Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

That's all very well, but there is no objective method of knowing what God's commands are.

I guess this would then come back to the logical argument for objective morality based on moral lived experience. Because if there are objective moral values then there has to be a transient moral lawmaker. If these objective morals are independent of human subjective views then they must exist like laws of nature and be knowable. This can be done by observing lived moral experiences where people act/react like there are objective moral values.

The bible says God has written His laws on people's hearts so people's lived moral experience may be the expression of God's commands. The fact that people know and react like certain things are always wrong despite their subjective moral views is testimony to this.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

OK I will answer this question with an article from a well-known philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig

I am quite familiar with him.

So how does Divine Command Theory derive an “ought” from an “is”? Well, it says that we ought to do something because it is commanded by God. That is deriving an “ought” from an “is.” Someone might demand, “Why are we obligated to do something just because it is commanded by God?” The answer to that question comes, I think, by reflecting on the nature of moral duty. The duty arises in response to an imperative from a competent authority. For example, if some random person were to tell me to pull my car over, I would have absolutely no legal obligation to do so. But if a policeman were to issue such a command, I’d have a legal obligation to obey. The difference in the two cases lies in the persons who issued the commands: one is qualified to do so, while the other is not.

This does not solve the is/ought problem.

To account for why you 'ought' to obey an authority, such as the police, you must make an appeal to consequences, i.e., if you don't obey their order to pull over, you may be forced off the road, and will suffer dire legal consequences. But in that case, why ought I value avoiding dire legal consequences? Why ought I respect legal obligations? Why ought I respect any authority on any matter?

You are right back at square one.

One way or another, this is always going to come down to an assessment of value. And value, whether you like it or not, is necessarily, inescapably subjective.

And again, this is granting Yahweh's existence, that he has moral laws, and that you have a reliable means of gleaning what those laws are.

 

[Ken-1122]

Because if there are objective moral values then there has to be a transient moral lawmaker.

But we have no reason to assume a transient moral lawmaker, thus no reason to believe morals are objective.

If these objective morals are independent of human subjective views then they must exist like laws of nature and be knowable.

That’s an awfully big “IF”. You have not made the case that morals are independent of human subjective views, thus no reason to assume moral laws are as obvious as the laws of nature

This can be done by observing lived moral experiences where people act/react like there are objective moral values.

There is no difference in how a person behaves towards moral issues whether they believe morality be objective or subjective.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, they may understand that but that doesn't mean they will always do what is right. They may come up with rationalizations and morally wrong justifications as to why it is OK to abuse kids. People that do wrong will usually not admit they are wrong but come up with some excuse that allows them to deny the objective truth.

And people come up with all sorts of rationalisations as to why 1+1=5 because they want their bank account balances to be bigger. Oh wait, they don't, because objective things don't work like that.

But why is being hurt a measure for what is right and wrong. Under subjective thinking what is determined as hurt may also be a subjective notion? The person who thinks that it is OK to take other people's stuff isn't going to worry about hurting people because he thinks that it is OK to take stuff and anyone complaining of being hurt is being unreal and selfish. Under an atheist view, subjective morality has no objective morality, and as Dawkins says "there is no evil or good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference".

Yes, of course it's subjective. That's why some people are perfectly happy stealing while I would never do it.

That's not the point. You were making the claim that the preservation of human life was why we should treat subjective morality as a justification for not killing humans. I asked why is human life so important that it can be used to justify subjective morals when humans are just like animals who kill by instinct. Our reasoning is just a biological process for survival and has nothing to do with ultimate morality.

Because, as I have said countless times already, we are a social species that works better when we don't go around killing other people in our society.

It is my argument that subjective morality means so little ultimately regarding what is morally good and bad and yet we act like there are ultimate good and evil that this points to objective morality. So it is not just an assumption but observed experience.

No. Just because people act like there is objective morality doesn't mean there is an objective morality.

But where do empathy and care come from, why are they ultimately valuable as morals. What value do they have if there is no ultimate right and wrong? No reference point that gives these qualities their value. As C. S. Lewis said when he complained about an unjust universe. If there was injustice then there had to be justice to compare with. You cannot know a crooked line without there being a straight line. That reference point has to come from beyond human opinion. If there is no reference point then qualities like care and empathy have no value and appealing to them is a useless exercise.

Because we know how it feels when things are done to us.

Honestly, why is this a difficult concept?

And that thing where you can't feel something unless you have its opposite to compare it to is rubbish. If I push you into a vat of boiling water, are you going to not feel it because you don't have any cold water to compare it to?

As with the above logic from Lewis, there has to be. Otherwise, there is no measure of good and bad. The fact that people keep appealing to objective morals when they speak about evil in the world, justice, and kindness when they ultimately mean nothing under subjective morality shows they know there are objective moral values.

Again - people claiming and acting like there are objective morals does not mean there actually ARE objective morals.

That's doesn't disprove objective morality. That just shows that there are no ultimate moral obligations under subjective morality. That a person can go against their conscience if it profits them. That supports what I was saying in that subjective morality has no ultimate right and wrong or moral obligations.

Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying. There is no objective morality.

But you are reversing the point I was making so it is not the same. The point is if someone did that to the person who stole that extra change from the Pizza delivery guy to them they would be jumping up and down that it was wrong which shows they have right and wrong in them.

And the fact that they think those morals applies when the money is being taken from them, but not when they were taking it from the pizza guy shows that the morals are SUBJECTIVE.

 

[stevevw]

But we have no reason to assume a transient moral lawmaker, thus no reason to believe morals are objective.

Its the other way around. As everyone in their right mind believes some things are always evil (there is evil in the world) therefore there is good there have to be objective morals. Therefore a transcendent lawmaker must exist.

That’s an awfully big “IF”. You have not made the case that morals are independent of human subjective views, thus no reason to assume moral laws are as obvious as the laws of nature

It is not a big IF when there is observable evidence that people live like there are objective morals. So because objective morals exist they have to exist outside humans.

There is no difference in how a person behaves towards moral issues whether they believe morality be objective or subjective.

Not really, people would act the same even if there were objective morality. They can still have their personal views and they can still choose to act contrary to the objective moral laws and people could just think any contrary acts are subjective. But when you flip this situation and say there are only subjective morals any contrary acts/reacts to what people claim especially when it is consistently the same gives a lot of weight to objective morality.

 

[Ken-1122]

Its the other way around. As everyone in their right mind believes some things are always evil (there is evil in the world) therefore there is good there have to be objective morals.

Evil exists as an adverb, not a noun. Evil does not exist like some type of a fog that causes bad behavior if it gets on you; it is a description; a judgment of bad behavior. Good and bad judgments are subjective; not objective.

a transcendent lawmaker must exist.

All you have done is make empty claims concerning your moral lawmaker. I could just as easily claim that I make all moral laws.

It is not a big IF when there is observable evidence that people live like there are objective morals.

Which is no different than living like there are only subjective morals

So because objective morals exist they have to exist outside humans.

Nothing exists outside of humans.

 

[stevevw]

Evil exists as an adverb, not a noun. Evil does not exist like some type of a fog that causes bad behavior if it gets on you; it is a description; a judgment of bad behavior. Good and bad judgments are subjective; not objective.
All you have done is to make empty claims concerning your moral lawmaker. I could just as easily claim that I make all moral laws.

Which is no different than living like there are only subjective morals

Nothing exists outside of humans.

So if evil exists as a judgment of bad behavior how is it ultimately measured as being evil or bad behavior.

 

[Ken-1122]

So if evil exists as a judgment of bad behavior how is it ultimately measured as being evil or bad behavior.

The measurement is based on the subjective philosophy of the person doing the judging.
You see; the problem with believing as you do, is in order for morality to be "Objective" it would require everybody to have the same moral philosophy, but a quick look into the real world and you will see everybody does not. Instead, you will find little Jimmy will have a moral philosophy based on the word of God "A" and proclaim everybody else with a different philosophy is just wrong, then you will have little Johnny proclaim a moral philosophy based on the word of God "B" and everybody else's philosophy is just wrong Jimmy included, and you will have little Jane with a moral philosophy based on philosophy "C" and proclaim all other philosophies are just wrong (Jimmy and Johnny included). Who is to say whose moral philosophy is the right one? If neither of the 3 can be trusted to discern right from wrong, how can they be trusted to proclaim their moral philosophy to be the only right one?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I guess this would then come back to the logical argument for objective morality based on moral lived experience.

This isn't logical.

Because if there are objective moral values then there has to be a transient moral lawmaker.

That doesn't follow. If something is objectively morally good....it's good regardless of whether or not anyone says so.

If these objective morals are independent of human subjective views then they must exist like laws of nature and be knowable. This can be done by observing lived moral experiences where people act/react like there are objective moral values.

How do you know them though? I understand that you can observe someone's behavior....but how can you know if that behavior is morally good or bad?

The bible says God has written His laws on people's hearts .

It's a shame he didn't write them somewhere that we can read them.

 

[stevevw]

And people come up with all sorts of rationalizations as to why 1+1=5 because they want their bank account balances to be bigger. Oh, wait, they don't, because objective things don't work like that.

And just like 1 + 1 = 5 is objectively wrong certain acts are objectively wrong like sexually abusing a child. People can claim they are right and good but they are wrong.

Yes, of course, it's subjective. That's why some people are perfectly happy stealing while I would never do it.

So would you allow the person who is happy stealing from others to take your stuff?

Because, as I have said countless times already, we are a social species that works better when we don't go around killing other people in our society.

Why is that morally good.

No. Just because people act like there is objective morality doesn't mean there is an objective morality.

It is strong support for objective morality as it points to everyone believing that certain acts are always wrong even if they claim they are not. Because they have reacted against their own subjective views. Acting against there own subjective viewpoints to some other influence outside themself causing their subjective view to change.

Because we know how it feels when things are done to us.
Honestly, why is this a difficult concept?

It is difficult because I cannot understand why under subjective morality if there is no ultimate measure for right and wrong why any idea of hurting someone equates to being wrong. Morals are not based on feelings. One person may feel good and another bad about some act do to them.

And that thing where you can't feel something unless you have its opposite to compare it to is rubbish. If I push you into a vat of boiling water, are you going to not feel it because you don't have any cold water to compare it to?

Why if there is no opposite to something then what are you comparing it with. Evil means nothing without an opposite to make it evil. In fact, Evil is a departure from good.

The way we can tell a good bowler from a bad bowler is by a scorecard. The measure helps us determine a good bowler from a bad one. C. S Lewis said a good portrait is good by comparing it to the original. So, whenever you have the words good or bad you must have some sort of standards to measure what is good or bad. When talking about morals we are talking about how certain actions or behaviors happen to be good or bad in themselves.

So, when a person says that something is objectively good or bad you are saying that someone has either conformed to those sets of rules (good score) or broken those sets of rules (bad score). This is what makes our language about morality coherent, that we have some sort of understanding of what good and bad means attached to a reference point.
How Do Moral Absolutes Prove That God Exists?

Otherwise, under subjective morality, any appeal to measure what is good or bad ultimately is incoherent and means nothing. It's a biologically evolved illusionary idea.

Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying. There is no objective morality.

Then you must agree that there is no good and evil under subjective morality. Any appeal to there being evil in the world and calling an act evil is an illusion.

And the fact that they think those morals applies when the money is being taken from them, but not when they were taking it from the pizza guy shows that the morals are SUBJECTIVE.

No, they would be a hypocrite. You misunderstood what I said. The person said It was OK to take the money from the Pizza guy. But when someone did the same thing to them they reacted differently and said it wasn't OK to take the money from them.

If for example and this is a hypothetical and not that you would take this position. But if you said it is OK to take the extra change from the Pizza guy but when someone did the same to you, you would say it was wrong.

Therefore contradicting your moral position and showing that it is wrong to take other people's money. All people would think this was wrong even if they previously said it was OK. The point is people say these things about others but in lived experience, they react like it is always wrong when it happens to them.

 

[stevevw]

The measurement is based on the subjective philosophy of the person doing the judging.

Yes, I agree but this measurement can only apply to the person doing the measuring.

You see; the problem with believing as you do, is in order for morality to be "Objective" it would require everybody to have the same moral philosophy, but a quick look into the real world and you will see everybody does not. Instead, you will find little Jimmy will have a moral philosophy based on the word of God "A" and proclaim everybody else with a different philosophy is just wrong, then you will have little Johnny proclaim a moral philosophy based on the word of God "B" and everybody else's philosophy is just wrong Jimmy included, and you will have little Jane with a moral philosophy based on philosophy "C" and proclaim all other philosophies are just wrong (Jimmy and Johnny included). Who is to say whose moral philosophy is the right one? If neither of the 3 can be trusted to discern right from wrong, how can they be trusted to proclaim their moral philosophy to be the only right one?

But in reality, people impose their subjective morals on others when they tell them they are wrong. When society says you have to conform with this or that set of morals. This is like objective morality.

Just because there are objective morals doesn't mean everyone has to follow objective morality. People are born with free will to choose good or bad. There can be objective and subjective morals at the same time. But if there are no objective morals then there is no good and bad.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And just like 1 + 1 = 5 is objectively wrong certain acts are objectively wrong like sexually abusing a child. People can claim they are right and good but they are wrong.

I'll respond to the rest of your post....but I'd like to separate this part because I think it's central to your position and it's the part that makes the least sense.

See...I can prove that 1+1=2. It's not some matter of subjective opinion. 1+1=2 regardless of whether or not I agree, how I feel about it, or whether or not anyone else agrees. It's not just observable....it's provable.

So let's stick with your example of sexual abuse. You say that it's morally bad....someone else says it's morally good. How do you prove you're right and the other guy is wrong? How do you prove it's bad??

 

[stevevw]

This isn't logical.

Why, if people consistently react a certain despite what they claim under subjective morality then this is a good observable way to see objective morality at work.

That doesn't follow. If something is objectively morally good....it's good regardless of whether or not anyone says so.

But objective moral actions imply a moral obligation to others as morals involve people. Why is it that we ought to do certain things and ought not to do other things? Where does this ‘ought’ come from? As objective morals have to come from beyond humans and are personal then they have to come from a personal transcendent entity.

How do you know them though? I understand that you can observe someone's behavior....but how can you know if that behavior is morally good or bad?

Yes, that is the crux of the matter. That there has to be some reference point to measure morals otherwise they just don't make sense in the overall scheme of things. As I have already linked an article from a prominent moral philosopher who makes a logical argument for how we can know and measure objective morals just like we can for the physical world through our lived experience.

#449 Are We Justified in Believing in Objective Moral Values and Duties?
My claim is that we are justified in believing (Objective Moral Values exist) on the ground of our moral experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience, just as we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience. Such a defeater would have to show not merely that our moral experience is fallible or defeasible but that it is utterly unreliable, that we may apprehend no objective moral values or duties whatsoever.

Our moral experience is so powerful, however, that such a defeater would have to be incredibly powerful in order to overcome our experience, just as our sense experience is so powerful that a defeater of my belief in the world of physical objects I perceive would have to be incredibly powerful in order for me to believe that I have no good reason to think that I am not a brain in a vat of chemicals or a body lying in the Matrix. As Louise Antony put it in our debate, any argument for moral skepticism will be based on premises which are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values and duties themselves, that is, than Objective Moral Values exist itself.
Are We Justified in Believing in Objective Moral Values and Duties? | Reasonable Faith

You will have to read the rest of the article to see how any defeaters are addressed.

It's a shame he didn't write them somewhere that we can read them.

We can read them by the way we live our morals. The way a person reacts as though certain things are always wrong. The way society imposes certain morals on everyone disregarding any subjective views.

 

[stevevw]

I'll respond to the rest of your post....but I'd like to separate this part because I think it's central to your position and it's the part that makes the least sense.

See...I can prove that 1+1=2. It's not some matter of subjective opinion. 1+1=2 regardless of whether or not I agree, how I feel about it, or whether or not anyone else agrees. It's not just observable....it's provable.

So let's stick with your example of sexual abuse. You say that it's morally bad....someone else says it's morally good. How do you prove you're right and the other guy is wrong? How do you prove it's bad??

Ask any parent if it's OK for someone to sexually abuse their child. I would like to see if someone can come up with a situation where it is objectively good. That is the lived reality of the moral despite some saying it is good to do. It's easy to make claims but in real life, it is a different thing and that's how we really know what is good and evil.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ask any parent if it's OK for someone to sexually abuse their child.

If we're talking about objective morality then it doesn't matter if all the parents in this world agree.

I would like to see if someone can come up with a situation where it is objectively good. .

I just told you....let's imagine that you say it's bad and someone else says it's good. Obviously you disagree....that doesn't matter.

I'm asking you how you would prove that it's bad. Obviously somewhere there's a pedo who thinks sexually abusing children is good. How would you prove it's bad?

If you can't think of a way....that's ok....because I can't either. When you say that morality is objective though...you're saying it's bad even if everyone in the world agrees it's good. How would you prove it's bad?

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, I agree but this measurement can only apply to the person doing the measuring.

True! The measurement is completely subjective.

But in reality, people impose their subjective morals on others when they tell them they are wrong. When society says you have to conform with this or that set of morals. This is like objective morality.

Like I said earlier, regardless of if someone believes morality is objective or subjective, they behave the same when it comes to moral issues.

Just because there are objective morals doesn't mean everyone has to follow objective morality. People are born with free will to choose good or bad. There can be objective and subjective morals at the same time. But if there are no objective morals then there is no good and bad.

Anybody who looks at my house will see I have a tree in the front lawn. 100% of the people who see my house will acknowledge this. Nobody will claim it is a car, a rock, or anything other than a tree. Granted there is nothing stopping someone from claiming the tree is actually a rock, car, or something else, but in order to do this they would have to knowingly lie. Under the scenario I used in my previous response, Little Johnny, Jimmy, and Jane all believe their various moral philosophies are all the right ones none of them are knowing lying because unlike trees which are all objective, moral philosophies are all subjective. does this make sense to you?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If we're talking about objective morality then it doesn't matter if all the parents in this world agree.



I just told you....let's imagine that you say it's bad and someone else says it's good. Obviously you disagree....that doesn't matter.

I'm asking you how you would prove that it's bad. Obviously somewhere there's a pedo who thinks sexually abusing children is good. How would you prove it's bad?

If you can't think of a way....that's ok....because I can't either. When you say that morality is objective though...you're saying it's bad even if everyone in the world agrees it's good. How would you prove it's bad?

How would a good psychiatrist answer the question you've asked here about "a pedo who thinks sexually abusing children is good. How would you prove it's bad?"

And you supposedly work for "such and such an organization" and you can't answer this, Ana? Really?

Oh come on, now! If we can't make a distinction in 'right and wrong' in this case, even if it's with some difficulty, then we might as well jettison the whole classification of 'sociopathy/psychopathy.'

No, I think most people 'know' intuitively the contours of morality; it's just that not everyone 'likes' what that entails in all cases. (And if they don't, well BOO-HOO! They probably deserve to end up in jail ...!)

We don't need to 'prove' that pedo type actions are not only criminal but also immoral because..............we know they also qualify as being highly dysfunctional at various levels of human social interaction. There is no 'normal' outcome, nor any 'normal,' functional society that has some kind of pedo deviancy at its core. So, we all just need to stop talking AS IF there could be (and no, I do not consider weird tribes in New Zealand to be an exception to my assertion here).

Let's also just admit that, at minimum, MOST of us (like 95%) pretty much know what right and wrong are in the most basic, essential terms. We mostly know that we should not murder, mistreat, abuse, neglect, cheat, or otherwise defraud our fellow human beings who are just going about their daily lives, being productive and maybe even helpful to our own position in society.

And frankly, I think this whole thread is a joke, and I'm rather surprised by the fact that I find overly subjective affirmations that are made one after and another after another after the initial thread OP; not only that, but I'm rather shocked that's it's even gone on for 66 pages of bantering back and forth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How would a good psychiatrist answer the question you've asked here about "a pedo who thinks sexually abusing children is good. How would you prove it's bad?"

Why would that matter?

And you supposedly work for "such and such an organization" and you can't answer this, Ana? Really?

It's not my claim....but no...I can't answer it. I can't prove any moral judgements...so we can switch it to "stealing a box of crayons" if sexually abusing children is too emotional for you.

Oh come on, now! If we can't make a distinction in 'right and wrong' in this case, even if it's with some difficulty, then we might as well jettison the whole classification of 'sociopathy/psychopathy.'

Well I can tell you what a psychologist would say about this....

He'd say those labels are about clusters personality traits.... not the morality of individual behavior.

No, I think most people 'know' intuitively the contours of morality; it's just that not everyone 'likes' what that entails in all cases.

Well there's some huge and glaringly obvious problems with that....but I'll just list the most important ones....

1. You can't read minds. You don't know what others are thinking and to assume they think like you is a very basic psychological fallacy.

2. We obviously don't all agree. I think you're claiming we do...and those who claim not to agree are lying. The logical question is "why lie?"....particularly if we all intuitively agree.

3. Agreement doesn't create objectivity where it doesn't exist. Suppose I grill you and a friend a burger and ask you both what you think it's worth. You and your friend say 5$ at exactly the same time in a completely spontaneous manner!

Does that make the burger objectively worth 5%?? Of course not....value is entirely subjective and even though it's far easier to understand than morality, it's still entirely subjective because it loses all meaning without people around...especially people who know what a dollar is. Dollar value is an entirely subjective construct....unlike the cheeseburger which is objective.

I don't understand why you posted this Philo...you could have saved us both some time and said "I don't have any answer either". Next time, stop the incredulous act unless you have an answer....I've seen it 1000 times.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why would that matter?

... do you want to go out on a limb and show me a psychiatrist or psychologist who is worth their salt and who thinks that a moral problem like "pedophilia" is simply a matter of taste? Or how about showing me a number of psychiatrists or psychologists who truly think that morality is just a matter of taste? If you can, then I guess we can just say that the qualifications that go into the I.R.B. are just a matter of taste, too, ay?

Before we move on to the rest of what you've stated, I'd like to see your answer to these questions first. And I'll just add that, even though it doesn't serve as the 'last word' in this issue---in fact, I'd say it's just a beginning point---I'll call Martha Stout up as my first source in touting that if we are to acknowledge the existence of off-kilter mental states, such as sociopathy/psychopathy, then we can also begin to more objectively assert a minimal, generally common moral intuition ... even if that common intution doesn't equate to a perfectly rigid moral code between each and every single individual.

Stout, Martha (2005). The Sociopath Next Door. New York, NY: MJF Books.

 

[Ken-1122]

.