Atheism and Ad Absurdum

[Ken-1122]

My claim has always been that the enduring parts of human morality are based on the objective facts about what kind of animals we are and the world we live it. That sure sounds like "objective morality" to me. But if it isnt, I'm fine using another label.

Can you give some examples of objective facts that morality is based on?

 

[durangodawood]

Can you give some examples of objective facts that morality is based on?

Good grief didnt we go over and over this already? You started the Billy and Bob discussion. You followed that through, right?

 

[Ken-1122]

Good grief didnt we go over and over this already? You started the Billy and Bob discussion. You followed that through, right?

I think you are confusing me with somebody else. Which post number did you speak of Billy and Bob? I will look over it and give my analysis of it.

 

[durangodawood]

I think you are confusing me with somebody else. Which post number did you speak of Billy and Bob? I will look over it and give my analysis of it.

Oh sorry, I thought it was you. (it was #123 and ensuing discussion from me & variant).

I'm getting to the point on this topic where Im ready to throw up my hands and concede argument victory to whoever has the most stamina, regardless of who's actually right.

 

[variant]

Sometimes "correct" isn't apt at all. Am I correct that chocolate is the most delicious ice cream? Correct has nothing to do with that.

You are right though, for you, chocolate is delicious. And you might even be correct that for you it is the most delicious.

There are even objective reasons why chocolate and iced cream might appeal to you.

There are both objective and subjective reasons why you prefer it to vanilla.

If you were to assert that the preference for chocolate ought to be universal based purely upon your subjective experience, I would consider that an incorrect idea.

Murdering people for fun though isn't like preferring vanilla to chocolate, it's not a mere preference. It has a lot of consequences, a lot of those consequences are objective (people overwhelmingly value their lives and don't like the prospect of being murdered), some are inter-subjective (people are likely to take action to prevent being murdered and are likely to form society's where murder is less likely to happen to them.) And some are subjective I suppose, but I find it hard to find purely subjective examples here because they are secondary concerns completely unlike the preference for chocolate to vanilla.

If morality was objective, you wouldn't need the qualifier "If you want to do X" to make "you should do Y" correct. That's why it's faux-objectivity.

Right you're speaking in absolutes, which is your first mistake, they rarely exist.

For complete objectivity of that sort we would need some way of dealing in moral language that wasn't like how humans think or act.

But, I haven't been arguing that morality is objective, certainly not in the way you seem to think it would manifest. I hold the position that it is mostly inter-subjective. See my reply to you here: Atheism and Ad Absurdum

I consider the idea that morality is either or "objective" or "subjective" to be an oversimplification because I think that there are components of morality that are objective and I have explained why. I don't think objectivity can be removed from morality to make it purely subjective, and I don't think subjectivity can be removed to make it purely objective.

 

[stevil]

You are right though, for you, chocolate is delicious. And you might even be correct that for you it is the most delicious.

The mere qualification of "for you" means that the position is subjective. Dependant on the subject "you".

There are even objective reasons why chocolate and iced cream might appeal to you.

Some objective reasons I can think of is that chocolate is edible, that it has a flavour, that it isn't so hot or cold that it kills the person eating it, isn't so acidic or basic that it kills the person eating it.
But if we assume those basic things are equal e.g. in a question as to whether chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream is more yummy then it is subjective.

If you were to assert that the preference for chocolate ought to be universal based purely upon your subjective experience, I would consider that an incorrect idea.

This line of argumentation is a real twist. If chocolate is preferable for subject A, then the preference of chocolate is by definition subjective.

Murdering people

Right off the bat, we have a loaded term. "Murdering" is a legal definition. It denotes already that there is legal wrongdoing.
Why don't we replace that with "Killing"?

"Killing" people for fun though isn't like preferring vanilla to chocolate, it's not a mere preference.

It could be.
There are probably people that enjoy killing people. In war time, when it is deemed acceptable to kill people, then people can really be put to the test. I'm sure there are several people that enjoy killing people. Just as there are several people that enjoy hunting and killing wild animals, whilst there are also several people that can't bear the thought of killing animals.

Many people like playing video games where they get to kill "people", these people go out of their way to save up money and buy those games. It excites them. Many people love to watch movies where people get killed e.g. Game of Thrones or Hunger Games.
In games and in movies there are no consequences, but the idea of killing people can be thrilling to many people.

Many people go to public executions, they love it.

It has a lot of consequences, a lot of those consequences are objective (people overwhelmingly value their lives and don't like the prospect of being murdered)

Yes, people tend to have a self interest to survive.

, some are inter-subjective (people are likely to take action to prevent being murdered and are likely to form society's where murder is less likely to happen to them.)

Yep, a mutual self interest to survive. Doesn't mean that it is objectively wrong to kill people, just means that a person a) wants to live, b) recognises that they are vulnerable and need further measures to stop others from killing them.
For all those people who want to live, and want their loved ones to live, it makes sense to form and belong to a society which reduces the chances of people killing people.

And some are subjective I suppose, but I find it hard to find purely subjective examples here because they are secondary concerns completely unlike the preference for chocolate to vanilla.

Some difference between choosing a flavour and choosing to kill people might be:
- Self preservation
- Retribution
- Empathy
- Social stability
- Social stigma and potential to be locked away or removed from that society.

I consider the idea that morality is either or "objective" or "subjective" to be an oversimplification because I think that there are components of morality that are objective and I have explained why. I don't think objectivity can be removed from morality to make it purely subjective, and I don't think subjectivity can be removed to make it purely objective.

Personally I think it is an interesting philosophical question, whether morality is objective or subjective and I like hearing people debate on that.

Personally I think morality is an ill-defined concept, hence it is open to endless debate.
I'm a moral nihilist and as such I don't think it is important to label things as "good" or "bad". It is so ill-defined that it becomes meaningless except inside the individual person's head. Therefore trying to say X is immoral (in my opinion) therefore nobody should do it, is fraught with danger. This way of thinking creates oppression, conflict and wars. People often justify their killing of others as being a fight against evil, or a fight for what is right.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

 

[Ken-1122]

I consider the idea that morality is either or "objective" or "subjective" to be an oversimplification because I think that there are components of morality that are objective and I have explained why. I don't think objectivity can be removed from morality to make it purely subjective, and I don't think subjectivity can be removed to make it purely objective.

I disagree. In order for morality to be objective, there has to be a single moral base. Because such a base does not exist, morality is purely subjective.

 

[variant]

I disagree. In order for morality to be objective, there has to be a single moral base. Because such a base does not exist, morality is purely subjective.

I don't see why there are only two options so I consider your position to be a false dichotomy.

Absolutism is wrong on both accounts. There are objective and subjective elements to morality regardless.

You can't have moral judgement without value, which relies on the subject, because only a subject CAN value, and you can not have subjects without there being objective realities upon which those subjects and their values depend. Even further, there are objective realities ABOUT the subjects and what they are.

There is no such thing as PURE subjectivity, the idea is laughable. Subjects don't conjure their own nature into reality they exist because of external objective facts. There is no such thing as a self dependent subject. Our values come from the experience of being human, our experience with the world around us and the experience with other humans.

Nothing in this is absolute, singular, or anything of the sort, morality can not exist external to a subject, there would be no purpose of value without one, and there can be no absolutes or objectively true values so long as there are more than one subject.

Morality, in the end is about how and why our values interact with other subjects and the objective realities that must be involved in any such interaction.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't see why there are only two options so I consider your position to be a false dichotomy.

Absolutism is wrong on both accounts. There are objective and subjective elements to morality regardless.

You can't have moral judgement without value, which relies on the subject, because only a subject CAN value, and you can not have subjects without there being objective realities upon which those subjects and their values depend. Even further, there are objective realities ABOUT the subjects and what they are.

There is no such thing as PURE subjectivity, the idea is laughable. Subjects don't conjure their own nature into reality they exist because of external objective facts. There is no such thing as a self dependent subject. Our values come from the experience of being human, our experience with the world around us and the experience with other humans.

Nothing in this is absolute, singular, or anything of the sort, morality can not exist external to a subject, there would be no purpose of value without one, and there can be no absolutes or objectively true values so long as there are more than one subject.

Morality, in the end is about how and why our values interact with other subjects and the objective realities that must be involved in any such interaction.

I wasn’t talking about objective realities, I was talking about morality. Morality is about judgment calls we make concerning our experiences, whether they be they good or bad. While true; we use our brain to judge, and our brains are objective, this does not make moral judgments objective. Moral Judgments are based on our assumptions, beliefs, opinions, and personal views, and as you can see from the link below, this is subjective not objective.

Difference Between Subjective and Objective – Difference Wiki

 

[variant]

I wasn’t talking about objective realities, I was talking about morality. Morality is about judgment calls we make concerning our experiences, whether they be they good or bad. While true; we use our brain to judge, and our brains are objective, this does not make moral judgments objective. Moral Judgments are based on our assumptions, beliefs, opinions, and personal views, and as you can see from the link below, this is subjective not objective.

Difference Between Subjective and Objective – Difference Wiki

Your term was "purely subjective", which I object to on the basis of all the required objective realities you have to use to get a "purely subjective" value judgement.

Assumptions, beliefs, opinions and personal views are not purely subjective in my opinion. They are how you deal with reality. They are based upon your reality. They are based upon what and who you are. The subject itself requires objectivity so there is no such thing as a "purely subjective" morality.

While we might both agree that a proper objective morality is not what actually goes on, I am not interested in taking the objective components or downplaying them out of what makes up our subjective morality.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes you can do that. But youre starting to drain the word "objective" of any functional significance at all.

No, it just doesn't have significance in this area that you want it to. That doesn't dismiss the usefulness of facts being facts where appropriate.

Also, what does universal morality even mean?

-our moral rules apply to humans on Mars as well as here?
-they apply to all creatures and maybe plants?
-theyre utter abstracts, like math, that dont need any objects for their validity?

It depends on the moral objectivist. Generally though, you're going to see it come from theists, and it's going to apply to all humans.

I'm getting to the point on this topic where Im ready to throw up my hands and concede argument victory to whoever has the most stamina...

That would be me.

...regardless of who's actually right.

But I really am right.

 

[Moral Orel]

You are right though, for you, chocolate is delicious. And you might even be correct that for you it is the most delicious.

That's not the statement I made though. I didn't simply claim "chocolate ice cream is delicious to me" I claimed "chocolate ice cream is the most delicious" which can't be evaluated on correctness.

Murdering people for fun though isn't like preferring vanilla to chocolate, it's not a mere preference. It has a lot of consequences, a lot of those consequences are objective (people overwhelmingly value their lives and don't like the prospect of being murdered), some are inter-subjective (people are likely to take action to prevent being murdered and are likely to form society's where murder is less likely to happen to them.) And some are subjective I suppose, but I find it hard to find purely subjective examples here because they are secondary concerns completely unlike the preference for chocolate to vanilla.

There are consequences that come from my choice of ice cream flavor, even from my choice to purchase ice cream over other foods. You just don't value those consequences as much as the consequences that follow from murder. Just because you care about one thing over another doesn't mean that there is any functional difference between my examples.

Right you're speaking in absolutes, which is your first mistake, they rarely exist.

For complete objectivity of that sort we would need some way of dealing in moral language that wasn't like how humans think or act.

But, I haven't been arguing that morality is objective, certainly not in the way you seem to think it would manifest. I hold the position that it is mostly inter-subjective. See my reply to you here: Atheism and Ad Absurdum

I consider the idea that morality is either or "objective" or "subjective" to be an oversimplification because I think that there are components of morality that are objective and I have explained why. I don't think objectivity can be removed from morality to make it purely subjective, and I don't think subjectivity can be removed to make it purely objective.

I know that you and Durango are simply arguing for a quasi-objective morality, but I don't see that either. The objective statements you can make don't alter the nature of morality that you're simply doing what you believe will result in the things you personally like the most and your personal likes and dislikes are the driving force behind your actions.

 

[Ken-1122]

Your term was "purely subjective", which I object to on the basis of all the required objective realities you have to use to get a "purely subjective" value judgement.

Assumptions, beliefs, opinions and personal views are not purely subjective in my opinion. They are how you deal with reality. They are based upon your reality. They are based upon what and who you are. The subject itself requires objectivity so there is no such thing as a "purely subjective" morality.

While we might both agree that a proper objective morality is not what actually goes on, I am not interested in taking the objective components or downplaying them out of what makes up our subjective morality.

Sounds like you are confusing the words “Subject” (noun: meaning a person or thing being discussed) with the word “Subjective” (adjective: meaning belief based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions)
And the words “Object” (noun: meaning something with a material existence) with the word “objective” (adjective: meaning belief based on facts and not based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions)

These terms have nothing to do with the other, so when I say “purely subjective” I was saying the belief was not based on empirical evidence and facts, not whether or not it originated from something with a material existence or not.

 

[BigV]

But, you'd have to define "fairly".
Throughout history, people have been competing for resources (and power).
As the world has become global, we have altered our definition of "us" vs "them".
At one stage it was fine to raid our neighboring villages, and then the villages bound together and they instead raided their neighboring districts, but then they bound together and then they raided neighboring countries, but then they bound together and they instead raided far off countries, but then humanity bound together, at least in part.
Except for those countries who still find themselves on the outter, like Russia and China who still compete ferociously to survive in this global place.
Except for USA who have now defined "us" as USA Republican supporters loyal to Trump and "them" as everyone else, including their traditional allies (UK, Canada, Germany, etc), democratic party supporters of USA, the free media, Republicans who aren't 100% loyal to Trump.

Yes, and throughout history people used violence to get ahead. Which is immoral, however, there is nothing that can be done in a dog eat dog world. Also, for any Christians reading this, this point applies to their God/their religion too, who gave Israel land by forcing other inhabitants out (or by killing them).

I realize that the whole discussion on morality is moot, because, as humans we understand that we must get ahead at all cost.

Funny that you bring up Russia (and China). Russia has, unilaterally, given up territories in the early 1990s as a gesture of good will, also gave up influence in Europe, allowing Germany to reunite. And the world has largely forgotten this, continuing to tread Russia as the enemy.

But getting back to the 1990s, the US, instead of helping Russia, has covertly helped the Chechen 'freedom fighters', because the goal of the US has been supremacy at all cost. So that it can remain a sole, and unchallenged superpower. It's a good goal for the US, but a terrible situation for the rest of the world, who happen to be competitors to the US.

Current COVID pandemic also shows that the US doesn't really have friends in the world when the US finds itself in need. Just read the stories of US diverting masks that were supposed to go to the allies and instead they went to the US. Is this a moral act? It's a great thing for the US, but no so great for others.

 

[stevil]

Yes, and throughout history people used violence to get ahead. Which is immoral,

Force, coercion and violence against your enemies has not typically been deemed as immoral.

Force, coercion and violence against your allies is much more easily deemed as immoral. Like what USA did to Ukraine in attempting to force their president to publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens.
Or perhaps when USA did a flip in Syria, telling Turkey they would leave the region and let Turkey massacre those left behind, the allies that up until that point USA were fighting with/for. Turkey got the heads up, the allies were blindsided and subsequently massacred.

however, there is nothing that can be done in a dog eat dog world.

I wouldn't say that nothing can be done.

Also, for any Christians reading this, this point applies to their God/their religion too, who gave Israel land by forcing other inhabitants out (or by killing them).

It comes to an us vs them thing. When Christians consider themselves as "us" and others as "them" then this is ripe for conflict. They consider muslims and atheists as evil, they then justify pushing us away, oppressing us, warring with us.
Christinaity is an exclusive group, Atheists are typically inclusive. Christians want Christian dominance, atheists want equality for all. (typically)

I realize that the whole discussion on morality is moot, because, as humans we understand that we must get ahead at all cost.

The idea that utopia is one where everyone treats all others nicely is a pipe dream and completely abstract from reality. We must compete, we have no choice. I cannot give my job up to someone else in need of an income. I cannot hand my wife over to someone desperate for love. I cannot give my house to the homeless.

Funny that you bring up Russia (and China). Russia has, unilaterally, given up territories in the early 1990s as a gesture of good will, also gave up influence in Europe, allowing Germany to reunite. And the world has largely forgotten this, continuing to tread Russia as the enemy.

Russia ARE the enemy of the free world democracies.
They interfere in elections, they invade the Crimea, they are not friendly and they need to be opposed on these measures.
A challenge however, would be to look at their point of view. How does the world include them and make them better off? In order for the world to try to help Russia, we first need Russia to stop being so aggressive.

Current COVID pandemic also shows that the US doesn't really have friends in the world when the US finds itself in need.

Under Trump's USA first policies, they have isolated themselves. They have criticised and picked fights with their previous allies. USA's international relations have been strained over the past three years.

Just read the stories of US diverting masks that were supposed to go to the allies and instead they went to the US. Is this a moral act? It's a great thing for the US, but no so great for others.

USA is going the wrong way about things. The Republicans laud USA's economic and military dominance and want to force the entire world to their will, to their absolute benefit. In this way USA are isolating themselves and losing friends, and losing influence.

In reality, having friends means give and take, it means influence in a positive way not via coercion, it means acting with integrity and treating your friends and others with respect. The current USA admin and their supporters would consider this approach being weak.

 

[variant]

Sounds like you are confusing the words “Subject” (noun: meaning a person or thing being discussed) with the word “Subjective” (adjective: meaning belief based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions)
And the words “Object” (noun: meaning something with a material existence) with the word “objective” (adjective: meaning belief based on facts and not based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions)

These terms have nothing to do with the other, so when I say “purely subjective” I was saying the belief was not based on empirical evidence and facts, not whether or not it originated from something with a material existence or not.

No I am not. My position on what morality is comes from my position on what values are. So, I am saying that I don't think objective facts can be removed from moral beliefs to get to "pure subjectivity".

While it's true that In the end you can come up with any moral position by changing what you value, those values can be inconsistent with your actions and between one another in reality.

Since I define what someone values with regard to how one acts; value, and thus morality, has to have some objective basis.

So, you don't actually have the freedom to take any moral position just because you'd like to, since there are objective limitations to how you can act.

 

[variant]

That's not the statement I made though. I didn't simply claim "chocolate ice cream is delicious to me" I claimed "chocolate ice cream is the most delicious" which can't be evaluated on correctness.

No, it can simply be evaluated to be incorrect since it is not objectively true in any sense. It can be true with the qualifiers I put on it. There is no such thing as an iced cream that is the most delicious, it's a category error.

There are consequences that come from my choice of ice cream flavor, even from my choice to purchase ice cream over other foods. You just don't value those consequences as much as the consequences that follow from murder. Just because you care about one thing over another doesn't mean that there is any functional difference between my examples.

Well true.

What those differences are is trivial is the point. In an inter-subjective landscape of morality, how much people care about, and thus have to react to, the outcomes of your choices makes a big difference.

I don't think the value judgements are particularly comparable on this point. My language might be getting sloppy there to imply that one has more consequence than the other. What it has is more consequences that matter to others, and thus you have to deal with a lot more real world push back from actors in society.

Actions that will cause others to take action in response are the ones that become a larger problem for you in a social setting.

While you can make the next point, that, people could get very obsessively interested in your iced cream choices. I am saying that is less likely because society at large doesn't need to care about such things and thus are unlikely to do so. They run afoul of fewer values of others and thus fewer actions are required from others.

Why should I care if you like chocolate iced cream?

Caring has a cost associated with it.

I know that you and Durango are simply arguing for a quasi-objective morality, but I don't see that either. The objective statements you can make don't alter the nature of morality that you're simply doing what you believe will result in the things you personally like the most and your personal likes and dislikes are the driving force behind your actions.

I think that the process of valuing things is quite objective because I think it has to do with what one does rather than what one thinks. We can't remove our morality in theory from our morality in action, so we can't remove the real world, and real world consequences, observations, and experiences from our morality.

If we do we can just be deluded as to what we actually value, and what our morality really is, which means it can't be purely based upon us, our subjective views/opinions and the like.

 

[Ken-1122]

No I am not. My position on what morality is comes from my position on what values are. So, I am saying that I don't think objective facts can be removed from moral beliefs to get to "pure subjectivity".

What is an objective fact? Can you provide an example of one that pertains to morality?

Since I define what someone values with regard to how one acts; value, and thus morality, has to have some objective basis.

Can you give me an example of a moral value one might have that is objective?

So, you don't actually have the freedom to take any moral position just because you'd like to, since there are objective limitations to how you can act.

Can you give an example of a moral position I am prevented from taking?

 

[variant]

What is an objective fact? Can you provide an example of one that pertains to morality?

We already discussed one in this thread. People tend to value their own lives.

Can you give me an example of a moral value one might have that is objective?

There I am saying that to value is an action, and thus your moral values are what you do (to the extent that you can accomplish what you want to do). They are what resources you are willing to give up and what actions you choose to take. I am saying that is what value is. The actions are objective.

What is subjective is what you chose and why. The difficulty here is that you can be wrong. You can want to do something because in principle you hold some value and simply take the wrong actions to uphold what you believe in principle.

So, it gets somewhat messy.

Can you give an example of a moral position I am prevented from taking?

You can't kill people randomly because you wish to promote a cohesive society. That moral position would just be deluded. Thus I can justifiably call it incorrect. It is a moral position that is unavailable. You would also be prevented from taking any moral position that was inherently contradictory, because you then couldn't actually act upon it.

 

[Ken-1122]

We already discussed one in this thread. People tend to value their own lives.

Not everybody, otherwise suicide would not be a problem. That could hardly be considered a fact. But even if it were, life isn’t considered a moral issue unless someone judges the life as good or bad; simply living is not a moral issue

There I am saying that to value is an action, and thus your moral values are what you do

Actions (values) have nothing to do with morality unless someone judges them as right or wrong. It is the judgment where morality comes into play, not what you value. Judgments are subjective, not objective thus no such a thing as objective moral values

You can't kill people randomly because you wish to promote a cohesive society. That moral position would just be deluded. Thus I can justifiably call it incorrect. It is a moral position that is unavailable. You would also be prevented from taking any moral position that was inherently contradictory, because you then couldn't actually act upon it.

If I believed killing random people would promote a cohesive society, that would be a moral position available to me.
BTW correct/incorrect is not used concerning moral issues and there is a reason for that.