Where does morality come from?

[Caliban]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

C.S. Lewis was often wrong. Many people like to quote him as a reliable source, but not everyone considers him a great public intellectual. His expertise was in the English language, focusing on Old English and its literature. He was a pretty good literary scholar.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

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

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.

**sigh**...well, that pretty much clamps my mouth shut, doesn't it?

 

[Moral Orel]

**sigh**...well, that pretty much clamps my mouth shut, doesn't it?

I won that one pretty fast, I must be getting really good!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I won that one pretty fast, I must be getting really good!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I won that one pretty fast, I must be getting really good!

....I don't really think there's a 'winner' in any of this crap-fest, to tell you the truth.

 

[Kylie]

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.

Again you are making the mistake that if an opinion is widespread then it is objective.

You have not demonstrated that it is more than a common morality shared. You've just claimed it is. But claiming something again and again does not mean it is true.

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.

You seem incapable of saying which is right. Why don't you put this objective morality you speak of to use and use it to provide that answer?

And your claim that it makes no sense with subjective morality doesn't work. Subjective morality does not mean that one thing can't hurt a person more than something else.

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?

There is no objective wrong! There is no objective right! Your complaint about non-objective morality seems to be that it's not objective. That tells me that you just can't understand the point I am trying to make.

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.

Only if we are incapable of creating that meaning for ourselves.

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.

You have missed my point.

If something is objective, then it is the same for everyone. Morality is not the same for everyone.

How have their moral values changed?

They changed from thinking execution is a morally acceptable punishment to thinking it is NOT a morally acceptable punishment.

Was that not obvious?

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.

But if killing is wrong, then there can be no defense of the death penalty, and thus everyone would see the death penalty as wrong. After all, it's objective according to you, so it can be objectively shown. Just the same way that I can objectively show that 1+1=2. And yet this simple fact that the death penalty is objectively wrong seems beyond the scope for your objective morality to show.

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.

And the fact that you have to make up all these exceptions is evidence against objective morality.

And the fact that different people can have different opinions about the same exact situation is another strike against objective morality.

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.

Huh?

You are saying that there are countries that believe that killing is ALWAYS wrong are still going to be fine with KILLING criminals for certain crimes?

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, I need to show only one example of where objective morality does not work. You are claiming that ALL morality is objective, so you must show that objective morals ALWAYS apply.

I can say that all prime numbers are even and present the number 2 as an example, but it doesn't mean that ALL prime numbers are even, does it?

But once where are you getting the value for empathy from if morals have no reference point to value them.

From myself.

You cant know what empathy is unless you have an independent measure outside yourself.

Why not?

IE you cant know a crooked line with there being a straight line.

Yes I can. I can measure the angle. I described this to you.

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.

No, it's because it's SUBJECTIVE, so the empathy I have is not going to be the same as the empathy someone else has.

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.

You have not been able to demonstrate the existence of this alleged external source.

You're missing the point. We only know that a 180 degree lone is straight because we have a crooked one to compare with.

No we don't. I literally just told you a method that does NOT involve comparing it to a different line.

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.

By this logic, we can't tell that there's meanness unless there is also kindness, so perhaps we should always be mean to everyone?

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.

Exactly! There's no external reference point! We each come up with our own!

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.

He was wrong when he said that we can't detect X unless we have Not-X to compare it to.

 

[Caliban]

Again you are making the mistake that if an opinion is widespread then it is objective.

You have not demonstrated that it is more than a common morality shared. You've just claimed it is. But claiming something again and again does not mean it is true.



You seem incapable of saying which is right. Why don't you put this objective morality you speak of to use and use it to provide that answer?

And your claim that it makes no sense with subjective morality doesn't work. Subjective morality does not mean that one thing can't hurt a person more than something else.



There is no objective wrong! There is no objective right! Your complaint about non-objective morality seems to be that it's not objective. That tells me that you just can't understand the point I am trying to make.



Only if we are incapable of creating that meaning for ourselves.



You have missed my point.

If something is objective, then it is the same for everyone. Morality is not the same for everyone.



They changed from thinking execution is a morally acceptable punishment to thinking it is NOT a morally acceptable punishment.

Was that not obvious?



But if killing is wrong, then there can be no defense of the death penalty, and thus everyone would see the death penalty as wrong. After all, it's objective according to you, so it can be objectively shown. Just the same way that I can objectively show that 1+1=2. And yet this simple fact that the death penalty is objectively wrong seems beyond the scope for your objective morality to show.



And the fact that you have to make up all these exceptions is evidence against objective morality.

And the fact that different people can have different opinions about the same exact situation is another strike against objective morality.



Huh?

You are saying that there are countries that believe that killing is ALWAYS wrong are still going to be fine with KILLING criminals for certain crimes?



No, I need to show only one example of where objective morality does not work. You are claiming that ALL morality is objective, so you must show that objective morals ALWAYS apply.

I can say that all prime numbers are even and present the number 2 as an example, but it doesn't mean that ALL prime numbers are even, does it?



From myself.



Why not?



Yes I can. I can measure the angle. I described this to you.



No, it's because it's SUBJECTIVE, so the empathy I have is not going to be the same as the empathy someone else has.



You have not been able to demonstrate the existence of this alleged external source.



No we don't. I literally just told you a method that does NOT involve comparing it to a different line.



By this logic, we can't tell that there's meanness unless there is also kindness, so perhaps we should always be mean to everyone?



Exactly! There's no external reference point! We each come up with our own!



He was wrong when he said that we can't detect X unless we have Not-X to compare it to.

I think we have our champion folks! Agreed!

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

True! The Christian world view provides a lot of answers to various questions.

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.

No it doesn't, the Atheist looks at the answers the Christian provides and says I don't agree. To disagree with someone's answer is not a world view, it is a default position.

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.

No. A worldview is a comprehensive philosophy of life, encompassing a wide range of beliefs on morality, epistemology, methodology and so forth.
Atheism is philosophical position pertaining to one particular belief - the existence of God/Gods. While it may or may not be encompassed within one's worldview, or inform one's worldview in any number of ways, it is definitionally insufficient in and of itself to be called a worldview.
As a point of comparison, a person can be a communist in the question of economics, but 'communism isn't their 'worldview', just their position on a specific topic. It is an aspect of their worldview

 

[Caliban]

True! The Christian world view provides a lot of answers to various questions.

No it doesn't, the Atheist looks at the answers the Christian provides and says I don't agree. To disagree with someone's answer is not a world view, it is a default position.
A worldview is a comprehensive philosophy of life, encompassing a wide range of beliefs on morality, epistemology, methodology and so forth.
Atheism is philosophical position pertaining to one particular belief - the existence of God/Gods. While it may or may not be encompassed within one's worldview, or inform one's worldview in any number of ways, it is definitionally insufficient in and of itself to be called a worldview.
As a point of comparison, a person can be a communist in the question of economics, but 'communism isn't their 'worldview', just their position on a specific topic. It is an aspect of their worldview

This is an articulate summary of most atheists position--well done. It is not a "worldview" (the favorite term of apologists).

 

[stevevw]

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.

OK perhaps you can point me in the right direction.

 

[Kylie]

OK perhaps you can point me in the right direction.

Try typing the words "secular moral philosophy" into Google.

Speedwell is not responsible for educating you.

 

[stevevw]

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

That's what objective morality is. When one moral position is applied to all others and any other moral position is regarded as wrong.

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?

I'm not saying you can't force your morals on others. People and society do it all the time. Look at sports organizations or political parties. They have codes of conduct that everyone must comply with. They have sacked or disciplined workers so having sex with workers, discriminating against people, taking drugs or drinking too much, etc, etc.

But it is the forcing of someone's morals onto others that is taking an objective position because you are saying what I view as right and wrong only stands and what you subjectively believe doesn't count. People accuse religions of doing the same and call it objective morals when they force their beliefs on others.

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.

So if those who think the embryo or fetus is not life then they are not taking a life. Therefore pro-abortion is not about saying it is OK to take a life because there is no life to take in the first place.

The transgender issue isn't 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.

But whether a male is a female or a female is a male is not a moral issue but rather a biological issue and for some an identity issue which is associated with self-perception. But it is the hate and discrimination against the person that is the moral issue. Society has anti-discrimination laws that force everyone to conform so any subjective views are not allowed.

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.

Yes, I agree people have the right to have their own moral views and compare them to others. But it is when we impose them on others that it takes the step from only being applied to self to being forced on others that goes beyond the subjective position and like religion is accused of especially with Islam makes rights and wrongs objective.

Nothing goes from subjective to objective due to human reaction.

Yes it does. If someone says there are no objective rights and wrongs and everything is subjective and then someone does wrong to them and they react and tell the person they should not have that moral position they have just contradicted their subjective position and are now saying that the wrong the person did is now always wrong and they know this beyond their personal opinion.

Which is subjective.

Yes subjectively wrong only to you. But the values of bad, violent, misused, with bad effects, have no value beyond you. So you cannot apply those values beyond you when you tell another person that they are wrong in abusing a child.

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

So what measure do they use to know that evil is extremely wrong.

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

But your view doesn't count ultimately. What are you comparing evil with to give it the value of evil?

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

Yes for you it does. But you could be wrong, be biased, be personally affected by experience which skews your thinking where you cannot judge things properly, by motivated by personal gains or desires to not see things the right way. So how do you know it is correct outside yourself without your opinion.

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

No, not really. You could have thought the copy was beautiful but just paid millions of dollars for a fraud copy and been ripped off. You need something to compare with to give that something its value and quality. Otherwise, it means nothing. How do you know evil is evil if there is no good. Without good evil would be some non-valued act like some jolt of a nerve reaction.

The person judging says this.

But the person judging it is unreliable and untrustworthy to know that it is really good or evil for everyone one in the universe. They could be influenced by many factors as mentioned before. I need some independent way to measure good and evil apart from your opinion to be confident it is really good or evil for all humankind and beyond.

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.

OK, let's try a scenario that doesn't have to be true. So let's say you need to determine if something is good and have the confidence and trust that it is really good. On the one hand, you have humans who are fallible in judging good because they cannot know everything and are subject to bad influences or being tricked into thinking something is good when it was bad.

On the other hand, you have this entity (not God or a god) who is known to be infallible, perfectly and naturally good, and has no evil and cannot be influenced by anything. Wh would you trust to determine what was good? Remember this has nothing to do with religion of gods but was a newly discovered force of good humans had found.

 

[stevevw]

Try typing the words "secular moral philosophy" into Google.

Speedwell is not responsible for educating you.

I'm not asking to be educated but getting other people's views in case I may have missed something. I have already studied "secular moral philosophy" which is a requirement of any humanities degree. This covers all ideas of good/bad and right/wrong from a human perspective whether through humanism, skepticism, or ethics which includes teleology (consequentialism) and deontology (rule/duty-based). So any human-based idea that can explain right and wrong as opposed to religious-based right and wrong.

But as far as I can see all these ideas are still human-made and just more rationalized and sophisticated. They are still limited in that they are human ideas which can be fallible. That is not to say that even religious beliefs are not human-made and fallible. As opposed to right and wrong being ground in something independent and beyond humans where good/bad and right/wrong holds objective values in some transcendent being that is good by nature.

But thanks for the tip anyway.

 

[stevevw]

True! The Christian world view provides a lot of answers to various questions.

No it doesn't, the Atheist looks at the answers the Christian provides and says I don't agree. To disagree with someone's answer is not a world view, it is a default position.

But to disagree with the Christian perspective (worldview) is to take a different perspective of the world. Otherwise, there is an empty void and everyone has a perception of life, the world, and the universe. So usually a Christian worldview bases these big questions on immaterialism IE spiritualism, God's creation for life and existence, life after death, etc.

Whereas those who don't believe or disagree there is a God would basically take the opposite view and support a materialist position, IE evolution, no life after death. That's not to say that someone who disbelieves or disagrees with a God cannot have some other immaterial basis for their worldview IE Deism. Or a Christian can include materialism and support evolution. But the primary basis is immaterial or material.

No. A worldview is a comprehensive philosophy of life, encompassing a wide range of beliefs on morality, epistemology, methodology, and so forth.

Yes, it's a person's beliefs, attitudes, and way of thinking about the nature of things like the universe and our place in the overall scheme of things. So in that sense, people may think there is a God behind everything or there is some naturalistic way everything came about. This will influence the way we see other things like life and death.

Atheism is a philosophical position pertaining to one particular belief - the existence of God/Gods.

You mean the non-existence of God/gods don't you.

While it may or may not be encompassed within one's worldview, or inform one's worldview in any number of ways, it is definitionally insufficient in and of itself to be called a worldview.
As a point of comparison, a person can be a communist in the question of economics, but 'communism isn't their 'worldview', just their position on a specific topic. It is an aspect of their worldview

OK I think I understand.

 

[stevevw]

I never said it would. You said that you have to make an objective claim about morality to push it on others, I showed how objectivity doesn't need to be involved at all. That's it.

No, I said that people's reactions and actions are what determines an objective moral position, not their claims. I said their claims can mean anything as it is only words and words may not reflect a person's true beliefs about morals. So when someone claims that stealing is ok but then has someone steal something of theirs they react towards the person like stealing is wrong. So they have contradicted their subjective claim.

By contradicting their own moral position this points to something within and beyond them that is taking over. That something is the knowledge we all have that certain things are right and wrong despite our subjective moral claims.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Why doesn't it matter what Shemp believes about morality.

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

I think this is a straw man argument because even though the reason you use to stop Shemp is a "likes and dislike" you are using moral language and actions of right and wrong.

It would be like saying that Mo, Larry, and Curly don't like Shemp walking on the same side of the road as they like to have a free run. So they threaten Shemp to stay on the opposite side and stay away. That sounds bullying and domineering to me. What value do you place on threats of violence towards Shemp? Is that just a "like or dislike" or the wrong action?

Who said that Mo, Larry, and Curly's concept of liking stuff and not take other people's stuff is of any great value in the first place. Where are you getting this value from? If it is just from Mo, Larry, and Curly personal likes and views then it doesn't have any value one way or another that they can impose or threaten Shemp with anyway. Yet you're giving it some value that Shemp ought not to steal.

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.

But feelings and 'like/dislikes" give people no right for anyone to threaten people not to do things. There seems to be an ought smuggled into this scenario which implies a moral obligation. Shemp ought not to steal according to Mo Larry, and Curly.

 

[stevevw]

Again you are making the mistake that if an opinion is widespread then it is objective.

You have not demonstrated that it is more than a common morality shared. You've just claimed it is. But claiming something, again and again, does not mean it is true.

I have to keep explaining and repeating things because you keep changing what I have said. If you carefully read what I said you will find I wasn't just basing support for objective morality on a common or widely accepted morality shared. I said
"But as I have explained several times now it is more than just a common morality shared."
Then I gave the additional support IE
"It is one that people impose on each other. It is one that organizations and societies impose on others.

Like I keep repeating if there is only subjective morality why do people act/react like they take an objective position by imposing their moral values on others. I though a subjective position is a personal opinion about morals. How can someone impose a personal opinion on someone else and at the same time say that the other person cannot hold their moral position?

By taking this position they are saying my opinion of morals is right for everyone else and no other moral position is allowed. That for me is an objective position. The difference is under subjective morality people can share a common moral position but this is usually where each individual has the same personal moral position and they come together in agreement and apply that in agreement.

But what often happens is that people, organizations, and societies don't agree and someone or some group will impose/force a specific moral position on others because they think it is right for others thus disregarding other people's moral positions. Big difference. They are saying we know what is right and good for all and therefore everyone should conform to that position whether they agree or not. They have taken their opinion and personal view and forced it onto others as though it is objectively right.

You seem incapable of saying which is right. Why don't you put this objective morality you speak of to use and use it to provide that answer?

I already have. None is right in that situation. You have a little lie and a big lie and both are objectively wrong. It's quite simple if you think about it.

And your claim that it makes no sense with subjective morality doesn't work. Subjective morality does not mean that one thing can't hurt a person more than something else.

It doesn't make sense because "hurt" has no objective value. Claiming hurting someone is morally wrong makes no sense if you don't have an objective reference point that makes hurting someone morally wrong. Otherwise, it's just personal opinion or likes and dislikes or preferences for hurt as opposed to harm similar to preferences for choc or vanilla icecream.

There is no objective wrong! There is no objective right! Your complaint about non-objective morality seems to be that it's not objective. That tells me that you just can't understand the point I am trying to make.

No, my complaint is if you are right and there is no objective right and wrong then apart from making some sense to the subject (the person claiming the morals) why make appeals to right and wrong things in the world or about others when there is no right and wrong.

The moment you apply this to others you are saying I know my version of right and wrong is correct for everyone. When a person protests about evil in the world they are acknowledging evil exists beyond their personal view.

Only if we are incapable of creating that meaning for ourselves.

Yes, you can create that meaning for yourself. But any meaning outside your self is meaningless. Yet people are always applying their meaning of morality onto others and I have given the examples already.

You have missed my point.

If something is objective, then it is the same for everyone. Morality is not the same for everyone.

Objective morality is not about being the same for everyone. It is about being right or wrong despite everyone. Rape is wrong no because you or someone else says its wrong, or because society says its wrong or because our genes tricked us into believing it is wrong. It is wrong because the act of rape is wrong. Rape is wrong in itself independent of the humans (the subject).

They changed from thinking execution is a morally acceptable punishment to thinking it is NOT a morally acceptable punishment.
Was that not obvious?

Yes execution is not the moral killing of humans is the moral value. So have they changed their moral position that killing is bad. They are actually saying killing is still objectively bad but we will allow the authorities to commit that bad act because it serves a greater purpose which is punishment for serious crimes? Notice how the objectivity that killing is wrong is upheld. Nowhere have their said the act of killing a human is itself a good act.

But if killing is wrong, then there can be no defense of the death penalty, and thus everyone would see the death penalty as wrong. After all, it's objective according to you, so it can be objectively shown. Just the same way that I can objectively show that 1+1=2. And yet this simple fact that the death penalty is objectively wrong seems beyond the scope for your objective morality to show.

I have already explained this but I will let Mr. Craig once again explain things better.

Killing a human is always wrong. It is only justified in very rare relative situations. We have to be careful not to confuse objective morality with relativity to situations. Just because a person's moral duties may be relative to particular circumstances don’t mean they are subjective and that there is no objective right or wrong thing to do in that situation.

“Absolute” means “regardless of the circumstances.” “Relative” means “varying with the circumstances.” We can agree, for example, that it is not absolutely wrong to kill another person. In some circumstances killing another person may be morally justified and even obligatory. To affirm that one’s moral duty varies with the circumstances is not to say that we have no objective moral duties to fulfill.

“Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” “Subjective” means “just a matter of personal opinion.” If we do have objective moral duties, then in the various circumstances in which we find ourselves we are obligated or forbidden to do various actions, regardless of what we think.
“Objective” or “Absolute” Moral Values? | Reasonable Faith

Once again I will leave it here as the post is getting long and get back to the rest later.
regards steve.

 

[stevevw]

And the fact that you have to make up all these exceptions is evidence against objective morality.

And the fact that different people can have different opinions about the same exact situation is another strike against objective morality.

As pointed out in the last post you are confusing objective/subjective morality with absolute and relativity. Please refer to the article I linked.

Huh?

You are saying that there are countries that believe that killing is ALWAYS wrong are still going to be fine with KILLING criminals for certain crimes?

Yes, the Nation is not saying they are fine with killing criminals like it is a good act. They are saying it is still wrong but justified according to the relative situation. Even the US states that killing is always wrong but certain situations that kill a person like self-defense or manslaughter are still wrong but not as bad as 1st-degree murder. They never say it is ok or good to murder as they still give a less penalty for killing in self-defense or manslaughter.

No, I need to show only one example of where objective morality does not work. You are claiming that ALL morality is objective, so you must show that objective morals ALWAYS apply.

I can say that all prime numbers are even and present the number 2 as an example, but it doesn't mean that ALL prime numbers are even, does it?

So the same logic would be I cannot show evidence to support evolution with one example of a species evolving. I have to show examples of all species from micro-organisms to large land animals to support evolution. That's a logical fallacy.

From myself.

But your personal view about empathy does not tell us how we should value empathy objectively. It only applies to you so therefore you cannot impose how you value empathy on others as they may have a different value for it. Yet people are always imposing their morals onto others. (We seem to be going over the same things).

Why not?

Because you are fallible and subject to all sorts of influences that can skew and taint your opinion of empathy. So, therefore, you need an independent measure beyond the person. For example, similar to a scoring system independent of personal views. For example, there is a scoring system for bowling which records the number of pins knocked down and strikes. It is not up to personal views but an independent measuring system.

Yes I can. I can measure the angle. I described this to you.

But if there is no such thing as a straight line and there is only a crooked line how would you even know it was a crooked line. It would just be some weird shaped narrow thing. The same as empathy and apathy, justice and injustice, or good and evil. If morals are only subjective then there is no grounding for morals and therefore there is no way to tell their value. They would be similar to "likes or dislikes" of something. Therefore there would be no right and wrong morally.

No, it's because it's SUBJECTIVE, so the empathy I have is not going to be the same as the empathy someone else has.

Doesn't that tell you that under subjective morality there is no reliable measure for moral values like empathy because they are different for each person. This could range from no empathy to empathy being hurting people just like they hurt you. Who knows as there is no independent measure. Any attempt to claim you know what empathy really is is an illusion because if there is no independent reference for moral values then there is no value for morals.

You have not been able to demonstrate the existence of this alleged external source.

I don't have to demonstrate this. I only have to show that there has to be some sort of external source be it God, Vishnu, some transient being, mother nature, or some superiorly good alien. I have already shown that there has to be some external reference point that grounds morals, therefore, making them objective.

No, we don't. I literally just told you a method that does NOT involve comparing it to a different line.

But with no reference point or comparison that 180-degree line could actually be a crooked line. Just because it has no bends in it doesn't cause you to know it is straight. That's because you don't know what straight is in the first place. If you only have one form of something then how can you tell what it is or is not without the opposite to put in into context.

By this logic, we can't tell that there's meanness unless there is also kindness, so perhaps we should always be mean to everyone?

Yes that's what I have been trying to point out. If we don't have a reference point to compare then everything is just bits of information with no context. That is what C.S. Lewis's famous quote is all about. How could he complain about injustice in the universe is so bad if there was no justice to compare with and give injustice some context?

If there were no short people to put into context tall people we would just think tall was how humans came. There would be no such value or measurement as tall. Injustice and other moral values would just be unidentifiable feelings of some sort and any idea of them being some form or good or bad, right or wrong would be meaningless.

 

[stevevw]

C.S. Lewis was often wrong. Many people like to quote him as a reliable source, but not everyone considers him a great public intellectual. His expertise was in the English language, focusing on Old English and its literature. He was a pretty good literary scholar.

But the quote I have posted makes logical sense not just because he said it. He realized when he was complaining about the injustice in the universe that it didn't make sense unless there was the value of injustice as well. He compared this to a crooked line unless being just some unidentifiable thing unless there is a straight line to compare with and give that crooked line some context.

Therefore to complain and protest about evil in the world there would have to be good. People protest about evil in the world like it is a real thing and not some personal opinion. So good and evil have to be something that is independent and measured beyond humans for it to make any sense and have any meaning.

 

[Caliban]

But the quote I have posted makes logical sense not just because he said it. He realized when he was complaining about the injustice in the universe that it didn't make sense unless there was the value of injustice as well. He compared this to a crooked line unless being just some unidentifiable thing unless there is a straight line to compare with and give that crooked line some context.

Therefore to complain and protest about evil in the world there would have to be good. People protest about evil in the world like it is a real thing and not some personal opinion. So good and evil have to be something that is independent and measured beyond humans for it to make any sense and have any meaning.

No, I disagree. Lewis was wrong. The analog between a crooked line an a moral system breaks down so quickly, I'm surprised everyone doesn't see it; first, measurements themselves are arbitrary--subjective. We didn't have to base a system of measurement on the changing length of the human foot or a base ten system. Second, there is no metric for moral behavior. The fact that C.S. Lewis didn't see this points more to his tendency toward bias confirmation. The book Mere Christianity is full of similar mistakes.

The idea that there exists a perfect moral law just because we collectively find some things reprehensible is a Platonic idea that was dropped centuries ago by philosophers.