Atheists Who Say that Morals Are Subjective or Non-Existent

[Autodidact]

Instead of a list of prohibitions, think of an approach to positive actions. You have choices of how to act, what to do, what to spend your money on. You can use science to help you make good choices that maximize your happiness over your lifetime.

 

[Autodidact]

Here's another example. Researchers gave subjects a small amount of money. They instructed half to buy themselves something, and half to buy someone else something. The ones who bought something for someone else got more happiness out of the money than the other group.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Msizer????
9 pages of data for you.

Good job!

 

[dust1n]

There is a difference in philosophical objection and objection in other contexts, so unless I am confused to which one we are referring to, a 'moral objection' would be something that is in truth in all of morality.



It is actually quite necessary if your assertion is that all humans will be happier for putting a coin in a meter or that any human will be happier at any point in time putting a coin in the meter.

No, universality has nothing to do with objectivity.

What are you addressing here?

If you are claiming that universal perspective in not needed when claiming an ontological truth that a single act produces a positive effect for every single 'human', than the assertion would have to be true for every single 'human'... if not, than the assertion is false.

I'm not claiming objectivity has anything to do with universality. You are claiming that it is an ontological truth that everyone gets the same results from a singular action. If I am misunderstanding, please correct me, but if you are saying that putting a coin in a meter is a 'happiness-producing' phenonmon for all beings, than yes it is entirely contingent on universality. If one person does not experience the same effect that you are suggesting, than it is not true that the action is true within all circumstances. Using falsifiability, if the assertion is not true in all circumstances, there is nothing ontological about it.

 

[dust1n]

The point is that rape is only wrong because of the effects on the victim, not because of the act itself.

Agreed; but I will need a clear definition of the 'effect' of rape that makes the action ontologically immoral.

 

[dust1n]

If we go by that definition, I'd say that there's no such thing as objective morality. How can you have a set of judgements that's independent of any judgements?

Bingo! The thing is though.. that is the definition of philosophical objectivity. Changing the definition of the word is side stepping the issue.

 

[dust1n]

So basically morality is existant because it is a concept and people abide by the human behavior known as morality, though it is also non existant because it is not 'truth'.

Correct. To say that morals is ontological implies that morals exist without perception, which is possible of being true for all I know.. but we will never know because we perceive without perceiving.

 

[Autodidact]

What are you addressing here?

If you are claiming that universal perspective in not needed when claiming an ontological truth that a single act produces a positive effect for every single 'human', than the assertion would have to be true for every single 'human'... if not, than the assertion is false.

I'm not claiming objectivity has anything to do with universality. You are claiming that it is an ontological truth that everyone gets the same results from a singular action. If I am misunderstanding, please correct me, but if you are saying that putting a coin in a meter is a 'happiness-producing' phenonmon for all beings, than yes it is entirely contingent on universality. If one person does not experience the same effect that you are suggesting, than it is not true that the action is true within all circumstances. Using falsifiability, if the assertion is not true in all circumstances, there is nothing ontological about it.

No, I'm not saying that.

How did ontology get into it?

No, it's not necessary to show that it's universal. Here is an objective fact: Smoking cigarettes increases your chances of developing lung disease. So if you want to avoid lung disease, it's better not to smoke. True, many smokers don't develop lung disease.

Certain behaviors, such as kindness, honesty, gratitude and meditation, tend to increase happiness. That is an objective fact. So if you want to be happy, it's a good idea to practice them. True, some people who practice them will still not be happy, especially as about 50% of your disposition to happiness is inherited, but it's still a good idea.

I think you have a tendency to all or nothing thinking.

Many people tend toward a Platonist outlook; I'm more of an Aristotelian. I'm all about empiricism.

 

[Autodidact]

Correct. To say that morals is ontological implies that morals exist without perception, which is possible of being true for all I know.. but we will never know because we perceive without perceiving.

I ask again how ontology crept into our discussion.

Also I don't know what "perceive without perceiving" means.

 

[dust1n]

I disagree. It is an objective fact that if you get up right now, go down to the street and put a coin in someone's parking meter, you will immediately be happier, and will continue to be happier for about 24 hours. We know this about you because we've researched it. So if you want to make the most of your life, it is an objective fact that you should make the most of any opportunity to be kind to others.

And no it's not. I can tell you right now that if I leave this cafe, walk down the street and put a coin into a parking meter, that it will not produce any happiness within my qualitative experience.

Even if it was true, how does that jump to 'any opportunity to be kind of others' follows the same logic?

That is like saying:

Blue is a color. Blue produces calming effects within the human brain. All colors produce calming effects within the human brain.

Putting a coin in a meter is an 'altruistic' act. Putting a coin in a meter produces euphoria for the human mind. All altruistic acts produce euphoria for the human mind.

 

[Walkntune]

Any behaviour such as giving(as long as it is not for the ego) that causes you die to the ego self and become more in contact with the true self will generate happiness.You know the person behind the mask(ego self).

 

[Autodidact]

And no it's not. I can tell you right now that if I leave this cafe, walk down the street and put a coin into a parking meter, that it will not produce any happiness within my qualitative experience.

Chances are great that you're mistaken. For most people, it does. This actual study has been done, and doing a small act of kindness for someone else tends to make the individual happier, and that happiness to extend for about 24 hours. Furthermore, doing 5 in one day gives you a big lasting wallop of happiness.

Unless maybe you're a big meany-head?

Do you enjoy buying gifts for people you love?

Have you ever volunteered for something that helps other people, like Habitat for Humanity or teaching literacy?

Even if it was true, how does that jump to 'any opportunity to be kind of others' follows the same logic?

Because it will make you even happier.

That is like saying:

Blue is a color. Blue produces calming effects within the human brain. All colors produce calming effects within the human brain.

No it's not. It's like saying blue produces calming effects, so if you want to be calm, look at blue.

Putting a coin in a meter is an 'altruistic' act. Putting a coin in a meter produces euphoria for the human mind. All altruistic acts produce euphoria for the human mind.

They have tried various acts of kindness, and they all produce the same effect.

 

[Autodidact]

Any behaviour such as giving(as long as it is not for the ego) that causes you die to the ego self and become more in contact with the true self will generate happiness.You know the person behind the mask(ego self).

Strongly agree.

 

[dust1n]

No, I'm not saying that.

How did ontology get into it?

Ontological truth = objective truth in terms of philosophy.

No, it's not necessary to show that it's universal. Here is an objective fact: Smoking cigarettes increases your chances of developing lung disease. So if you want to avoid lung disease, it's better not to smoke. True, many smokers don't develop lung disease.

Certain behaviors, such as kindness, honesty, gratitude and meditation, tend to increase happiness. That is an objective fact. So if you want to be happy, it's a good idea to practice them. True, some people who practice them will still not be happy, especially as about 50% of your disposition to happiness is inherited, but it's still a good idea.

I think you have a tendency to all or nothing thinking.

Many people tend toward a Platonist outlook; I'm more of an Aristotelian. I'm all about empiricism.

"The often ridiculed consequence of these opinions is that they destroy themselves. For by asserting that all is true as we assert the truth of the contrary assertion and consequently the falsity of our own thesis (for the contrary assertion does not admit that it can be true). And if one says that all is false that assertion is itself false. If we declare that solely the assertion opposed to ours is false or else that solely ours is not false, we are nevertheless forced to admit an infinite number of true of false judgments. For the one who expresses a true assertion proclaims simultaneously that it is true, and on so ad infinitum."

- Aristotle.

 

[Autodidact]

Ontological truth = objective truth in terms of philosophy.

No, I don't accept this definition. I would say that "ontology" means study of being, of that which is, of existence, or of the nature of being. What it means when we say that something exists or is real. Objectivity is a different concept.

"The often ridiculed consequence of these opinions is that they destroy themselves. For by asserting that all is true as we assert the truth of the contrary assertion and consequently the falsity of our own thesis (for the contrary assertion does not admit that it can be true). And if one says that all is false that assertion is itself false. If we declare that solely the assertion opposed to ours is false or else that solely ours is not false, we are nevertheless forced to admit an infinite number of true of false judgments. For the one who expresses a true assertion proclaims simultaneously that it is true, and on so ad infinitum."

- Aristotle.

Relevance lost on me.

 

[dust1n]

Chances are great that you're mistaken. For most people, it does. This actual study has been done, and doing a small act of kindness for someone else tends to make the individual happier, and that happiness to extend for about 24 hours. Furthermore, doing 5 in one day gives you a big lasting wallop of happiness.

Ok.. so I just went outside and put a coin in a parking meter. I am not more happy than I was before I did the action. Furthermore, I know that the act was not altruistic.

Either concede that what I am telling you is true, or admit you are making a leap of faith about my own qualitative experience.

Unless maybe you're a big meany-head?

Perhaps I am. Though, it would be a false assertion for to say to someone, "If you put a coin in a parking meter anonymously, it will make you happy guaranteed." When, in fact, after putting the coin in a parking meter, the consequences were not so.

Do you enjoy buying gifts for people you love?

Sure, I do.. but the action is surely no altruistic phenomenon.

Have you ever volunteered for something that helps other people, like Habitat for Humanity or teaching literacy?

Yes, I have worked for Habitat for Humanity.

Because it will make you even happier.

Incorrect. I just proved to myself other wise.

No it's not. It's like saying blue produces calming effects, so if you want to be calm, look at blue.

They have tried various acts of kindness, and they all produce the same effect.

Oh ok, then by your blanket logic, I could save someone from getting hit by a car and myself die because of it but I can still count on happiness to follow.

 

[dust1n]

No, I don't accept this definition. I would say that "ontology" means study of being, of that which is, of existence, or of the nature of being. What it means when we say that something exists or is real. Objectivity is a different concept.

...right... so an 'ontological truth' would be something that is true throughout existence, independent of perception - same as objectivity, but if it is serving as a problem for you to understand what I said, simply replace every 'ontological' with 'objective'.

Relevance lost on me.

Heh, ok I will use a quote. I will comment directly on your post in a moment, but you should first reply to my posts with the word 'ontological' by replacing the word with 'objective'.

 

[Autodidact]

Ok.. so I just went outside and put a coin in a parking meter. I am not more happy than I was before I did the action. Furthermore, I know that the act was not altruistic.

Well use my terminology then and call it kindness; I don't really care.

You're telling me you got up from your computer and put money in someone else's parking meter and it did nothing to cheer you up? SRSLY>

Either concede that what I am telling you is true, or admit you are making a leap of faith about my own qualitative experience.

No, like everything, it's a bell curve, and you're an outlier, I guess.

Perhaps I am. Though, it would be a false assertion for to say to someone, "If you put a coin in a parking meter anonymously, it will make you happy guaranteed." When, in fact, after putting the coin in a parking meter, the consequences were not so.

No, it's not guaranteed. Why are you so hung up on absolutes? This is the real world we're talking about. Not smoking will not guarantee you'll never have lung disease, and committing small acts of kindness is not guaranteed to make you happier. However, the overwhelming indication of all the research is that acts of kindness make the person doing them happier, and serving others leads to greater happiness. Not a little research, a lot.

Sure, I do.. but the action is surely no altruistic phenomenon.

I really don't care what you call it. My point is that doing something nice for people you care about makes you happy. That's an objective statement about you and 99% of the people in the world. So if you want to be happy, find people to care about and be nice to them.

Yes, I have worked for Habitat for Humanity.

And did you have fun? I had a great time, and came home feeling much happier and more hopeful. Research shows that this works for people in general.

Incorrect. I just proved to myself other wise.

I don't think so--it would take much more rigorous trial to establish that.

Seriously, dust1n, they've done this research on many kinds of people with many different kinds of kind acts, and the research is very clear on it.

Furthermore, we know the evolutionary reasons why, and we know the actual neurological mechanism, so it's not surprising or mysterious that it would be so. It all points in the same direction.

Oh ok, then by your blanket logic, I could save someone from getting hit by a car and myself die because of it but I can still count on happiness to follow.

Uh, no, dust1n, cuz you'd be dead. Duh. However, if you were to save someone's life, I feel confident it would boost your joy in life for a long time.

 

[Autodidact]

...right... so an 'ontological truth' would be something that is true throughout existence, independent of perception - same as objectivity, but if it is serving as a problem for you to understand what I said, simply replace every 'ontological' with 'objective'.

Nah, that's just weird terminology that confuses things. I would say an "ontological truth" is a truth about the nature of being. I really don't think we need to go there.

Heh, ok I will use a quote. I will comment directly on your post in a moment, but you should first reply to my posts with the word 'ontological' by replacing the word with 'objective'.

And you should not tell me what I should do. You might try asking, it works much better and makes for more positive relations. Even better, you might try rephrasing your questions for me.

 

[Willamena]

'Ontological' and 'objective' don't have to be the same thing.