Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

A statement with no objective basis in fact. It is an entirely subjective opinion on your part.

Actually this is written in God's word the Bible. If someone wants to bring God into the debate and start attributing things to him and saying what God is or is not then they have to use the right information from the Bible.

So as far as determining God's nature it is a fact from God's own written word in this instance whether there is evidence or not that's irrelevant because they are the ones who brought God in and are attributing stuff to him. I'm just correcting the misunderstanding.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually this is written in God's word the Bible. If someone wants to bring God into the debate and start attributing things to him and saying what God is or is not then they have to use the right information from the Bible.

So as far as determining God's nature it is a fact from God's own written word in this instance whether there is evidence or not that's irrelevant because they are the ones who brought God in and are attributing stuff to him. I'm just correcting the misunderstanding.

Your interpretation of a collection of ancient texts is entirely subjective. There is no objective basis for determining that the Bible is "God's own written word."

 

[Moral Orel]

Let's say that that we're talking about smacking a disobedient child. I'd say, "I think smacking a disobedient child is wrong." By this I mean that I feel that it is the wrong thing to do (although I know that many people do not feel it is the wrong thing to do), and I also feel that it's wrong in the sense that it isn't an effective means of discipline, as it often teaches the child to just fear the parent, and also teaches them to make sure that the parent doesn't catch them.

Hmm... You used the word "feel" like I did in my second example of oysters being yucky. But then you said that it isn't an effective means of discipline, which could be argued to be true. What if the other parent isn't doing it for the sole purpose of teaching them not to do it again, but instead simply feels that when someone does something bad, that person deserves to have bad things happen to them. If they feel like retributive justice is important, then they're right, aren't they?

 

[Moral Orel]

Its a bit complicated and there is overlap but moral subjectivity doesnt always deny the existance of values, just pose that they are subjective while value nihilism pose that values doesnt exist at all.

In these discussions of objective v subjective morality with objectivists (all theists) before, I've been told that moral subjectivity is just a cop-out and that I have to accept nihilism if I don't accept objectivity. Out of pure curiosity, I'd like to hear it from an atheist nihilist. You say values don't exist, but I value things, like chocolate ice cream. Why am I wrong?

 

[Speedwell]

In these discussions of objective v subjective morality with objectivists (all theists) before, I've been told that moral subjectivity is just a cop-out and that I have to accept nihilism if I don't accept objectivity. Out of pure curiosity, I'd like to hear it from an atheist nihilist. You say values don't exist, but I value things, like chocolate ice cream. Why am I wrong?

Wrong? All of those various positions are unfalsifiable--that's why philosophers have been arguing about it for upwards of 2000 years.

 

[VirOptimus]

In these discussions of objective v subjective morality with objectivists (all theists) before, I've been told that moral subjectivity is just a cop-out and that I have to accept nihilism if I don't accept objectivity. Out of pure curiosity, I'd like to hear it from an atheist nihilist. You say values don't exist, but I value things, like chocolate ice cream. Why am I wrong?

You arent wrong per se, its just that your tastes are all made up; they dont really exist. Right/wrong arent at all applicable.

That does not mean they arent important. Plenty of things that doesnt exist have impact on our actions.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No moral absolutism is the belief that the morality or immorality of action can be judged according to fixed standards of right and wrong which can never be changed by circumstances.

Many Christians believe this is the case with their God.

IE you cannot kill even in self-defense. You cannot lie even if that means sending the Jews to their death at the hands of the Nazis. Kantian ethics is like this where rules or duties should always come first regardless of the consequences.

If this is not your ethic then great. But many Christians believe just this.

But objective morality is different and people get this confused with absolute morality. Objective morality means there is a right and wrong act for each and every situation that holds true and has ground outside humans (regardless of human opinion).

I disagree. Objective morality's goal does not have to be absolute and can be from a humans opinion. It simply mean there is an object to compare to.

So if the Nazis came to your door and asked if you were hiding any Jews saying that there were no Jews would be the objectively right thing to do in that situation. Not lying would send the Jews to their death which is a far greater wrong than lying. Objective morality allows for degrees of moral right and wrong.

Absolutely. This is why it is better than absolute morality. I 100% agree.

The goal may be subjective but the measure is also subjective. This is a method used by some atheists like Sam Harris in his moral landscape. By determining what human wellbeing and happiness is morality can be measured against this.

The problem is the determination of wellbeing is really a subjective determination as people will have different ideas of what wellbeing means. Moral right and wrong cannot equate to human suffering and happiness.

I agree that the goal is subjective but the moral action can be compared to the goal and a right ot wrong determination can be made.

The rules of chess are subjective. But once the rules are agreed upon by two people and the goal is to win, each move can be objectively compared to the rules and goal to see if it advances that goal or not. Same with objective morality based on a subjective goal such as well being.

Yes you are right God does not decide to follow anything. God is the creator of all things. Because God is good by nature there is no evil in him. So only goodness flows from him which becomes the standard of what is good. It follows that moral wrongs are measured against God's nature as evil (moral wrong) is just the lack of good or fall short of what is good.

Well the claim that he is good must be substantiated. What is your evidence that he is good?

The difference is though that human-created goal are subjective. Gods good nature is an objective measure itself. It is like a law of nature and laws of nature just are what they are. So God's moral laws flow naturally from his nature and Christians can use that as an objective measure. It isn't human-made or determined by anyone or anything, it just is like nature just is.

I can demonstrate laws of nature. Can you demonstrate moral laws of god? Also, just because gods morals just are does not mean that they are good. That must be substantiated or just assumed. you just seem to assume that they are. I look at them and deem them not good on a whole.

 

[stevevw]

Your interpretation of a collection of ancient texts is entirely subjective. There is no objective basis for determining that the Bible is "God's own written word."

Its not my interpretation. These are the words and teachings of Jesus who walked the earth a little over 2000 years ago. We have evidence for Jesus and his word.

 

[Moral Orel]

You arent wrong per se, its just that your tastes are all made up; they dont really exist. Right/wrong arent at all applicable.

But that's like saying feelings don't exist. Of course right and wrong aren't applicable, but that's separate from whether or not it is a fact that I value something.

 

[VirOptimus]

But that's like saying feelings don't exist. Of course right and wrong aren't applicable, but that's separate from whether or not it is a fact that I value something.

Yes, thats like saying feelings doesnt exist.

you feel it, sure, but it doesnt exist, its all imagination.

I suggest reading Axel Hägerström.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, thats like saying feelings doesnt exist.

you feel it, sure, but it doesnt exist, its all imagination.

Mmm... The naturalist in me doesn't agree with that. I experience the chemicals swooshing around in my brain, that experience exists, that's what feelings are. I'm not imagining that experience is happening, it is in all actuality happening. So what am I imagining?

 

[Moral Orel]

Wrong? All of those various positions are unfalsifiable--that's why philosophers have been arguing about it for upwards of 2000 years.

Unfalsifiable doesn't mean that it can't be argued inductively. If you have a position, you should have reasons for your position and reasons against conflicting positions. If those reasons don't exist, then you might believe any random thing.

 

[VirOptimus]

Mmm... The naturalist in me doesn't agree with that. I experience the chemicals swooshing around in my brain, that experience exists, that's what feelings are. I'm not imagining that experience is happening, it is in all actuality happening. So what am I imagining?

Sure, but you can imagine Middle Earth too, doesnt make it real.

 

[Speedwell]

Its not my interpretation. These are the words and teachings of Jesus who walked the earth a little over 2000 years ago. We have evidence for Jesus and his word.

Presuming that His words are exactly as represented in the text. What objective evidence do you have that this is so?

 

[Speedwell]

Unfalsifiable doesn't mean that it can't be argued inductively. If you have a position, you should have reasons for your position and reasons against conflicting positions. If those reasons don't exist, then you might believe any random thing.

But if a position is truly unfalsifiable, then one need not cease to believe it regardless of the evidence.

 

[VirOptimus]

But if a position is truly unfalsifiable, then one need not cease to believe it regardless of the evidence.

Well, maybe. Lots of things are unfalsifiable but also so irrational that its well, weird to believe them.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, maybe. Lots of things are unfalsifiable but also so irrational that its well, weird to believe them.

Of course. For instance, there is an invisible pink pixie hovering just over your left shoulder.

 

[VirOptimus]

Of course. For instance, there is an invisible pink pixie hovering just over your left shoulder.

Well, thats a given! Wouldnt leave home without it.

 

[Kylie]

It is nowhere near a subjective position. How can you even say that? Did you read what I wrote IE
stating facts and truths especially with morality. Truth dictates that it can only be right or wrong one way or the other.
How is that subjective

And people can say things as a fact even if what they are saying is NOT a fact.

I do get it. Didn't I say I got what you were saying in the last post? You seem to think that what I am saying somehow means I don't get what you are saying.
Let me spell it out for you. You are saying that "people can express/present their moral opinions without making stating an objective fact or truth. Is that correct?

More than that - people can think their moral positions are objective even if they aren't.

OK but what I am saying is that in expressing/stating their opinion they are not saying anything factual or truthful about the act they are saying is wrong. So someone can come along and say prove to me that the act is morally wrong like you say. But you have no objective reference to support that what you say is factually correct or moral truth.

And that's exactly what's happened with you. I've come along and asked you to prove it and you have no objective references to support what you say. Hence you have appealed to emotion and unsupported claims.

So in taking a stand and protesting against a moral wrong or trying to convince someone that what they did was wrong you have nothing to stand on except your opinion. It ultimately means nothing as far as moral truth and any stand has no weight. It doesn't make any sense to be taking a stand, condemning and protesting based on opinion (I think but am not sure) where you have no independent backup. You can certainly go through the process but what do you really achieve apart from spreading your opinion around.

Oh rubbish. People take a stand for subjective things all the time. I am in many Star trek groups on Facebook and there's a lot of hate for the new Star Trek Discovery and Star Trek Picard shows, despite it being a purely subjective opinion. Your idea that people won't take a stand for their opinions is just plain wrong.

 

[Kylie]

Hmm... You used the word "feel" like I did in my second example of oysters being yucky. But then you said that it isn't an effective means of discipline, which could be argued to be true. What if the other parent isn't doing it for the sole purpose of teaching them not to do it again, but instead simply feels that when someone does something bad, that person deserves to have bad things happen to them. If they feel like retributive justice is important, then they're right, aren't they?

Subjective feelings do not make objective fact.