Morality without Absolute Morality

[Fervent]

Call it what you like. We had exchange a series of posts. If you are going to respond to my post, respond to what I wrote and support. I am not part of a team. I am not here to back any one specific poster or to oppose them. I may even agree with you on occasion.

As our exchange has gone along, have I not been responding to what you say?

This simply isn't true. I responded to a post about a scientific paper. That post was made in response to a post by you, but..;

I discussed the paper, not you or your ideas.
I discussed the science, not morality (the overarching theme of this thread and sub-forum.)

If (as you say below) the paper was not relevant, you had no need to reply to me or talk about my post. You did both. When I did reply to your first response, I did reply to your post not directly to me, but a very similar post from you that had included your indirect discussion of my post.

This is where the wires got crossed, because the paper was only tangentially relevant and the strength of its arguments aren't strictly relevant to the overall point being made with the reference to it. So my response to your comments on that paper were about the thread of the conversation that led to me introducing that paper.

I'm not going to play this game. I've watched this thread for weeks and the seen your repeated attempts to drag @Bradskii through the mud over "murder" and "rape". (The latter the likely source of your rape/evolution comment, but I didn't dig into it.)

Wasn't me. @Bradskii tried to get me to bite on hypotheticals while I primarily focused on the is-ought problem and the arbitrary nature of his understanding of morality. I did see another poster engaging over 'murder" and "rape" but that wasn't me. I understand why you wouldn't want to play the game, though. Since you're in a pickle, either universal morality exists in some cases and the holocaust is categorically immoral or universal morality does not exist and you can't condemn the holocaust.

Your choice *should* be to not reply. The opportunity was right in front of you at the beginning 24 hours ago.

What's the fun in that?

We can discuss the relationship between evolution and morality (as we have) or not. It is up to you.

The questions that evolution can answer aren't very interesting to me when it comes to morality.

It's not really about how "theory" is used but a very important specific concept of "theory of mind" that is central to the psychological understanding of moral interactions, empathy, and social interactions. Frankly it is hard to have a properly informed discussion on the origin of morality if you don't know about it.

I understand that now, but as I was unfamiliar with the lingo I understood it as a scientific theory of mind rather than a more vernacular usage

Which is exactly why I feel that way about objective and absolute morality.

What good is morality if it's not objective in some sense?

 

[Fervent]

But both you and Hume have missed the very point that @Hans Blaster, @Bradskii, and I have been trying to explain to you. That's that our sense of morality isn't simply reasoned to from nothing. It's born out of that innate sense of justice and mercy to which Micah alludes in the OT, and Paul describes in 2 Corinthians as not being written with ink, or chiseled in stone, but rather written on the hearts of men.

I didn't miss the point, I just don't find it compelling nor very interesting. You don't seem to understand what is truly at issue, because you think that being able to explain the social-emotional elements gives you an explanation of morality. But it doesn't, because there is nothing to ground morals in when disagreements come up.

However @Hans Blaster is correct that while our implementation of morality begins there, it unfortunately doesn't end there. For it's then up to people to apply that innate sense of right and wrong to the everyday world, and that's where that still small voice can lose out to the misguided reasoning to which we as humans are all too easily swayed.

It doesn't even begin there, you've just got a gloss that explains mechanics and no real means of evaluating what it is that makes something moral.

Yes, morals can change from culture to culture, and time to time, but so long as they keep to the goal of doing justly and loving mercy then they're in keeping with the will of whomever it is to which Micah was alluding when he said to walk humbly with thy God.

Sure, but even "justice" requires some way to reason from is to ought. Otherwise we're just slinging mud where my emotions are in combat with yours.

The important thing to remember however, is that people don't reason to morality from nothing, they just sometimes reason away from it.

All this is doing is taking the "beg the question" option as a legitimate route to morality by assuming that our moral feelings are moral truth, and invoking the naturalistic fallacy that because they came about naturally(through evolution) they must be correct


It's not me not understanding, it's you 3 not grasping the problem. you're likely caught in the dogmatism paradox elaborated by Kripke, so caught up in your own behinds that you can't understand the counter arguments.

 

[Bradskii]

And in passing...


I'm some way through 'One second After' by Willim R. Forstchen. It's about how a small town in the US copes when the US is hit with a few nuclear electro magnetic pulse attacks. Almost all modern electrics are out. No power, no comms, no lighting...no nothing.

Long story short, society collapses almost immediately and the usual norms go straight out the window. The death toll is already in 7 figures. Now they need different rules and different moral outlooks to survive. Some things that were acceptable yesterday are no longer acceptable today. What was definitely considered wrong then is now considered right. Even our 'hero', an ex Army colonel, takes part in the execution of two guys who had dealt/stolen some drugs. He knows that what was acceptable punishment before the event is no longer sufficient. Even if martial law has been declared locally.

And it crossed my mind that some people in this forum would say that his actions were wrong. That you can't just summarily execute someone you believe is dealing in drugs. There are moral norms to be upheld! There is due process! There is...justice! It's morally wrong and that never changes whatever situation you find yourself in.

Yet in that regard we're there already.

So there's a conundrum for some. Do you support Trump killing people on the high seas with zero evidence, with zero immediate threat, with zero due process - in which case the usual moral considerations have changed due to circumstances? Or do you maintain that morality is objective, can never change and Trump is wrong?

Just thought we might look at a practical problem.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As our exchange has gone along, have I not been responding to what you say?

You have asked me to defend the positions of other posters. Don't care. Ain't them.

This is where the wires got crossed, because the paper was only tangentially relevant and the strength of its arguments aren't strictly relevant to the overall point being made with the reference to it. So my response to your comments on that paper were about the thread of the conversation that led to me introducing that paper.

Then you can let it go.

Wasn't me. @Bradskii tried to get me to bite on hypotheticals while I primarily focused on the is-ought problem and the arbitrary nature of his understanding of morality. I did see another poster engaging over 'murder" and "rape" but that wasn't me.

If you say so.

I understand why you wouldn't want to play the game, though. Since you're in a pickle, either universal morality exists in some cases and the holocaust is categorically immoral or universal morality does not exist and you can't condemn the holocaust.

The non-existence of universal morality is no impediment to condemning things. It hasn't stopped you or me.

What's the fun in that?

I'll keep that in mind when you don't want to "play".

The questions that evolution can answer aren't very interesting to me when it comes to morality.

This will be very limiting.

I understand that now, but as I was unfamiliar with the lingo I understood it as a scientific theory of mind rather than a more vernacular usage

Not a vernacular usage, but the term they use to describe a person's model of the mental state of others. I posted a link.

What good is morality if it's not objective in some sense?

what sense?

 

[Fervent]

The non-existence of universal morality is no impediment to condemning things. It hasn't stopped you or me.

I believer in universal morality, so there is no conflict for me. But you claim there is no such thing, so how can you condemn anything and remain consistent with your claims?

I'll keep that in mind when you don't want to "play".

uh huh.

This will be very limiting.

So it will be.

Not a vernacular usage, but the term they use to describe a person's model of the mental state of others. I posted a link.

Vernacular usage of "theory" is closer to how theory is used in that term than the scientific usage, even if it is a technical term in psychology. Though there's really not much use in discussing this further, as i am now aware of the term and have made clear my prior ignorance.

what sense?

The sense where if you believe that something that is wrong is not wrong, or something that is right is not right, you are mistaken in your belief and not just holding a personal preference.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I believer in universal morality, so there is no conflict for me. But you claim there is no such thing, so how can you condemn anything and remain consistent with your claims?

The same way all of us always have.

uh huh.

So it will be.

Vernacular usage of "theory" is closer to how theory is used in that term than the scientific usage, even if it is a technical term in psychology. Though there's really not much use in discussing this further, as i am now aware of the term and have made clear my prior ignorance.

Awareness is good, understanding how "theory of mind" works in decision making and moral formation is better.

The sense where if you believe that something that is wrong is not wrong, or something that is right is not right, you are mistaken in your belief and not just holding a personal preference.

Once we realize that there is no such dilemma we can move on to actually dealing with moral reality.

 

[Fervent]

The same way all of us always have.

That's not an answer.

Awareness is good, understanding how "theory of mind" works in decision making and moral formation is better.

So you say, but it is just another illegitimate move from a state of affairs to how things ought to be

Once we realize that there is no such dilemma we can move on to actually dealing with moral reality.

If there is no such reality, then there's no point talking about morality at all. Just imposing our will to the extent that we are able, because if morals aren't objective than there's no reason to bother with them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's not an answer.

It's a partial answer to a question that I'd already answered. (To which you promptly asked the question again.) I don't know how many times or ways I can tell you that absolute/ultimate/objective morality isn't needed to condemn things you find morally objectionable, only the subjective moral is needed. Subjectivity doesn't remove the moral objection, and it doesn't remove the "debate" about the objection once made. (At this point I should note that there are disagreements on moral objections between two or more people claiming objective or absolute moral bases for their own moral opinions.

So you say, but it is just another illegitimate move from a state of affairs to how things ought to be

No. I am talking about how we primates form moral frameworks from our primitive, emotional moral instincts and build moral frameworks from reasoning on top of them incorporating what moral goals we possess. I have made nothing even close to an "ought" claim here. (And in this sequence of interactions I have been assiduously avoiding making specific moral claims, particularly "oughts" as they are not needed to discuss the nature of morality.)

If there is no such reality, then there's no point talking about morality at all. Just imposing our will to the extent that we are able, because if morals aren't objective than there's no reason to bother with them.

I see, you seem to fundamentally be a nihilist leaning on the claim of absolute/objective/universal morality source from your religion and the god you believe in to avoid nihilism. I'm not. I don't mind at all that you base your moral foundation on your religion and its teachings. Found your moral opinion on whatever system you like. It is just that I have no reason to acquiesce to their position when I disagree.

I don't think there was ever a time when my church dictated the fullness of my moral foundations. There were always influences from society and culture, particularly on the things they didn't emphasize. There was a lot of discussion of personal conduct and its relationship to eternal damnation, but never any discussion of civil rights or discrimination. I couldn't bring myself (not that I tried) to condemn divorce, or especially remarriage, or birth control as my church did. (Come to think of it, I disagreed with my church on morality far more than on theology, at least until the serious doubts set in, at which point nothing they said mattered to me anymore.)

 

[Fervent]

It's a partial answer to a question that I'd already answered. (To which you promptly asked the question again.) I don't know how many times or ways I can tell you that absolute/ultimate/objective morality isn't needed to condemn things you find morally objectionable, only the subjective moral is needed. Subjectivity doesn't remove the moral objection, and it doesn't remove the "debate" about the objection once made. (At this point I should note that there are disagreements on moral objections between two or more people claiming objective or absolute moral bases for their own moral opinions.

Subjectivity requires you be inconsistent by claiming that something is wrong in any real sense of the word. Either it was acceptable by the standards of the society it took place in, and so cannot be condemned consistent with relativistic morals, or it was truly wrong regardless of what anyone thinks of it. You may be able to be subjectively incensed, but you don't have a leg to stand on because no one cares what your preferences are but you.

No. I am talking about how we primates form moral frameworks from our primitive, emotional moral instincts and build moral frameworks from reasoning on top of them incorporating what moral goals we possess. I have made nothing even close to an "ought" claim here. (And in this sequence of interactions I have been assiduously avoiding making specific moral claims, particularly "oughts" as they are not needed to discuss the nature of morality.)

So you believe that morality can be had without any "oughts"? How so?

I see, you seem to fundamentally be a nihilist leaning on the claim of absolute/objective/universal morality source from your religion and the god you believe in to avoid nihilism. I'm not. I don't mind at all that you base your moral foundation on your religion and its teachings. Found your moral opinion on whatever system you like. It is just that I have no reason to acquiesce to their position when I disagree.\

I've made no secret that if I didn't believe God to exist then only nihilism would be consistent in my view. Which is why my role in these discussions is the skeptic, not trying to enforce my moral system on others.

I don't think there was ever a time when my church dictated the fullness of my moral foundations. There were always influences from society and culture, particularly on the things they didn't emphasize. There was a lot of discussion of personal conduct and its relationship to eternal damnation, but never any discussion of civil rights or discrimination. I couldn't bring myself (not that I tried) to condemn divorce, or especially remarriage, or birth control as my church did. (Come to think of it, I disagreed with my church on morality far more than on theology, at least until the serious doubts set in, at which point nothing they said mattered to me anymore.)

I've never been particularly impressed by "church" morality, particularly because most seem to try to enforce some form of deontological ethics and I have always been inclined to believe that the Bible presents virtue ethics as its central framework.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Subjectivity requires you be inconsistent by claiming that something is wrong in any real sense of the word. Either it was acceptable by the standards of the society it took place in, and so cannot be condemned consistent with relativistic morals, or it was truly wrong regardless of what anyone thinks of it. You may be able to be subjectively incensed, but you don't have a leg to stand on because no one cares what your preferences are but you.

Then this "real sense of he word wrong" you want doesn't exist. I should note that if you base your morals on the pronouncements of a god or God, it is still subjective as it is dependent on the mind of a being. (Unless you'd like to attribute those positions to a mindless or non-being version of god.)

You are looking for a bedrock to attach morality to, but there is none, god or not. Even bedrock is just floating on the fluid mantle. The whole planet is full of mushy rock.

So you believe that morality can be had without any "oughts"? How so?

I don't how you would formulate it philoslopicly, but the notion of "ought" seems to be an illusion. Plenty of people realize it and we are doing fine.

I've made no secret that if I didn't believe God to exist then only nihilism would be consistent in my view. Which is why my role in these discussions is the skeptic, not trying to enforce my moral system on others.

I have no interest in moving you from belief. We don't need nihilists.

I've never been particularly impressed by "church" morality, particularly because most seem to try to enforce some form of deontological ethics and I have always been inclined to believe that the Bible presents virtue ethics as its central framework.

Church morality, god morality, whatever it is you think is the subjective source of morality.

 

[Fervent]

Then this "real sense of he word wrong" you want doesn't exist. I should note that if you base your morals on the pronouncements of a god or God, it is still subjective as it is dependent on the mind of a being. (Unless you'd like to attribute those positions to a mindless or non-being version of god.)

A being, but an objective being. But it's not the pronouncements that I base my sense of morality on but the nature.

You are looking for a bedrock to attach morality to, but there is none, god or not. Even bedrock is just floating on the fluid mantle. The whole planet is full of mushy rock.

Nope, I'm just pointing out that relativism/subjectivism doesn't have the tools to establish that something that should readily be condemned by any system that can be called moral. I'm not looking for a bedrock, just pointing out that there is a massive inconsistency in humanist approaches.

I don't how you would formulate it philoslopicly, but the notion of "ought" seems to be an illusion. Plenty of people realize it and we are doing fine.

As any good nihlist should affirm.

I have no interest in moving you from belief. We don't need nihilists.

Sure, but facing the reality of nihilism is far more consistent than pretending that morality exists while denying it reality.

Church morality, god morality, whatever it is you think is the subjective source of morality.

The nature of God is not subjective.

 

[Bradskii]

Again, in passing...this came up in another thread:

From here: The Bible as a Tool · Beyond Supply & Demand: Duke Economics Students Present 100 Years of American Women’s Suffrage · Duke University Library Exhibits

'Women viewed the right to vote as not only a political and social but a moral issue — as did their opponents. The items in this section showcase how pro- and anti-suffragists used God and interpretations of biblical teachings and writings to reinforce their arguments.'

Yeah. Kind of weird. Two groups of Christians using the bible to support diametrically opposed moral views.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A being, but an objective being.

All beings are objective. You objectively exist, as do I. If your god exists, then it to is objective. None of that makes any being's moral opinions and preferences as objective. They are ... subjective.

But it's not the pronouncements that I base my sense of morality on but the nature.

Where in nature are these moral senses?

Nope, I'm just pointing out that relativism/subjectivism doesn't have the tools to establish that something that should readily be condemned by any system that can be called moral.

So?

I'm not looking for a bedrock, just pointing out that there is a massive inconsistency in humanist approaches.

I'm not a humanist, but I probably should be. Unfortunately there are a lot of unlikable humans that hold me back.

As any good nihlist should affirm.

You haven't found one here.

Sure, but facing the reality of nihilism is far more consistent than pretending that morality exists while denying it reality.

Subjective morality exists, it is just not objective.

The nature of God is not subjective.

That even the believers can't agree to the nature of God, I don't know how you can say that. Said God could clearly demonstrate their nature, but...

 

[Fervent]

All beings are objective. You objectively exist, as do I. If your god exists, then it to is objective. None of that makes any being's moral opinions and preferences as objective. They are ... subjective.

Sure, but God isn't just any subject. The problem with subjective morals isn't the element of subjective agency, it is the fact that no human being has any authority to dictate how others should behave. God, for numerous reasons, possesses such authority.

Where in nature are these moral senses?

In nature? Nope, it's not moral senses either. It's moral character, in God's nature as the perfect moral agent.

So?

So any condemnation is extending beyond the reach of the available options.

I'm not a humanist, but I probably should be. Unfortunately there are a lot of unlikable humans that hold me back.

By humanist, I wasn't marking off a particular position just any position that takes humans as fit moral agents.

You haven't found one here.

Sure, but that's just because you lack the consistency.

Subjective morality exists, it is just not objective.

Nope, subjective opinions lack the force to equal morality. Subjective preferences are no one's business but yours.

That even the believers can't agree to the nature of God, I don't know how you can say that. Said God could clearly demonstrate their nature, but...

You're mistaking the epistemic problem with the metaphysical one.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure, but God isn't just any subject. The problem with subjective morals isn't the element of subjective agency, it is the fact that no human being has any authority to dictate how others should behave. God, for numerous reasons, possesses such authority.

That's not how subjective works. There isn't a "god exception".

Something is objective if it can be confirmed or assumed independently of any minds.

not

Something is objective if it can be confirmed or assumed independently of any minds (except God's).

Either a god's perception is subjective or it has no mind.

Your subjective moral opinion is to adopt the subjective moral opinion of your god. That is fine, but it is still subjective.

In nature? Nope, it's not moral senses either. It's moral character, in God's nature as the perfect moral agent.

So then how do they exist if they aren't in nature?

So any condemnation is extending beyond the reach of the available options.

By humanist, I wasn't marking off a particular position just any position that takes humans as fit moral agents.

That isn't humanism, but what other agent is fit? Cats? I like cats. They make good friends, but they have very different morals than humans tend to.

Sure, but that's just because you lack the consistency.

Nope, subjective opinions lack the force to equal morality. Subjective preferences are no one's business but yours.

Subjective morality is still morality.

You're mistaking the epistemic problem with the metaphysical one.

The divine has an epistemic problem.

 

[Fervent]

That's not how subjective works. There isn't a "god exception".

Something is objective if it can be confirmed or assumed independently of any minds.

not

Something is objective if it can be confirmed or assumed independently of any minds (except God's).

Either a god's perception is subjective or it has no mind.

Your subjective moral opinion is to adopt the subjective moral opinion of your god. That is fine, but it is still subjective.

You're making a category error by comparing God to created things. God isn't simply reducible to a subjective consciousness in the same sense that human minds are. He is mind without limit, and things are true because of Him.

So then how do they exist if they aren't in nature?

"nature" isn't a place. Nor is "exist" an appropriate category for moral statements. They are true to the extent that they are in agreement with God's character. You seem very confused on these issues.

That isn't humanism, but what other agent is fit? Cats? I like cats. They make good friends, but they have very different morals than humans tend to.

THere is only one appropriate agent, otherwise we're just spouting off uninformed opinions that are impossible to properly qualify.

Subjective morality is still morality.

Not really, it's just opinions which are really only the business of the person who holds them.

The divine has an epistemic problem.

Not nearly as much as the "natural"...but this isn't the thread to talk about the diallelus or Munchausen's trilemma.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

God, for numerous reasons, possesses such authority.

What reasons?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're making a category error by comparing God to created things.

Nah. I was comparing one (claimed) being (God) to a large number (~8 B) ape beings. We apes are not created, we are grown.

God isn't simply reducible to a subjective consciousness in the same sense that human minds are.

I have no idea if "God" is conscious. I've never met him.

He is mind without limit, and things are true because of Him.

That's mere theology. I don't care about theology.

"nature" isn't a place.

No "nature" is all places put together. (aka, the "natural world")

Nor is "exist" an appropriate category for moral statements.

Now we are doing non-existant statements? This conversation is getting more and more confused. You should probably take a break and come back with some better arguments or at least some evidence.

They are true to the extent that they are in agreement with God's character. You seem very confused on these issues.

It is hard to make sense of this "argument". It is just a string of unwarranted assertions.

THere is only one appropriate agent,

My cat?

otherwise we're just spouting off uninformed opinions that are impossible to properly qualify.

I feel it every time I read this thread.

Not really, it's just opinions which are really only the business of the person who holds them.

Not really, we live in groups and have to deal with the moral opinions of others.

Not nearly as much as the "natural"...but this isn't the thread to talk about the diallelus or Munchausen's trilemma.

Do you not believe in "nature"?

 

[partinobodycular]

God, for numerous reasons, possesses such authority.

I'm with @Stopped_lurking, what reasons?