The source of moral obligation

[Conscious Z]

Then, if I may give back the question you asked in your last response to me: What are these moral concepts grounded in?

I am not speaking for him, but I would guess that they are grounded in god's proclamation of morality. If god says X is wrong, X is wrong. If god says Y is good, Y is good.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The proposition that morals claims are neither objectively true nor false does not fall under that definition of self-refuting.

That is not what he claimed. Read his statement closely.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I think that there are objective truths, but not when it comes to morality.

Why not?

For example, someone here might feel that homosexuality is immoral, but others might not see it that way. I don't see anything wrong with homosexuals legally marrying, but others might see it as 'immoral.'

This is true. People have different views about homosexuality.

Who is right? Objectively, neither is 'right,' but we both feel that we are...

Why do you say this?

I'm not sure there can ever be such a thing as objective morality, because where would the objectivity come from, to begin with?

You have unintentionally asked the one question that was the impetus for me starting this thread.

In your thought process, God is not an option for grounding moral values and duties and thus you rightly ask, "if not God, then where would they come from?"

The secular humanist replies by saying that man is the measure of all things. God is dead declared Nietzsche and so man leaps at the opportunity to take His place as the anchor of moral values. Man now is at the helm and determines what is morally obligatory by appealing to what he believes promotes human flourishing or something akin to that. So says the humanist. Man now is a cosmic orphan in an uncaring, indifferent, amoral universe. Thus he girds up his loins, lifts his chin up, and goes out, like a runaway teenager runs from the home of his father, with dreams and hopes of finally being free from that bondage and tyranny of absolutism. He finally feels free to command his own destiny on his own terms, without having to be subject to the dictates of authority. He has become his own authority, determining in and of himself, what is right and wrong, what is good and bad, what is meaningful and what is not.

He knows he has cut ties with the home in which he was raised and with the father who cared for him. He can never go back there now. For to do so would be to cut him where it would hurt most and he would once again have to be subject to another's dictates instead of his own.

So he presses on. Though storms loom large and foreboding on the horizon, he presses on. As the wind of desire blows him to and fro, he begins to lose his orientation and soon knows not up from down, left from right, nor how it was that he even came to be where he is at. There is no longer the solid ground beneath his feet that he once stood firmly upon and which afforded him that sense of stability and safety, but he knows he cannot go back so he tries to convince himself that he never really needed those things in the first place. That they were just childhood fancies to be laid aside when one comes to age as one lays aside their favorite lovey.

So out into the indifferent world he marches and soon encounters other runaways like himself. Those that are making use of their new found freedom to live according to their own dictates. Some decide to join him on his journey and provide him companionship and he is happy.

One day, while he is hopping and skipping along, he sees a young guy walking his way. He figures he too will be good company so he runs to greet him. To his dismay, upon coming to within arms reach of him, the man begins to beat him and strip him of his clothes. Bewildered, he exclaims: "That's wrong! You shouldn't do this!"

This remark made the man stop. He then speaks: "Surely dude, you must have forgotten where you are at. You are not at home anymore boy, you ran away remember? Just exactly who do you think you are anyway......my father?"

 

[Conscious Z]

The secular humanist replies by saying that man is the measure of all things. God is dead declared Nietzsche and so man leaps at the opportunity to take His place as the anchor of moral values. Man now is at the helm and determines what is morally obligatory by appealing to what he believes promotes human flourishing or something akin to that. So says the humanist.

One small note: Secular humanism doesn't claim that man is the measure of all things. It merely claims that humans are capable of being good without god. That doesn't preclude positions like objective moral realism.

Man now is a cosmic orphan in an uncaring, indifferent, amoral universe.

Man has always been a "cosmic orphan in an uncaring, indifferent, amoral universe."

Thus he girds up his loins, lifts his chin up, and goes out, like a runaway teenager runs from the home of his father, with dreams and hopes of finally being free from that bondage and tyranny of absolutism. He finally feels free to command his own destiny on his own terms, without having to be subject to the dictates of authority. He has become his own authority, determining in and of himself, what is right and wrong, what is good and bad, what is meaningful and what is not.

He knows he has cut ties with the home in which he was raised and with the father who cared for him.

No secular humanist "knows he has cut ties with the home in which he was raised and with the father who cared for him" because no secular humanist believes he ever had such a father. You are using language for dramatic effect rather than philosophical clarity.

He can never go back there now. For to do so would be to cut him where it would hurt most and he would once again have to be subject to another's dictates instead of his own.

Again, people who attempt to describe morality without god do not believe that there is a father to return to, so it makes no sense to say the he or she won't go back because they would have to be subject to another's dictates.

There is no "going back" because there is no god. Either we try to be moral on our own and accomplish our goals of having a better society, or we burn the whole place down. Those are the two options. There is no father here.

There is no longer the solid ground beneath his feet that he once stood firmly upon and which afforded him that sense of stability and safety, but he knows he cannot go back so he tries to convince himself that he never really needed those things in the first place.

There never was solid ground. There may have been the illusion of solid ground, but it never existed.

One day, while he is hopping and skipping along, he sees a young guy walking his way. He figures he too will be good company so he runs to greet him. To his dismay, upon coming to within arms reach of him, the man begins to beat him and strip him of his clothes. Bewildered, he exclaims: "That's wrong! You shouldn't do this!"

This is a sentiment, nothing more. It's like "Boo! I hate green beans," only much stronger. The speaker may believe he is uttering some objective moral fact, but no such fact exists.

This remark made the man stop. He then speaks: "Surely dude, you must have forgotten where you are at. You are not at home anymore boy, you ran away remember? Just exactly who do you think you are anyway......my father?"[/FONT]

That's a cute story, but it's clearly designed for drama more than substance. It doesn't matter if you think a world with no objective moral facts isn't desirable, and may even be scary; it being undesirable doesn't make it false.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

One small note: Secular humanism doesn't claim that man is the measure of all things. It merely claims that humans are capable of being good without god. That doesn't preclude positions like objective moral realism.


Man has always been a "cosmic orphan in an uncaring, indifferent, amoral universe."


No secular humanist "knows he has cut ties with the home in which he was raised and with the father who cared for him" because no secular humanist believes he ever had such a father. You are using language for dramatic effect rather than philosophical clarity.



Again, people who attempt to describe morality without god do not believe that there is a father to return to, so it makes no sense to say the he or she won't go back because they would have to be subject to another's dictates.

There is no "going back" because there is no god. Either we try to be moral on our own and accomplish our goals of having a better society, or we burn the whole place down. Those are the two options. There is no father here.


There never was solid ground. There may have been the illusion of solid ground, but it never existed.



This is a sentiment, nothing more. It's like "Boo! I hate green beans," only much stronger. The speaker may believe he is uttering some objective moral fact, but no such fact exists.



That's a cute story, but it's clearly designed for drama more than substance. It doesn't matter if you think a world with no objective moral facts isn't desirable, and may even be scary; it being undesirable doesn't make it false.

And I commend you for being consistent.

 

[variant]

Atheists, where do moral obligations and prohibitions come from if there is no moral law giver to prohibit or prescribe moral duties?

From your imagination, from your reasoning, and from the perceptions of the effects of your actions.

 

[Ken-1122]

But thats not what you said. You made a definite statemnet about me being wrong. It wasn't you believed I was wrong you said I was wrong in an affirmative way.

Stating something in an affirmative way doesn’t make it objective. in order to be objective, it must be demonstrable.

Thats where people go wrong. they see the different circumstances that are applied to each situation as a new version of that moral so they think that the original moral has been changed itself thus making a new moral for killing. But murder is murder. But if there are mitigating circumstances that will allow for a good reason to breach that moral, IE cockroaches spread disease and then can cause sickness and possible worse so it is good to rid an environment of disease carrying insects then this is a justified action under the same original moral.

You just made a case for subjective morality. If there are mitigating circumstances when morality can be breached; that is subjective. 1+1=2; there are no mitigating circumstances where it can be another number. 4 quarts equals a gallon; there are no mitigating circumstances when it does not equal a gallon, because these things are objective. Subjective means it is determined on a case by case manner.

Well what is written down for what is claimed He said is consistent throughout the New testament. The words that are written in red which indicate what He said are clear and simple.

Really? So what were Jesus last words? Was it:

“my God, why has thou forsaken me?” as claimed by Matthew
“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” as claimed by Luke
“It is finished” as claimed by John?

Consistent? It seems 3 different accounts from 3 different authors

So at the very least we would have to give some benefit of the doubt that all of this effort and writing which has stood the test of time must have some of it attributed to Jesus even if people think its a bunch of silly sayings. Theres just to many people and to much history for people to wright it all off as lies and myths.

I think the myths and lies are the claims that he did things outside the laws of nature.

But the meaning of truth is that there is but one truth. That is what truth is. To say its subjective is contradictory.

No! What is considered true is determined on a case by case basis. What might be true in one situation may not be true in another. (as you’ve admitted to above) That makes truth subjective.

That doesn't make sense. You saying there is no truth is making a statemnet of truth.

I said there is no OBJECTIVE truth.

By the fact that you are claiming truth is not objective. Is saying that truth is subjective a true statemnet. If its a subjective statemnet then I will say that truth is objective. If you say I'm wrong then you are claiming the truth which is an objective statement.

No! When I say you are wrong, I am claiming the truth (which is my opinion) which makes it a subjective statement.

Now I'm really confused.

That’s because you keep insisting on claiming morality, truth, right and wrong are objective when it is in fact subjective. Think of it this way; unless you can demonstrate it as right, wrong, good, bad, it is subjective.

It would be "absolutely true" that "there is no absolute truth". Which directly violates the law of non-contradiction. A very basic law of logic. We must conclude that true exists and it objective. This is the foundation of epistemology. If truth did not exist, knowledge of it being so would be impossible.

This conversation is not about "absolute truth" we are discussing subjective vs objective truth.


Ken

 

[Freodin]

You have unintentionally asked the one question that was the impetus for me starting this thread.

In your thought process, God is not an option for grounding moral values and duties and thus you rightly ask, "if not God, then where would they come from?"

That was not the question she asked - that was the question that goes through your mind... and if you were to understand the difference between these two questions, you might get to the core of our differences here.

You had to add that "...if not God, then..." to Deidre's question, showing your premise: that God is or can be the source of an objective morality.

But you yourself said that you are an "ethical subjectivist". You think that moral obligations come from divine command.

That is not objective.

This is the underlying claim that we do not accept. The subjective views of any moral agent - human, non-human, even deities - do not, never ever nowhere, result in objective truth. Objective truth has, by definition, to be independent of subjective views.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I personally think that you will have a more productive discussion if you purge your vocabularies of the words "subjective" and "objective", which I have seen defined in so many different ways in the past that the words end up misleading in discussion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Conscious Z]

I personally think that you will have a more productive discussion if you purge your vocabularies of the words "subjective" and "objective", which I have seen defined in so many different ways in the past that the words end up misleading in discussion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Those words have very clear definitions and are useful in making distinctions. That people do not know their meanings is an indictment on people, not the use of those words.

Objective: Due to some fact that is "out" in the world; not due to some fact about the mentality or attitude of a person

Subjective: Due to some fact about the attitude or mind of a person or entity

 

[Eudaimonist]

Those words have very clear definitions

Yes, several of them! That's why the words end up misleading.

But use them if they seem to advance the discussion. I personally don't see any evidence of that here, though.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Atheists, where do moral obligations and prohibitions come from

Our sense of morality (i.e. the habit of asking if a certain action is recommendable or not) has its origin in the awareness that no man is an island.
Not all moral approaches deal in the currency of "obligations" and "prohibitions", though. Mine doesn´t.

 

[Conscious Z]

Yes, several of them! That's why the words end up misleading.

But use them if they seem to advance the discussion. I personally don't see any evidence of that here, though.


eudaimonia,

Mark

But they don't have several definitions. People may not properly understand their definitions, but the answer is informing them of such, not avoiding those words.

Practically, however, you might be right. I might be banging my head against a wall.

 

[Conscious Z]

Our sense of morality (i.e. the habit of asking if a certain action is recommendable or not) has its origin in the awareness that no man is an island.
Not all moral approaches deal in the currency of "obligations" and "prohibitions", though. Mine doesn´t.

Please describe to me a moral system that has no obligations or prohibitions. Does it not prohibit torturing babies for sheer pleasure? Would you not be obligated to stop a small child from walking into traffic on a busy highway?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"Language is a form of life" - Wittgenstein.

How we have moved on.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What you are describing is morality as a system of conditionals. "If health is experientially better, then it ought to be chosen."
That works well with things like health preferences (which aren't actually moral issues of any substance), but it starts to get shaky for most people in real cases. Imagine if I said "If killing puppies for fun is experientially better, then it ought to be chosen."

Thats not the type of program we ought to run on though, if we are to be a healthy species. We ought to be advancing sustainable technology, and philosophy insights, not killing cats for fun.

That wouldn't jive for most people wishing to defend moral obligations because an obligation is supposed to be a motivation that exists independent of our own desires.

Without any desires we would not even act. There has to be motivation for there to be morality in the first place.

Morality as desire is a morality devoid of obligations.

Good point, but morality is not just desire, it involves raitonal insight. Unless, of course, you don't care.

 

[Conscious Z]

Thats not the type of program we ought to run on though, if we are to be a healthy species. We ought to be advancing sustainable technology, and philosophy insights, not killing cats for fun.

I'm confused. You're the one who advocated morality as a system of conditionals based on our desires. Not me. I'm pointing out an example of a bad conclusion that can be drawn from the sort of morality you described.

Without any desires we would not even act. There has to be motivation for there to be morality in the first place.

That isn't true. We might need a desire in order to act, but the existence of a moral fact doesn't depend on our desires. If it is true that torture is wrong, then it is wrong whether I desire to avoid torture or not.

Good point, but morality is not just desire, it involves raitonal insight. Unless, of course, you don't care.

Yes, of course morality involves rational insight. I don't think anyone disputed that. But your claim was that morality was essentially a set of conditionals based on our desires (ie, "If you want to be healthy, you should exercise). That sort of system doesn't compel us to do things that are contrary to our desires, which is an important feature of a good moral system.

 

[quatona]

Please describe to me a moral system that has no obligations or prohibitions.

E.g. a moral approach that is concerned with considerations of the countless aspects of one action, and restricts itself to determining whether an action is must be called "good" or "bad" depending on the moral meta-moral paradigms a particular person holds.
E.g. a moral approach that restricts itself to giving recommendations instead of obligations and prohibitions.

Does it not prohibit torturing babies for sheer pleasure?

Since, as I said, it doesn´t deal in the currency of obligations and prohibitions, it obviously doesn´t.

Would you not be obligated to stop a small child from walking into traffic on a busy highway?

Yes.
A moral approach does not necessarily utilize prohibitions and obligations. A legal system, however, does.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

E.g. a moral approach that restricts itself to giving recommendations instead of obligations and prohibitions.

Such an approach would not be a moral approach at all.

It would just be a rehash of Sam Harris's argument which depends on redefining what words like "good" and "bad" mean.

At the end of the day Harris is not really talking about moral values. He is just talking about what's conducive to the flourishing of sentient life on this planet. Seen in this light, his claim that science can tell us a great deal about what contributes to human flourishing is hardly controversial. Of course, it can — just as it can tell us what is conducive to the flourishing of corn or mosquitoes or bacteria. His so-called "moral landscape" picturing the highs and lows of human flourishing is not really a moral landscape at all.

On the next to last page of his book, Harris more or less admits this. For he makes the telling admission that if people such as rapists, liars, and thieves could be just as happy as good people, then his moral landscape would no longer be a moral landscape; rather it would just be a continuum of well-being, whose peaks are occupied by good and evil people alike. What is interesting about this is that earlier in the book Harris observed that about 3 million Americans are psychopathic, that is to say, they do not care about the mental states of others. On the contrary, they enjoy inflicting pain on other people.

This implies that we can conceive of a possible world in which the continuum of human well-being is not a moral landscape. The peaks of well-being could be occupied by evil people. But this entails that in the actual world the continuum of well-being and the moral landscape are not identical either. For identity is a necessary relation. There is no possible world in which some entity A is not identical to A. So if there is any possible world in which A is not identical to B, it follows that A is not in fact identical to B. Since it's possible that human well-being and moral goodness are not identical, it follows necessarily that human well-being and moral goodness are not the same, as Harris has asserted. By granting that it's possible that the continuum of well-being is not identical to the moral landscape, Harris has rendered his view logically incoherent.

Thus, Harris has failed to solve the "value problem." He has not provided any justification or explanation of why, on atheism, objective moral values would exist at all. His so-called solution is just a semantic trick of providing an arbitrary and idiosyncratic redefinition of the words "good" and "evil" in nonmoral terms.



Read more: Navigating Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape | Reasonable Faith

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

From your imagination, from your reasoning, and from the perceptions of the effects of your actions.

And the Nazis imagined and reasoned and perceived that their extermination of certain homo sapiens was good and right and that to dissent would be bad and wrong.

According to you, since they arrived at this conclusion, they had a moral obligation to exterminate the Jews.

This is my reductio ad absurdum against your view.