Atheism and nihilism

[stevevw]

You are a fine one to talk. You claim superiority by virtue of your "objective" morality but have nothing beyond your subjective opinion of what it is to point to. Subjective moralists are certainly not "longing" to be in your unenviable state.

There is no superiority at all. It is rather a truth than a superior moral position. It is not my subjective moral view but rather a moral law that is given by God. I can point to Jesus as the teacher of that morality. Jesus didn't claim to be superior He only claimed He is the truth.

Subjective moralists don't need to "block out" their conscience and guilt. They understand that internalized precepts are fully a part of a subjective moral system.

I thought everyone experienced guilt. If we don't then we haven't got a conscience. Where do these internalized precepts originate from?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you bored with this conversation, Philo? I understand the large gaps between postings, we all have lives to lead outside of CF, but you also just skimmed that whole post and only addressed a tiny fraction of it. Those things together are causing me to believe you are losing interest in talking about this topic. Your posts are increasingly sounding like you're shrugging the conversation off. It's fine if you are.

I also asked what makes justice, now described as fairness, good. How about some other things that you called good? Can you describe what are they and what makes them good? I can work with examples that demonstrate something to form an understanding but I need more than one to do so.

One more thing. I actually DO value conversation with you because you're a fairly interesting thinker, Nick. I may not agree with you on a variety of points, but I think you're generally thoughtful and I appreciate how you don't just dismiss and wave away alternative ideas to your own.

I do apologize that I can't be as timely in my responses as I'd always like to be, especially in the Summer. But........sorry........my wife just reminding me that we have the nursery to attend to.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'll just say that I don't have the same expectation of 'timeliness' that others do. A 3 or 4 day lag in response is perfectly fine ... to me. Apparently it's not for other people.

Like I said, a gap in responses is always fine. It's the terse responses that ignore the majority of a post that make me suspect a lack of interest. If you were planning to get to the rest at some later time, let me know. If you were never intending to get to the rest, well that will be a problem for me.

Food. Food is 'good.' Sex. Safe sex with fidelity within a marriage is 'good.' Healing. Helping others to mend, heal or recover is 'good.' Altruism. Altruism is good just because a person in need might benefit.

I could go on.

What makes justice and each of these things good? You said that altruism is good because a person in need might benefit. So is a need being fulfilled good? And that's what makes food, and sex, and healing good; they all are instances of a need being fulfilled? I do take note that only safe sex with fidelity within a marriage is good. That one looks pretty complicated. Now I want to ask why fidelity is good and why married sex is good. But also, what about justice? It doesn't seem to fit in with the others. What makes justice good?

 

[Ken-1122]

Really? You wont point to objective real world things that other people can examine for truth?

The only subjective reasons are basically "it feels wrong to me". Thats all you got?

That's all anybody's got. If you don't agree with my opinion, there is nothing (outside of opinion) I can point to to objectively prove me right.

 

[durangodawood]

That's all anybody's got. If you don't agree with my opinion, there is nothing (outside of opinion) I can point to to objectively prove me right.

Sounds like you havent examined why you hold the opinions you have.

 

[stevevw]

Because they are convinced the moral position they are promoting is the (subjectively) right moral position; a moral position everybody should have.

But isn't a subjective moral view only something the subjective has and therefore only true for the subject. They are entitled to believe that their moral view is 'truth' for themselves. But it isn't 'truth' for anyone else because they would have their own moral views. Isn't that how it goes.

Why would you suggest a moral subjectivist should not have objectivity? Are you suggesting if a person believes morality is subjective, that such a person does not recognize there are plenty of other things that are objective?

Of course, people can appeal to objectivity in different ways. But we are talking about morality. Isn't there 'subjective' and 'objective' morality. Subjective morality is what the subject (person) views. From their perspective, personal experience, 'likes and dislikes'. As some have said similar to views about food tastes for example.

Or even a person's subjective view about something objective like the shape of the earth is flat as opposed to a sphere. People can have their personal outlook on things. But then there are objective facts like the earth is a sphere because we can measure it, or gravity will cause a person to fall regardless of whether they subjectively think they won't.

But a person's subjective view cannot be an objective fact or truth that can be applied to others or be put out into the world like its independently true despite the person who says it. Because it only speaks about the person's perspective and each person will have a different view.

So applied to morality, a subjective moral view cannot be put out into the world or applied to others like its a fact beyond the individual. That would be like saying my view that the earth is flat applies to everyone and is a fact. Or my view that chocolate cake tastes the best is a fact that everyone should agree with.

That is why I cannot understand how people can claim moral are facts under a subjective moral system that apply to everyone because they are not facts but personal views. If it is internal then it is only something that can apply internally. It is only about the person who expresses the morals. There is no way to make morality a fact beyond them. Yet we all do this by making moral facts that are imposed on others.

 

[Ken-1122]

Sounds like you havent examined why you hold the opinions you have.

What did I say to give you that impression?

 

[durangodawood]

What did I say to give you that impression?

You cant point to any real world facts to back up your moral intuitions. All you have is "it feels right/wrong". Thats the sign of a completely unexamined sense of morals.

 

[Ken-1122]

But isn't a subjective moral view only something the subjective has and therefore only true for the subject. They are entitled to believe that their moral view is 'truth' for themselves. But it isn't 'truth' for anyone else because they would have their own moral views. Isn't that how it goes.

No.

Of course, people can appeal to objectivity in different ways. But we are talking about morality. Isn't there 'subjective' and 'objective' morality. Subjective morality is what the subject (person) views. From their perspective, personal experience, 'likes and dislikes'. As some have said similar to views about food tastes for example.

Or even a person's subjective view about something objective like the shape of the earth is flat as opposed to a sphere. People can have their personal outlook on things. But then there are objective facts like the earth is a sphere because we can measure it, or gravity will cause a person to fall regardless of whether they subjectively think they won't.

But a person's subjective view cannot be an objective fact or truth that can be applied to others or be put out into the world like its independently true despite the person who says it. Because it only speaks about the person's perspective and each person will have a different view.

So applied to morality, a subjective moral view cannot be put out into the world or applied to others like its a fact beyond the individual. That would be like saying my view that the earth is flat applies to everyone and is a fact. Or my view that chocolate cake tastes the best is a fact that everyone should agree with.

That is why I cannot understand how people can claim moral are facts under a subjective moral system that apply to everyone because they are not facts but personal views. If it is internal then it is only something that can apply internally. It is only about the person who expresses the morals. There is no way to make morality a fact beyond them. Yet we all do this by making moral facts that are imposed on others.

There are no such a thing as a moral fact; there are only moral beliefs. If I said “X” (rape, murder, abortion, etc) is wrong, and I state it is factually wrong, the question then becomes; what facts are you basing that on? Now various theists have been known to say “because my deity (Jesus, Allah, Bahama, etc) said so. But how is that different than saying “because I said so”? Just because their deity of choice says so doesn’t make it factually wrong. If something is objectively true, any deity is subject to that objective truth just like anyone else. (example) I am 6 foot tall; this is an objective fact. If a deity says I am not 6 foot tall, that deity would be wrong. The attempt to make a deity's claims objective doesn't work any more than trying to make my claims objective.

 

[Ken-1122]

You cant point to any real world facts to back up your moral intuitions. All you have is "it feels right/wrong". Thats the sign of a completely unexamined sense of morals.

No, as I said before, I can list 101 different reasons why I believe it to be wrong. Those reasons are far more than "feels wrong", those reasons are based on real world experiences.

 

[Speedwell]

There is no superiority at all. It is rather a truth than a superior moral position. It is not my subjective moral view but rather a moral law that is given by God. I can point to Jesus as the teacher of that morality. Jesus didn't claim to be superior He only claimed He is the truth.

All of which is merely your subjective opinion.

I thought everyone experienced guilt. If we don't then we haven't got a conscience. Where do these internalized precepts originate from?

From a part of the mind which some call the superego. They are placed there by millennia of human social experience. Or by God, if you prefer to think of them as "objective."

 

[durangodawood]

No, as I said before, I can list 101 different reasons why I believe it to be wrong. Those reasons are far more than "feels wrong", those reasons are based on real world experiences.

I see. Sounds like youre appealing to objective reality to back up your opinions.

 

[Ken-1122]

I see. Sounds like youre appealing to objective reality to back up your opinions.

Of course! Don't you?

 

[durangodawood]

Of course! Don't you?

Yeah. Maybe you forget that I consider morality to be essentially objectively based. Its been a while since we chatted.

And yeah, in my own mind, I experience my sense of values as a subjective thing. But as a human animal, there's objective reasons why I have those values, at least for the big deep ones. I'm sure I have many idiosyncratic 'chocolate vs vanilla' minor values tho.

 

[Moral Orel]

OK, I see what you mean now. Yes, I agree. But isn't that even taking a 'should' position in saying all you can do or are restricted to do is say "you don't like it"? It sort of narrows down what the person can and cannot do.

I'll rephrase for clarity: all that you can say that is true is "I don't like this behavior". People are capable of saying anything they want.

 

[Moral Orel]

And yeah, in my own mind, I experience my sense of values as a subjective thing. But as a human animal, there's objective reasons why I have those values, at least for the big deep ones. I'm sure I have many idiosyncratic 'chocolate vs vanilla' minor values tho.

What values do you have that aren't because of objective reasons? You like flavors because of the way food molecules interact with your taste buds; your taste buds developed through evolution to detect nutrient providing materials. I can't imagine a way for a value to be the result of subjectivity unless we simply choose it, but I don't think we can choose what we value any more than we can choose what we believe.

 

[durangodawood]

What values do you have that aren't because of objective reasons? You like flavors because of the way food molecules interact with your taste buds; your taste buds developed through evolution to detect nutrient providing materials. I can't imagine a way for a value to be the result of subjectivity unless we simply choose it, but I don't think we can choose what we value any more than we can choose what we believe.

Yeah, in a materialistic paradigm, there's not much room for values to emerge in some way disconnected from observable reality.

But I didnt want to go full-reductionist with my position. Even for people who think some values can emerge sui generis from the individual imagination, its pretty clear that the big ones (aversions to hunger, deadly threats, threats to loved ones, a sense of fairness, etc) are explainable in biological and social evolution terms that are pretty easily grasped. Maybe this is pretty reductionist. But its certainly not a stretch, except for people who think God created us in one day whole-cloth.

 

[Econ4every1]

I claim its for reasons natural to the human animal. You claim its because of just individual opinion. Am I right?

I think we're in agreement. When I say it's an opinion, I mean that human survival isn't an objective cause when viewed from a non-human point-of-view. However, since humans largely agree on just a small handful of base values, there are real objective ways to achieve the goals we set to obtain our values. Our values change with information and environment.

 

[durangodawood]

I think we're in agreement. When I say it's an opinion, I mean that human survival isn't an objective cause when viewed from a non-human point-of-view. However, since humans largely agree on just a small handful of base values, there are real objective ways to achieve the goals we set to obtain our values. Our values change with information and environment.

Say what?

Any alien anthropologists would look at the humans and instantly see that survival is a core value typical of the human organism. Of course the human desire for survival is a matter of objective fact.

 

[stevevw]

All of which is merely your subjective opinion.

Once again that is not my subjective opinion. That is something a person named Jesus said a little over 2000 years ago. He also claimed He was the son of God and everything He did was what God did. He was one and the same.

So this is not my view but a claim by God you have to address. Jesus said there was no other way to God and claimed the truth about morality. So I am basing my morality on that truth and not my personal opinion. I may even not like some of the truths in what Jesus says like having to put God before money. So my subjective views come second.

From a part of the mind which some call the superego. They are placed there by millennia of human social experience. Or by God, if you prefer to think of them as "objective."

The superego is something Freud came up with where he said there was some battle between our conscience that was programmed by the influences of our parents and the self-identity that we perceive as ideal and right. So the superego is an unreal basis for determining morality as it can be irrational. It can contain anything from warped ideas of authority voices from overbearing caregivers to guilt complexes based on unreal expectations of parents.

The superego is a result of upbringing so there will be as many vari9ations in how that superego will affect people as there are individuals. Though there may be some common values that don't prove that they stem from the superego or that these values are somehow etched on our minds or have any rational and truth status that we can use this to account for why people have similar morals. Even if we concede that there are some common values these are dispersed in among many other distorted views which means we cannot rely on this as a good measure.

As far as I understand each person is born with a clean slate when it comes to morality. Morality has no genetic inheritance. The brain itself cannot just account for morality as it equates to some chemical or electrical reaction. It is more than that. It is more than our social and cultural upbringing. Babies and infants know of right and wrong before any influence of the superego or any other influence from society or culture. And this is despite culture or upbringing. If anything it is culture and socialization that distorts and destroys our innate and God given conscience or morality.