Atheism and Ad Absurdum

[Speedwell]

But I don't deny there is any practical basis for a moral precept. (I don't know where you are getting this stuff)

Isn't that what we are arguing about? Maybe I am wrong in how I read your posts, but I am under the distinct impression that you have repeatedly denied it to the point of being borderline offensive.

 

[Ken-1122]

Isn't that what we are arguing about? Maybe I am wrong in how I read your posts, but I am under the distinct impression that you have repeatedly denied it to the point of being borderline offensive.

I do not deny people have perceptions of what is or is not moral; of course they do! People often have perceptions of right and wrong even after they have been proven wrong! perceptions of right and wrong (like with morality) is subjective; facts concerning right or wrong (like with math) is objective.

 

[Nithavela]

Was in a friend's wedding not too long ago and got into an argument with one of our other friends concerning slavery in the Bible. Not sure what he was ultimately trying to point out (maybe trying to get the moral high ground as an Atheist), but the debate transitioned to how he could objectively prove that slavery is wrong. He kept referring to "human wellness" as a moral principle that could be proven objectively. I asked him if the move to improve human evolution by removing the "inferior" peoples would be justified as morally right (even though there existed those that believed that). His response was "that's ridiculous because no one would believe that and neither would you." Okay, so I brought up the cultures/nations that believe that slavery is a justifiable and morally acceptable part of life (Not too many left). Again, his response: "Freedom is an aspect of human wellness. If they are not free then they are not well." This finally led to how he could objectively define a value term such as "wellness", which he replied "anything good for humans to live well. Anyone who believes that wellness involves extreme harm for some future goal is just insane." Any thoughts?

I'd say that if you have to argue that slavery isn't wrong, you've lost the debate by default. But that's just me.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'd say that if you have to argue that slavery isn't wrong, you've lost the debate by default. But that's just me.

I think the debate was more about the objective/subjective moral issue rather than whether slavery was wrong or not

 

[BigV]

this debate reminds me on how Richard Feynman answered the "Why do the magnets repel each other" question.

Granted, he wasn't talking about morality but the answers get complicated very quickly .

 

[Nithavela]

this debate reminds me on how Richard Feynman answered the "Why do the magnets repel each other" question.

Granted, he wasn't talking about morality but the answers get complicated very quickly .

That break at 0.45? He's not thinking about the answer, hes trying to find a translation from his brain to the reporters brain.

 

[FireDragon76]

Morality isn't objective or subjective, but intersubjective. There is no transcendent ground for morality (that would also make it arbitrary, a result of God's choice), but neither is it just up to the individual.

 

[Kylie]

Morality isn't objective or subjective, but intersubjective. There is no transcendent ground for morality (that would also make it arbitrary, a result of God's choice), but neither is it just up to the individual.

I wasn't familiar with the term "intersubjective," so I looked it up. From the wiki article, it says: ""Intersubjectivity" has been used in social science to refer to agreement. There is "intersubjectivity" between people if they agree on a given set of meanings or a definition of the situation. Similarly, Thomas Scheff defines "intersubjectivity" as "the sharing of subjective states by two or more individuals."

That sounds to me like it's just a subjective opinion that lots of people agree with. That doesn't change the fact that it's subjective. There are lots of people who think Star Trek is fantastic, judging from the groups I am in on Facebook. That would, according to your implied argument, elevate the "Star Trek is fantastic" idea above a simple subjective opinion, yes?

And I think that a person's moral position IS up to the individual. If God came and said to you that you could commit murder and you would get no punishment, not in this life, nor in the afterlife, would you do it? I get the feeling most people would say no. But why would we still conclude that murder is wrong even if God told us it would be okay? The only explanation is that we get our morality from ourselves, and we would refuse to murder because we believed it is wrong.

 

[FireDragon76]

I wasn't familiar with the term "intersubjective," so I looked it up. From the wiki article, it says: ""Intersubjectivity" has been used in social science to refer to agreement. There is "intersubjectivity" between people if they agree on a given set of meanings or a definition of the situation. Similarly, Thomas Scheff defines "intersubjectivity" as "the sharing of subjective states by two or more individuals."

That sounds to me like it's just a subjective opinion that lots of people agree with. That doesn't change the fact that it's subjective. There are lots of people who think Star Trek is fantastic, judging from the groups I am in on Facebook. That would, according to your implied argument, elevate the "Star Trek is fantastic" idea above a simple subjective opinion, yes?

And I think that a person's moral position IS up to the individual. If God came and said to you that you could commit murder and you would get no punishment, not in this life, nor in the afterlife, would you do it? I get the feeling most people would say no. But why would we still conclude that murder is wrong even if God told us it would be okay? The only explanation is that we get our morality from ourselves, and we would refuse to murder because we believed it is wrong.

Subjects are socially constructed by groups, they don't exist autonomously.

 

[Kylie]

Subjects are socially constructed by groups, they don't exist autonomously.

I assume by "subjects" you mean subjective ideas.

And I fail to see your point. I never said they weren't.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Was in a friend's wedding not too long ago and got into an argument with one of our other friends concerning slavery in the Bible. Not sure what he was ultimately trying to point out (maybe trying to get the moral high ground as an Atheist), but the debate transitioned to how he could objectively prove that slavery is wrong. He kept referring to "human wellness" as a moral principle that could be proven objectively. I asked him if the move to improve human evolution by removing the "inferior" peoples would be justified as morally right (even though there existed those that believed that). His response was "that's ridiculous because no one would believe that and neither would you." Okay, so I brought up the cultures/nations that believe that slavery is a justifiable and morally acceptable part of life (Not too many left). Again, his response: "Freedom is an aspect of human wellness. If they are not free then they are not well." This finally led to how he could objectively define a value term such as "wellness", which he replied "anything good for humans to live well. Anyone who believes that wellness involves extreme harm for some future goal is just insane." Any thoughts?

I agree that "human wellness" is largely far too subjective and circumstantial to be a barometer for morality.

 

[FireDragon76]

I assume by "subjects" you mean subjective ideas.

No, I mean the common western notion of the self as a rational, autonomous individual. It's the result of social construction and is subject to ideological critique and deconstruction.

 

[Kylie]

No, I mean the common western notion of the self as a rational, autonomous individual. It's the result of social construction and is subject to ideological critique and deconstruction.

Then I have to ask what you think that has to do with our discussion about subjectivity and objectivity.

 

[FireDragon76]

Then I have to ask what you think that has to do with our discussion about subjectivity and objectivity.

Because both the idea that morality can only be thought of as either subjective or objective are false choices.

Intersubjectivity means that morality has a subjective aspect without being random or arbitrary.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wasn't familiar with the term "intersubjective," so I looked it up. From the wiki article, it says: ""Intersubjectivity" has been used in social science to refer to agreement. There is "intersubjectivity" between people if they agree on a given set of meanings or a definition of the situation. Similarly, Thomas Scheff defines "intersubjectivity" as "the sharing of subjective states by two or more individuals."

That sounds to me like it's just a subjective opinion that lots of people agree with. That doesn't change the fact that it's subjective. There are lots of people who think Star Trek is fantastic, judging from the groups I am in on Facebook. That would, according to your implied argument, elevate the "Star Trek is fantastic" idea above a simple subjective opinion, yes?

And I think that a person's moral position IS up to the individual. If God came and said to you that you could commit murder and you would get no punishment, not in this life, nor in the afterlife, would you do it? I get the feeling most people would say no. But why would we still conclude that murder is wrong even if God told us it would be okay? The only explanation is that we get our morality from ourselves, and we would refuse to murder because we believed it is wrong.

We get "morality from ourselves"? What in the world does "from ourselves" even mean?

 

[Moral Orel]

Because both the idea that morality can only be thought of as either subjective or objective are false choices.

If morals are not subjective (opinions) or objective (facts) then what are they? People keep saying that we're being too binary, but I don't see a third option. "You shouldn't murder people". If that isn't an opinion or a fact, what is it?

 

[Tinker Grey]

If that isn't an opinion or a fact, what is it?

An agreement between a set of people on how to behave in that group.

 

[Moral Orel]

An agreement between a set of people on how to behave in that group.

Nah, people might agree to that principle, but what is the principle itself if not an opinion or a fact? You're sidestepping the nature of the moral into ethics territory.

An "agreement" would have to look more like, "I won't murder you if you don't murder me".

 

[Tinker Grey]

Nah, people might agree to that principle, but what is the principle itself if not an opinion or a fact? You're sidestepping the nature of the moral into ethics territory.

An "agreement" would have to look more like, "I won't murder you if you don't murder me".

That's what morality is. It is the set of behaviours agreed upon, implicitly or explicitly, as acceptable or not.

A hermit who never interacts with another human can be neither moral nor immoral.

 

[Moral Orel]

That's what morality is. It is the set of behaviours agreed upon, implicitly or explicitly, as acceptable or not.

A hermit who never interacts with another human can be neither moral nor immoral.

Agreement has nothing to do with morality, that's why it's ethics territory. If I think that it's rude to cross my eyes at you, you don't have to agree for that to be a moral of mine. Interaction is required for morality, not agreement.