Where does morality come from?

[2PhiloVoid]

Still ??? I can't parse it down any simpler.


She didn't say anything about tolerating it. If a skinhead tells me that he thinks all Jews should be exterminated, I will believe that is his moral position because I don't see any reason to disbelieve that's what it is, and then I'll beat the tar out of him.

...I wouldn't even do them the honor of citing their view as .... a "moral position." In my estimation, one's ethical position and associated moral actions would really need to be somehow 'moral' for me to apply that designation to them......since morality is something real and not imaginary; and so is 'immorality.'

 

[Speedwell]

The "not necessarily" is there because morals can develop in isolation. Almost no one finds themselves in complete isolation from other people, but for the rare folk that do, it doesn't mean morality ceases to exist for them. While the concept of morals developing in isolation has almost no real application, the fact that it can happen is important to consider, as I've found out in this thread, because some folk think that morals are only morals if they're about interaction between people.

I think there is some justification for that position. That is, if personally held precepts are not about interaction with others then they can be regarded as values, not morals.

 

[stevevw]

I love this. I'm not allowed to comment on the Bible because I don't agree with your interpretation of it?

You are allowed to comment on the bible. You just have to be sure that if you're going to make claims that you do some research rather than rely on your own personal views. It wasn't my interpretation of the text but rather that of Biblical scholars. I am not an expert so I can only refer to experts to better inform me.

Anyway, if you want the opinion of a Bible scholar, how about Dr Hugh Houghton, who says the Bible should not be taken literally? 'Don't take the Bible literally' says scholar who brought to light earliest Latin analysis of the Gospels

I agree there are some parts of the Bible that should not be taken literally.

Excuses, excuses.

How do you even know this is an excuse if you haven't studied the Bible. Anyway, this is getting off track. I sort of thought it may come down to this. It usually ends with an attack on God and the Bible because that's what it is really all about.

Wait...
Are you suggesting that people who think morality is objective are generally being immoral?

Actually those who think they know what is right and wrong according to their own interpretation are immoral. They are no different from some politicians, corporations, individuals, and organizations who think they know what is right and wrong, good and bad for others.

Are you suggesting that the teacher not liking the colour blue was a moral issue?

Yes he was applying the blue folder example to subjective morality. Under this system, morals are measured by personal likes and preference IE I like or dislike stealing the same as I like or dislike blue folders.

Wow.

Subjective morality does NOT require people to go around demanding that others share the same views.

If anything, it's the people who claim there is an objective morality who would seem to be more likely to do that.

Then as with the protesters, I linked who all represent secular organizations and campaigns why were they demanding justice from others and protesting that rape and abuse were wrong and demanding something be done about it. When people protest about moral behavior they are saying anyone who commits that moral is wrong and is demanding it stops and that people conform to their view or morality.

As one of the captions said in the cartoon that was teaching children about right and wrong "you shouldn't have stolen that candy". That's a demand not to do something, isn't it? When campaigns against wrong such as child abuse or DV say "no one has the right to abuse" isn't that demanding that people don't have a right to do that. Secular society is full of demands by people to stop certain behaviors and actions.

So what? I know plenty of people who ask me to remove my shoes when I visit their homes. It's just another example of subjective morality. The only difference is that the "stealing is wrong" is a moral view shared by many people, while the removing shoes one is shared by fewer people.

Removing your shoes is not a moral value. It's about keeping the floor clean. Even if you want to try and link it to morals it's a ritual or custom like not eating certain foods or covering of the head.

No it's not.

The companies are not saying, "You are not allowed to hold those views." The companies are saying, "You can hold those views, but if you do, we don't want to be associated with you, and we don't want you to use our company to express those views."

Isnt that the same thing. They are saying you are not allowed to have subjective morals you must take on our morals. Didn't you just label that objective above when you said

Subjective morality does NOT require people to go around demanding that others share the same views.
If anything, it's the people who claim there is an objective morality who would seem to be more likely to do that.

 

[stevevw]

No, it's not. If a bank robber says, "Give me all the money out of your register or I'll shoot you" he isn't telling the teller that giving him the money is the objectively correct thing to do. He's telling her to do something, and threatening force if her behavior doesn't comply with what he wants.

But that's got nothing to do with morality. That's about instructions. There is no morally good or bad behavior in the teller obeying or not obeying your instructions.

 

[Moral Orel]

But that's got nothing to do with morality. That's about instructions. There is no morally good or bad behavior in the teller obeying or not obeying your instructions.

Exactly, because there's no morally right or wrong behavior under subjective morality. What it has to do with morality is that the robber feels it's good for him to rob banks. So he forces others to behave in the manner he likes.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think there is some justification for that position. That is, if personally held precepts are not about interaction with others then they can be regarded as values, not morals.

I consider it to be as simple as this: if it can be phrased with a "should" or "should not" then it's a moral.

I think values are something else entirely and they affect what our morals are. I value fairness, for instance. Fairness is a value. I should be fair with people is a moral.

 

[Moral Orel]

...I wouldn't even do them the honor of citing their view as .... a "moral position." In my estimation, one's ethical position and associated moral actions would really need to be somehow 'moral' for me to apply that designation to them......since morality is something real and not imaginary; and so is 'immorality.'

A moral position is a position on morality; it doesn't describe a position as being moral. It would be akin to your child answering a math problem incorrectly and you saying, "I don't accept that as a math answer".

Whatever one thinks that one should or should not do is a moral position. You, as the objectivist, would say that some moral positions are correct and some are incorrect. I would simply say there are some I like and some that I dislike.

 

[stevevw]

No you haven't. You're trying to argue that the trolley problem situation is one that can never happen in the real world, despite the fact I've already given both a real-world application of it and a real-world example of it.

I have answered your version of the trolley scenario if you go back and read my reply.

You are shifting the goalposts. We are not talking about assigning blame, we are talking about the moral choice of action.

And doesn't determining right and wrong come down to whether a person is guilty or not of committing a moral wrong. Can they be blamed for it or were there mitigating circumstances? But if we look at your scenario we find that you have been changing things to make it more complicated as we go along. You said a driverless car can run over a person. I said that driverless cars will have automatic brakes. Then you said the car was going fast and the person dashed out from between parked cars almost in front of the driverless car. That changed the scenario.

That makes the pedestrian's role more complicit for who is responsible for any wrong. These factors are important as to who is to blame for any moral wrong. You seem to want to stack the deck in favor of ensuring the car hits the pedestrian but don't want to acknowledge that in doing that you are influencing the accountability for any moral wrong of each person.

How should I know? Do you think the event is imaginary or something because they didn't send a warning? What were they supposed to do, call each and every house on the phone? How long would that have taken, even assuming they already had every single telephone number ready to go? Or maybe they should have sent a car to drive around with a guy yelling out the window? How long would that have taken to arrange?

So what you are acknowledging is that there was mitigating circumstances and little time for anyone to avoid someone getting hurt. They were not intentionally directing the train into anyone. That makes a difference in culpability. That is a big difference to the original trolley scenario where the trolley driver made a conscious decision to run the single person down.

No, you did not answer the question.

You stated that killing the one person is objectively right. But that's not what I asked you, is it? I asked you to explain how you came to that decision. Or are you suggesting that killing one is ALWAY more moral than allowing the deaths of five?

And if you read my last reply you would have seen my explanation IE
Either way, in your scenario someone is going to be killed. So better to kill one person than 5. Multiple killing is worse than a single killing.

Hang on, strawman argument!

I never said moral acts, did I? I said morality.

Don't misrepresent me.

Sorry, I'm getting a bit confused here. Weren't we talking about moral acts? I said I only have to show that objective morality exists once (1 moral act that is objective) to prove objective morality. Then you said I have to show that all moral acts are objective using the sheep analogy IE If I wanted to claim that all sheep are black, I can't just produce one black sheep and say it proves my point.
So if it is about morality as a whole why would I have to show each and every act is objectively moral as in each and every black sheep.

No, I am saying that you are using the argument "All X are Y," in which the letter X represents the word "Morality" and the letter Y represents the word "Objective." It's a shorthand way of representing the structure of an argument.

So what does all morality mean. Prove each moral act or morality as a whole.

I could easily use nonsense words if you like. All Jutts are Splets. In our discussion, Jutts is a word meaning "morals" and Splets is a word meaning "Objective."

Yes I know this form of argument. IE All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore, we can conclude Socrates is mortal. But that is not how we prove if something exists or not in the first place. I would only have to show 1 moral act is objective to show that objective morality exists. The same as if I said sheep exist. I only have to show you one sheep to support my claim. I will look into this more tomorrow as it's late and I am tired and may not be thinking straight.

Kind regards Steve.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A moral position is a position on morality; it doesn't describe a position as being moral. It would be akin to your child answering a math problem incorrectly and you saying, "I don't accept that as a math answer".

Whatever one thinks that one should or should not do is a moral position. You, as the objectivist, would say that some moral positions are correct and some are incorrect. I would simply say there are some I like and some that I dislike.

Yes, I know it is a position on morality, but I am purposely commandeering what I see is a weak-kneed approach to morality ... that's all. Being that I think there is at least minimal (or maybe a modicum) presence of objective aspects to human morality, I'm not really satisfied with being tooooooooooooooooooo general about other people's personal attempts to 'be' moral or their wanting to be cited as those who 'have a moral position.'

 

[Moral Orel]

So, in that case, I would only have to show that in each situation there is an objective moral right or wrong to be found. But that is not how we prove if objective morality exists or not in the first place. I would only have to show 1 moral act is objective to show that objective morality exists. The same as if I said sheep exist. I only have to show you one sheep to support my claim. I will look into this more tomorrow as it's late and I am tired.

I pretty much agree with this. I think it needs to be more specific, though. To prove that an objective moral exists, you only need to prove that one moral is objective, true. It would take more to prove that all morality is objective.

Like the sheep, you could prove that sheep exist if you show me one sheep. But to prove that all the animals in yonder barn are sheep it will take more than that.

Proving that even one single moral is objective is already what Kylie and I believe to be an impossible task, so I'd say start there.

 

[stevevw]

I pretty much agree with this. I think it needs to be more specific, though. To prove that an objective moral exists, you only need to prove that one moral is objective, true. It would take more to prove that all morality is objective.

Like the sheep, you could prove that sheep exist if you show me one sheep. But to prove that all the animals in yonder barn are sheep it will take more than that.

I think this is wrong. Morals are part of a system of right and wrong and they don't exist in isolation.

Proving that even one single moral is objective is already what Kylie and I believe to be an impossible task, so I'd say start there.

Objective morals as a proposition can be necessarily true and not certainly true. Supporting that there are objective morals does not require certainty. Once again this comes back to the logical argument posted earlier that we are justified to believe that objective morality is true based on our moral lived experience.

We are justified in believing that there are objective moral values on the ground of our moral experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience, just as we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience. Such a defeater would have to show not merely that our moral experience is fallible or defeasible but that it is utterly unreliable, that we may apprehend no objective moral values or duties whatsoever.

Our moral experience is so powerful, however, that such a defeater would have to be incredibly powerful in order to overcome our experience, just as our sense experience is so powerful that a defeater of my belief in the world of physical objects I perceive would have to be incredibly powerful in order for me to believe that I have no good reason to think that I am not a brain in a vat of chemicals or a body lying in the Matrix.

This can be summed up by philosopher and atheist Louise Anthony
Any argument from moral skepticism is going to be based on premises which are going to be less obvious than the reality of objective morals values themselves.

 

[stevevw]

Exactly, because there's no morally right or wrong behavior under subjective morality.

No because there is no subjective morality involved at all. If someone says I want you to turn left at the next corner and then park that has nothing to do with subjective morality.

What it has to do with morality is that the robber feels it's good for him to rob banks. So he forces others to behave in the manner he likes.

That's drawing a longbow. The teller isn't being forced to rob a bank and nor does the robber think that he is forcing his morals about stealing onto anyone especially the teller. The robber doesn't feel good about robbing banks. They are in a desperate state, often fearful and anxious in putting themselves in a situation they know is wrong and dangerous. The only moral behaviour in this situation is the bank robber stealing and the fact that they are using force and worried about getting caught shows that they know they are wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Not necessarily. The issue came up merely as a typical example of a weakness in Craig's argumentation style, which applies to his moral arguments as well.

But WLC is using an assumption in the Kallum cosmological argument. He bases the beginning of the universe on a well-accepted theory of science which funny enough is based on an assumption. But he is doing nothing different from what the scientists have accepted themselves.

 

[stevevw]

Ethics is a social phenomenon, morality is an individual creation that can be (but not necessarily) influenced by society.

I thought under a secular worldview with subjective morality that a moral really gets its value from the group, the society who agree that an act is bad. Individually the view has little weight but as a group, it becomes more justified because of numbers agreeing. That's what subjectivists seem to use to explain how morality gets its value as opposed to objective morality independent of humans.

 

[Speedwell]

But WLC is using an assumption in the Kallum cosmological argument. He bases the beginning of the universe on a well-accepted theory of science which funny enough is based on an assumption. But he is doing nothing different from what the scientists have accepted themselves.

Science assumes that the universe as we know it had what might be called a beginning, but science does not assume that it was the beginning of material existence.

 

[Kylie]

Thank you. It is good when someone can at least acknowledge the argument being made as it can get to a point where you run out of ways to explain things. But I don't know your reasoning for saying its invalid.

You say that people treat morality the same way they treat the real world, but that's just not true.

Exactly, but to defeat the logical arguments you have to show these things. If you cant then we can be justified to go with what we experience being that our physical world is what it is and our moral lived experience is what it is IE it shows that people know that certain things are always wrong regardless of subjective morality. This is observed and supported by the way they react and act morally as with all the examples I am showing where people claim, demand, and impose certain moral values when under subjective morality they cannot do that.

My point is that you can't show it.

Yes, but what does the circumference represent. Take away the circumference measurement that can determine an angle and you're only left with a straight line. Remember we are in a world where there are no crooked/angled lines. Just straight lines, any notion of crooked lines will never be discovered or invented.

Do you know what a circumference is? What part of it is straight?

Because subjective views say nothing about moral values remember. They are personal opinions similar to "likes and dislikes", "fashionable and unfashionable" behaviors. Only something that grounds moral values outside humans can be used to measure moral values. Subjectivity is too unreliable and untrustworthy to measure moral values.

Maybe that's why there are so many different moral positions?

Under objective morality, you are being morally wrong. But not under subjective morality. Because of theres no distinction (no way to objective measure) whether someone stopping to help (Empathising) or someone taking advantage and robbing them while their hurt or someone kicking them for being in the way and killing them. All these different positions are just different views of what the person thinks is right, and OK to do.

Someone may think the hurt person is a burden on society and a waste of time and money and put them out of their misery while doing society a favor. That position is not morally wrong under subjective morality. No one can say they are objective wrong or really condemn their actions.

That's where the empathy comes in. We use empathy as a tool to figure out our own personal ideas of what morality is and what it isn't.

Because you have taken an objective position. A "should" is an objective position. You think a person "should do something, "should not do something' "should be more like you and "should not hold their subjective moral view as they are wrong. You can only say in my opinion I think they are wrong, but they still have the right to hold that moral position if that's their view. I cannot say they are wrong because then I would be imposing what I view onto them.

All that attention you focus on the "should", and you completely missed the "I think" bit. Doesn't that tell you it's subjective?

But the scenario is not saying the teacher has taken an objective position. The teacher has taken the same position as the student so he can prove to him a point. The student said there are no rights and wrongs and everything is subjective. So the teacher copied the student's moral position that there were no rights and wrongs by saying I will mark you down because you have a blue folder. The student protested and said that's not fair.

The teacher said I thought you said there were no rights and wrongs and everything is subjective. I subjectively don't like blue so I marked you down for that. If there are no rights and wrongs then how can the student be upset that when the teacher has simply used the student's own moral philosophy that there are no rights and wrongs. So the teacher's actions are not right or wrong as there are no rights and wrongs according to the student's essay.

The teacher was only joking with him and gave him an A. He was just trying to show the student a point about his moral position and how it can backfire on him. The point is getting sort of lost in all this explaining.

No, the teacher is being a jerk. You can use the exact same argument to prove that there's an objective answer to the Star Trek/Star Wars debate.

No, it cant. I thought I had just spent time going over this again. You cannot impose your morals on another person under subjective morality. You are saying my morals are ultimately the right one for you and everyone else. You are no longer making it your personal view but also making it other people's morals. That is objective morality IE there is only one set of morals and everyone must conform to that.

Of course it can! Do you think it's impossible for two people to share the same subjective viewpoint? My daughter and I both share the subjective viewpoint that Star Trek is better than Star Wars. I guess that means it's an objective fact, because apparently if it was subjective, then I could not have imposed my position on her the way I obviously did!

How does reacting to someone who steals from you when you previously said it was OK for them to steal showing empathy. It is showing hypocrisy. You have reneged on your own moral position.

Where did I ever say I thought it was okay for people to steal?

 

[Kylie]

They aren't even correct/incorrect for us. "I should do this because it makes me feel good" and "I should not do this because it makes me feel bad" is all we're ultimately saying.

I'd extend it to, "I should not do this to that person because it would make me feel bad if someone did it to me, and I don't want to make the other person feel bad."

 

[Ken-1122]

No, not "based on thought"; based on human perception. I perceive this fire to be hot, I perceive this ice cream to be sweet. The sensation you feel when interacting with the outside world is your perception. I feel happy when I watch comedies, I feel sad when I watch dramas. Those are your perceptions. "Based on thought"? We can objectively analyze objective things without perceiving anything in the outside world. I can conceptualize the equation "2+2=4" in my mind without interacting with the outside world, but I bet you'd call that "thinking" and "based on thought".

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/perception

As you can see from the above definition, perception is the ability to experience things via your senses or of the mind. Since we are talking about morality, where do you think morality originates? from one of our 5 senses, or the mind.

If you believe it to be true, then you believe in objective moral truths.

No, remember objective comes from non thought

Here's the thing, you believe it to be true because you're following your feelings, and that's never been a good way to arrive at true things. When things are fair, you feel good, when things are unfair you feel bad. So you believe "murder is wrong" because you feel bad when people do it. Since you aren't making any real statements about something that is objectively true, all you're really saying is "I don't like murder because it makes me feel bad".

Do you really believe this stuff you are accusing me of? There are a million things I believe to be wrong that I don’t have the time nor inclination to go through the trouble of feeling bad about, and there are just as many things I feel are right that doesn’t make me feel good. I am having a hard time believing you actually believe some of this stuff you are saying
Again; I believe moral judgments are the result of thoughts and perceptions; (hence the definitions you and I both provided) not what makes me feel good or bad

 

[Kylie]

You'd be 'happy' to accept "it"? That's kind of scary for me to hear you say this .......... !

Why?

If a person says they think stealing is wrong, and they actually act like they believe stealing is wrong, then I will accept that they are telling the truth when they say they believe stealing is wrong.

If someone says that they think it's okay to kill a person for insulting them, and they actually act like they believe it is okay to kill a person for insulting them, then I will accept that they are telling the truth when they say they believe it is acceptable to kill a person who insults them.

Do you assume that my acceptance that they really hold that position is the same thing as me approving of that position?

 

[Kylie]

You are allowed to comment on the bible. You just have to be sure that if you're going to make claims that you do some research rather than rely on your own personal views. It wasn't my interpretation of the text but rather that of Biblical scholars. I am not an expert so I can only refer to experts to better inform me.

Luckily, all Bible scholars all agree completely, don't they?

How do you even know this is an excuse if you haven't studied the Bible. Anyway, this is getting off track. I sort of thought it may come down to this. It usually ends with an attack on God and the Bible because that's what it is really all about.

If the inconsistencies come from the flawed people who wrote the Bible, then how do you know the bits about God's divine word aren't also bits written by flawed people?

Actually those who think they know what is right and wrong according to their own interpretation are immoral. They are no different from some politicians, corporations, individuals, and organizations who think they know what is right and wrong, good and bad for others.

Like someone who claims to know what the objectively moral thing is?

Yes he was applying the blue folder example to subjective morality. Under this system, morals are measured by personal likes and preference IE I like or dislike stealing the same as I like or dislike blue folders.

Wow, you are really trying hard to convince everyone that colour preference is a moral issue.

It's not working.

Then as with the protesters, I linked who all represent secular organizations and campaigns why were they demanding justice from others and protesting that rape and abuse were wrong and demanding something be done about it. When people protest about moral behavior they are saying anyone who commits that moral is wrong and is demanding it stops and that people conform to their view or morality.

As one of the captions said in the cartoon that was teaching children about right and wrong "you shouldn't have stolen that candy". That's a demand not to do something, isn't it? When campaigns against wrong such as child abuse or DV say "no one has the right to abuse" isn't that demanding that people don't have a right to do that. Secular society is full of demands by people to stop certain behaviors and actions.

Once again, shared moral views does not mean those views are objective.

Removing your shoes is not a moral value. It's about keeping the floor clean. Even if you want to try and link it to morals it's a ritual or custom like not eating certain foods or covering of the head.

I was applying the removing shoes example to subjective morality. Under this system, morals are measured by personal likes and preference IE I like or dislike stealing the same as I like or dislike people removing their shoes in my home.

Isnt that the same thing. They are saying you are not allowed to have subjective morals you must take on our morals. Didn't you just label that objective above when you said

Subjective morality does NOT require people to go around demanding that others share the same views.
If anything, it's the people who claim there is an objective morality who would seem to be more likely to do that.

No it is not the same thing.

There is a big difference between, "You are not allowed to have certain moral views," and "We do not want you using our platform to spread your morals views."

The first is preventing people from having particular views. The second is not preventing it, it's just telling them to take those views elsewhere.