Atheism and Ad Absurdum

[Tanj]

Depends what you mean.

For instance, in an anthropological sense, its an objective fact that human societies have moral codes. And whats spelled out in those codes is an objective fact too.

But youre probably thinking of something else. If so, precisely what?

The morals in the codes.

 

[durangodawood]

The morals in the codes.

Really?

Anyone who studies western societies (probably any others too) will observe that one of our morals is: dont murder people. Seems perfectly accessible to objective scrutiny.

 

[Tanj]

Really?

Anyone who studies western societies (probably any others too) will observe that one of our morals is: dont murder people. Seems perfectly accessible to objective scrutiny.

And anyone who studies societies through time will observe that what constitutes "murder" has differed widely, and is one of the least objective morals in our history (human sacrifice by the Aztecs being an example), regardless of how many different ways you misuse the word "objective" to cloud that point.

That morals are subjective is not a question of whether some society can be objectively observed to have written them down, or "objectively scrutinised", it's about what the actual morals are. If you want to have this conversation like an adult I'm happy to do so. Perform another semantic jump and you will never hear from me again.

 

[durangodawood]

And anyone who studies societies through time will observe that what constitutes "murder" has differed widely, and is one of the least objective morals in our history (human sacrifice by the Aztecs being an example), regardless of how many different ways you misuse the word "objective" to cloud that point.

That morals are subjective is not a question of whether some society can be objectively observed to have written them down, or "objectively scrutinised", it's about what the actual morals are. If you want to have this conversation like an adult I'm happy to do so. Perform another semantic jump and you will never hear from me again.

Talk about semantic jumps. You just leapt from "objective" to "consistent" or "absolute" without warning anyone!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Talk about semantic jumps. You just leapt from "objective" to "consistent" or "absolute" without warning anyone!

You really do seem to misunderstand what objective morals means...

 

[durangodawood]

You really do seem to misunderstand what objective morals means...

Help me out. I'm trying to grasp what you all mean for morality to be objective. What is it? Gold plates engraved by the Almighty?

 

[durangodawood]

...That morals are subjective is not a question of whether some society can be objectively observed to have written them down, or "objectively scrutinised", it's about what the actual morals are. If you want to have this conversation like an adult I'm happy to do so. Perform another semantic jump and you will never hear from me again.

Its about what they are? Thats pretty vague. They are belief statements primarily derived from what satisfies our social and personal values. Thats what they are. There are dead center enduring ones pretty much universal across cultures. And there are more contingent ones that vary with physical necessity or even vary according to seemingly arbitrary myths that might help with social cohesion.

 

[Ken-1122]

Depends what you mean.

For instance, in an anthropological sense, its an objective fact that human societies have moral codes.

Which societies are you talking about that actually have moral codes? Can you list some of the moral codes such societies have?

And whats spelled out in those codes is an objective fact too.

Can you give an example of a societal moral code that is objective?

 

[Ken-1122]

Really?

Anyone who studies western societies (probably any others too) will observe that one of our morals is: dont murder people. Seems perfectly accessible to objective scrutiny.

I live in the United States. The US has never adopted a moral code to not murder people. We have laws that forbid murder, but not anything that could be called a moral code.

 

[durangodawood]

I live in the United States. The US has never adopted a moral code to not murder people. We have laws that forbid murder, but not anything that could be called a moral code.

Are you looking for the gold tablets too? I don't think it works that way. Instead it permeates cultural creations, primarily (until recently) religion.

 

[Ken-1122]

Are you looking for the gold tablets too? I don't think it works that way. Instead it permeates cultural creations, primarily (until recently) religion.

I have no idea what you mean with Gold tablets, but in the US there is no moral code that applies to everybody; there are 330 million people in this country and each person has their own moral code. Yeah many moral issues most people will agree on, but if you talk to someone long enough, you are going to find something that you will disagree on.

 

[stevevw]

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?

A thought came when reading your post about wellness and freedom. Some people who sacrifice their time and life to helping others say they are much happier and thus have greater wellbeing as a result. There is truth in the paradoxical idea that you have to give to receive. This is based on the perception of what is good materially versus non-material rewards which are a big part of Christianity. So even wellness can be relative. Many of the ideas in modern society about freedom when examined really bind people. The perception is people become freer by implementing certain rights but they always come with a cost to freedom.

 

[Strathos]

I have no idea what you mean with Gold tablets

It's likely a reference to Mormonism, where Joseph Smith claimed that an angel showed him engraved gold tablets and gave him a supernatural 'seer stone' that allowed him to translate them into what became the Book of Mormon.

 

[durangodawood]

It's likely a reference to Mormonism, where Joseph Smith claimed that an angel showed him engraved gold tablets.....

Yes. Or similarly, images of Moses coming down with engravings of the various commandments. Gold sounds better tho.

...and gave him a supernatural 'seer stone' that allowed him to translate them into what became the Book of Mormon.

Yes. The Uma Thurman.

 

[Sketcher]

Yes. Or similarly, images of Moses coming down with engravings of the various commandments. Gold sounds better tho.

That's actually quite different. Joseph Smith himself claimed the visions, but it wasn't just Moses himself that claimed the Mount Sinai Event. The entire nation of Israel saw the same supernatural things before Moses disappeared up on the mountain, and every group of Jews has that as part of their historical narrative. Many witnesses vs one witness.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes. Or similarly, images of Moses coming down with engravings of the various commandments. Gold sounds better tho.

My point stands

 

[Ken-1122]

That's actually quite different. Joseph Smith himself claimed the visions, but it wasn't just Moses himself that claimed the Mount Sinai Event. The entire nation of Israel saw the same supernatural things before Moses disappeared up on the mountain, and every group of Jews has that as part of their historical narrative. Many witnesses vs one witness.

Many witnesses according to the guy who wrote the story.

 

[durangodawood]

My point stands

I asked what you meant by a moral code. Like a written list somewhere? You didnt answer.

My sense is our moral code is a set of rules for correct behavior that weve adopted as a collective, despite the disagreement of a few outliers.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Help me out. I'm trying to grasp what you all mean for morality to be objective. What is it?

The question is whether moral rules are a system of facts (objective) or a system of opinions (subjective).

A) Tofu is nasty.
B) Slavery is wrong.
C) Seven is odd.

Is statement B more like A (an opinion) or C (a fact)?

 

[durangodawood]

The question is whether moral rules are a system of facts (objective) or a system of opinions (subjective).

A) Tofu is nasty.
B) Slavery is wrong.
C) Seven is odd.

Is statement B more like A (an opinion) or C (a fact)?

My contention is that the enduring morals are based on objective facts.

So.
A. is entirely personal
B. is based on the factual notion "slavery leads to horrible outcomes for individuals and society"
C. is a fact by definition

As for hunting down what is "the moral itself" like some people want to do.... I'm not even sure what we're looking for. A belief that subjectively lives in the individual brain? A rule that objectively, demonstrably lives in the collective culture? Both? Its a bit of a philosophical rabbit hole: what is a statement? I think more salient is: what are morals based on?