Where does morality come from?

[Caliban]

To prove a society can effectively construct a moral system of justice without appealing to spiritual reinforcement is easy to do. In WWII, the Nuremberg Trials were a large step toward establishing a universal understanding of justice without appealing to a god. The horrors of the holocaust put a death knell in the idea of Divine Command Theory and other theistic moral injunctions; instead, the tribunal invoke the idea of Crimes Against Humanity. At no point in that trial did they need to consider a meftaphphysical moral foundation.

To argue that they could only base their understanding of morality on a preexisting moral law from a god is a bald assertion. I see no evidence for that claim.

If interested:
Reginbogin, Herbert R., and Christoph Safferling. The Nuremberg Trials: International Criminal Law Since 1945. De Gruyter Saur, 2006.

 

[Tinker Grey]

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.

I'd add that CSL's take seems to imply platonic ideals. We are not comparing lines against some ideal. We develop standards of straightness out of experiences with measurement and building. We are motivated by the utility of a straight line.

The straight line we are comparing against is one we made. Similarly, we judge someone's morality against standards we made.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Measurement is not subjective. There can only be one measurement for a certain length. For example, 1 kilometer is a certain length and does not change due to personal opinion. We know what a straight line is and can measure that with a protractor against a crooked line.

Measurement began with a human foot but it became more precise where that foot became a specific length of increments and it was not arbitrary. It was either 1 foot (12 inches) or not. Now it's even more precise and though the system has changed to metric there is still only one set of measurements that is not arbitrary or open to personal opinions.

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.

I cannot see how there was confirmation bias considering Lewis was an atheist and therefore his findings didn't confirm his atheism but contradicted it. But that's not the point. His findings regarding the crooked and straight lines are logically independent of Lewis's personal views. He simply came to the conclusion that one could not know a crooked line unless there was a straight line to compare with so one can see the departure from the straight line.

He applied this same logic to morals when he said how can a person know injustice unless there is justice in the world. That was the basis for measuring a moral in that we cannot know good unless there is evil to measure it against. So evil is a departure from what is good, and good is the standard for which we can measure evil. Otherwise, we could not say anything is evil because evil on its own would just be a non-identifiable act, a twitch or nerve reaction, a reaction, or an explosion of feeling with no meaning.

As for metric or measuring moral behavior, this is illogical because people appeal to good and evil behavior so therefore are using some form of measurement even if it is there own personal measure. But we can use various ways of measuring moral behavior such as whether it affects certain standards such as human wellbeing. Therefore an act that harms human wellbeing can be measured as bad. But ultimately there needs to be an independent grounding of morals as human bias will skew things and without an objective reference point, morals are meaningless.

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.

I agree.

 

[Moral Orel]

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

Because it still plays out the same either way.

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.

That's the whole point! There is no "right" and "wrong" in subjective morality, there is only "like" and "dislike". You can't have a correct or incorrect opinion, can you?

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?

Sure, it's just like that, and that's all just likes and dislikes too.

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.

I told you what they all liked, and I told you what they all did. I didn't place any value on their beliefs in any way shape or form. I didn't even state whether I liked their actions or not.

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.

I'm showing you that morality functions exactly the same whether people believe it to be subjective or objective. You seem to think that if it's all subjective, then I shouldn't try to affect others' behavior. Why shouldn't I? The fact that morality is subjective is secondary to my point.

 

[Moral Orel]

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

I'm going to go ahead and interpret that statement as, "Since you've proven so soundly that morality is subjective, it's a bummer because we all lose without an objective morality to point to".

But you should buck up, because the point I've been making to Steve that you jumped in on was that nothing really changes under either concept. Whether people believe something to be wrong, or whether they hate something, people are still going to behave the same. The appeal to consequences here has a false premise.

 

[stevevw]

Actually here is the full reasoning behind C.S.Lewis' quote.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? . . . Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too -- for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist -- in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless -- I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality -- namely my idea of justice -- was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

 

[Caliban]

Measurement is not subjective. There can only be one measurement for a certain length. For example, 1 kilometer is a certain length and does not change due to personal opinion. We know what a straight line is and can measure that with a protractor against a crooked line.

Measurement began with a human foot but it became more precise where that foot became a specific length of increments and it was not arbitrary. It was either 1 foot (12 inches) or not. Now it's even more precise and though the system has changed to metric there is still only one set of measurements that is not arbitrary or open to personal opinions. I cannot see how there was confirmation bias considering Lewis was an atheist and therefore his findings didn't confirm his atheism but contradicted it. But that's not the point. His findings regarding the crooked and straight lines are logically independent of Lewis's personal views. He simply came to the conclusion that one could not know a crooked line unless there was a straight line to compare with so one can see the departure from the straight line.

He applied this same logic to morals when he said how can a person know injustice unless there is justice in the world. That was the basis for measuring a moral in that we cannot know good unless there is evil to measure it against. So evil is a departure from what is good, and good is the standard for which we can measure evil. Otherwise, we could not say anything is evil because evil on its own would just be a non-identifiable act, a twitch or nerve reaction, a reaction, or an explosion of feeling with no meaning.

As for metric or measuring moral behavior, this is illogical because people appeal to good and evil behavior so therefore are using some form of measurement even if it is there own personal measure. But we can use various ways of measuring moral behavior such as whether it affects certain standards such as human wellbeing. Therefore an act that harms human wellbeing can be measured as bad. But ultimately there needs to be an independent grounding of morals as human bias will skew things and without an objective reference point, morals are meaningless.

I agree.

Once we agree on a base system, measurements become objective. However, choosing that unit of measurement IS subjective. Morality works similarly. There is no objective unit of measurement which we discover--we determine the length of a centimeter by consensus. We did not discover the centimeter as we did mathematical principals.

So, you are correct when you say, "1 kilometer is a certain length and does not change due to personal opinion." Everyone agrees with that, but we establish that metric subjectively; we could choose other lengths or we could use something other than a base ten--like feet or thumbs.

 

[stevevw]

Because it still plays out the same either way.

That's the whole point! There is no "right" and "wrong" in subjective morality, there is only "like" and "dislike". You can't have a correct or incorrect opinion, can you?

Sure, it's just like that, and that's all just likes and dislikes too.

But that is not how life works. Intimidating Shemp to walk on the other side of the road is more than just about likes and dislikes. There is a sense of injustice there.

I told you what they all liked, and I told you what they all did. I didn't place any value on their beliefs in any way shape or form. I didn't even state whether I liked their actions or not.

But you have imposed an ought on Shemp which implies a value.

I'm showing you that morality functions exactly the same whether people believe it to be subjective or objective. You seem to think that if it's all subjective, then I shouldn't try to affect others' behavior. Why shouldn't I? The fact that morality is subjective is secondary to my point.

But people do more than try and affect other people's behavior. By stating that they are morally right and the other person is morally wrong they are taking a position that they know that their moral position is objectively right for others. Applied to "likes and dislikes" it would be like saying to someone they are wrong for liking chocolate ice-cream because only vanilla ice-cream should be liked.

 

[Caliban]

Actually here is the full reasoning behind C.S.Lewis' quote.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? . . . Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too -- for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist -- in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless -- I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality -- namely my idea of justice -- was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

Several problems with Lewis' thinking here: 1. he said he tried to "prove that God did not exist." Attempting to prove a negative is something Lewis should know is actually not logically possible. It seems to me that he is really trying to make a rhetorical point there. A clearer thinker may rather simply say that the default position is non belief and the burden of proof is one the person making the claim. I am not aware of any respected public intellectual who has attempted to prove that God does not exist. 2. Moral consensus can be better explained by well-being than a god. However, Lewis does not consider this and he fails to account for the Euthyphro Dilemma.

 

[stevevw]

Once we agree on a base system, measurements become objective. However, choosing that unit of measurement IS subjective. Morality works similarly. There is no objective unit of measurement which we discover--we determine the length of a centimeter by consensus. We did not discover the centimeter as we did mathematical principals.

So, you are correct when you say, "1 kilometer is a certain length and does not change due to personal opinion." Everyone agrees with that, but we establish that metric subjectively; we could choose other lengths or we could use something other than a base ten--like feet or thumbs.

I think the concept of distance is something that is already there and we discover it IE something is closer to us or further away so we can estimate its distance. Later we devise a measuring system to more accurately measure those distances and the differences. We can place objects on a table at varying distances and we can see the differences. It takes x amount of time to get from A to B and even more, time to get to C. So we can conclude that A to C will take longer to travel than A to B and therefore is a longer distance That is not invented.[/QUOTE]

 

[Speedwell]

But people do more than try and affect other people's behavior. By stating that they are morally right and the other person is morally wrong they are taking a position that they know that their moral position is objectively right for others.

No, they are most decidedly not taking the position that their moral precepts are objectively right. They are taking the position that society would be more agreeable if other people adhered to those precepts, which is a subjective opinion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm going to go ahead and interpret that statement as, "Since you've proven so soundly that morality is subjective, it's a bummer because we all lose without an objective morality to point to".

That's close to what I had in mind, but not quite.

But you should buck up, because the point I've been making to Steve that you jumped in on was that nothing really changes under either concept. Whether people believe something to be wrong, or whether they hate something, people are still going to behave the same. The appeal to consequences here has a false premise.

Oh really? And here I thought my daily decision to repent of the wonderful "lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" was due to my deciding to NOT behave the same as I used to or as I still could [i.e. passively to everything in this God-forsaken world which is provided to 'take' me!]

......................................... Darn! How could I be so very, very wrong?!

 

[Moral Orel]

Oh really? And here I thought my daily decision to repent of the wonderful "lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" was due to my deciding to NOT behave the same as I used to or as I still could [i.e. passively to everything in this God-forsaken world which is provided to 'take' me!]

......................................... Darn! How could I be so very, very wrong?!

You decided to behave differently because you like pleasing God and you dislike displeasing God, yes yes? I don't see how what you've said here goes against what I said.

 

[Moral Orel]

But that is not how life works. Intimidating Shemp to walk on the other side of the road is more than just about likes and dislikes. There is a sense of injustice there.

Sure, there would be injustice in that sidewalk scenario, and people don't like that. That's why you see people threaten others over being treated unfairly.

But people do more than try and affect other people's behavior. By stating that they are morally right and the other person is morally wrong they are taking a position that they know that their moral position is objectively right for others. Applied to "likes and dislikes" it would be like saying to someone they are wrong for liking chocolate ice-cream because only vanilla ice-cream should be liked.

Some people state morality is objective, and they're wrong to do so. They're incorrect that their opinions are more than opinions. So what?

 

[Moral Orel]

Attempting to prove a negative is something Lewis should know is actually not logically possible.

You realize, of course, that this claim itself is a negative, right?

 

[Caliban]

You realize, of course, that this claim itself is a negative, right?

What is your purpose with this response? Can you elaborate?

 

[Caliban]

I think the concept of distance is something that is already there and we discover it IE something is closer to us or further away so we can estimate its distance. Later we devise a measuring system to more accurately measure those distances and the differences. We can place objects on a table at varying distances and we can see the differences. It takes x amount of time to get from A to B and even more, time to get to C. So we can conclude that A to C will take longer to travel than A to B and therefore is a longer distance That is not invented.

[/QUOTE]
That is a red herring. The discussion centers on the standard of measurement, not physical objects.

 

[Moral Orel]

What is your purpose with this response? Can you elaborate?

When people claim "You can't prove a negative" it irritates me. If you're right, then you've made an unfalsifiable claim without any evidence forthcoming. Luckily, you're wrong, you can prove a negative, and I can prove it. Consider the following sentence:

I love chocolate ice cream.

The letter 'Q' does not appear in that sentence. Now I've shown you the sentence, my negative claim is proved. You can prove a negative.

You can't prove God doesn't exist, sure, but not for the reason you've suggested. I'm pointing it out because it's a bad argument a lot of atheists make about the existence of God, and I only like to see good arguments.

 

[Caliban]

When people claim "You can't prove a negative" it irritates me. If you're right, then you've made an unfalsifiable claim without any evidence forthcoming. Luckily, you're wrong, you can prove a negative, and I can prove it. Consider the following sentence:

I love chocolate ice cream.

The letter 'Q' does not appear in that sentence. Now I've shown you the sentence, my negative claim is proved. You can prove a negative.

You can't prove God doesn't exist, sure, but not for the reason you've suggested. I'm pointing it out because it's a bad argument a lot of atheists make about the existence of God, and I only like to see good arguments.

Yes, you are correct with your Q example. You could go further to prove another negative such as a particular god does not exist--a logically impossible god for example. However, proving a general god or a deistic god cannot be proven false. And... there is always the problem of hard solipsism to challenge your Q example.

My point is that C.S. Lewis made a logical error.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You decided to behave differently because you like pleasing God and you dislike displeasing God, yes yes? I don't see how what you've said here goes against what I said.

This makes utterly no sense .... to me. Care to parse it out a little further? Because maybe, just maybe, I'm misunderstanding what you're saying and what your connotations actually are. We might even be talking past one another, who knows? I started out talking to Ana and trying to address his position of baloney, and now I'm off on another tangent with you and not sure what we're even centering upon now.