have different views than my own, and I am unable to demonstrate objectively why my views trump theirs. But this ability to recognize different opinions in no way prevents me from labeling those opinions wrong.

The reason a subjective view/claim becomes objective is that the person has moved from having a view and making a claim which is based on words and thought which is hard to measure as people think and say things they don't really mean. To an action/reaction which contradicts their thoughts and claims and can be measured and is a true representation of what they believe.

Nothing goes from subjective to objective due to human reaction.

We have to determine what you mean by abuse. It usually means treated badly, violently, misused, with bad effects.

Which is subjective.

So what do you define evil as?

Evil is a judgment people attach to behavior they find extremely wrong. But it is no more objective than Beautiful, funny, or ugly.

So say a sexual abuser of children is only evil in your view but not ultimately evil.

In my view; evil and ultimately evil is the same.

So why is you standard of good ultimately good.

I believe my views are equal or superior to all other views. If/when I happen upon another view I find superior to my own, I will adopt that view as my own thus my views remain superior or equal to all others

But how do you know its a cope if you haven't seen the original?

I don’t need to know; a beautiful painting is a beautiful painting regardless of if it is a copy or not.

Who says their judgment is reliable to determine if it is ultimately good or evil.

The person judging says this.

How can they protest about evil if they don't have some independent measure of what evil is? For all, they know what they thought was evil was good and what they thought was good was evil. How can we trust them.

Not everybody is going to trust them. Just like not everybody is going to trust your God, or his judgment, not everybody is going to trust me or my judgment.