Atheists Who Say that Morals Are Subjective or Non-Existent

[Autodidact]

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

Not at all, unless you assert that only objective things exist, or something. I really think bringing a loaded term like that into the conversation only confuses things.

 

[dust1n]

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>

Yes. I did tell you that at the time I wrote it.

Honestly, we are confusing our definitions of objection - as I have been referring to 'pure objective'; and object in and of itself; attributes of an object outside of perception, which is of course.. unknowable, since we only use perception to know anything.

I do not doubt there is some truth to what you are saying; I just don't think it's the whole truth. To me, these are just constructs to describe what we perceive.

Besides that.. I really don't want to address the issue any longer. The amount of back tracking is overwhelming and effort is now meaningless to me. It's been a good conversation.

 

[Willamena]

...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'.

If it's true for a single instant of time does it also qualify?

 

[dust1n]

If it's true for a single instant of time does it also qualify?

If something happens within a single second, I can not deny what I perceive. My problem with objectivity is that I can not know the properties of any phenomenon outside of my perception.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes. I did tell you that at the time I wrote it.

Honestly, we are confusing our definitions of objection - as I have been referring to 'pure objective'; and object in and of itself; attributes of an object outside of perception, which is of course.. unknowable, since we only use perception to know anything.

I do not doubt there is some truth to what you are saying; I just don't think it's the whole truth. To me, these are just constructs to describe what we perceive.

Besides that.. I really don't want to address the issue any longer. The amount of back tracking is overwhelming and effort is now meaningless to me. It's been a good conversation.

Well if you want to take issue with the whole notion of objectivity in general, that's a different thread, and probably one for the philosophy forum. All that I'm saying is that there is/can be a rational ethics based on facts that are as objective as anything else in science.

 

[dust1n]

Well if you want to take issue with the whole notion of objectivity in general, that's a different thread, and probably one for the philosophy forum. All that I'm saying is that there is/can be a rational ethics based on facts that are as objective as anything else in science.

Well there ya go; two different ideas. "Pure objectivity" in Kant terms is a separate thing outside of rationalism.

My apologies, I thought we were addressing moral subjectivity on a metaphysical scale.

 

[blackstuff]

Like rape. Is rape objectively immoral? See what I mean? For some things it's harder to say then others. I might would argue rape is objectively immoral.

Rape is often cited by proponents of objective morality because it's an example of one of the most heinous crimes, one that stirs revulsion in most people, and so it should.

But for me, it is no more difficult to say that rape is not objectively immoral than it is to say that stealing an apple from a garden is not objectively immoral. Why? Because there simply is no such thing as objective morality. Calling anything objectively immoral pre-supposes the existence of morality, it doesn't matter what 'x' you place in the statement;

x is objectively immoral

You can't prove the existence of an objective morality using examples that pre-suppose that there is such a thing as morality.

One of the major flaws with this whole discussion is that it starts off with the premise that atheists would claim that morals are subjective or non-existent. I'm an atheist and I don't say that, nor would I say that morality does not exist.

However, I do believe that morality is relative. Different societies, and even the same society at different times can and do have conflicting moral values. Although religious texts such as the Bible have helped to inform our modern view of morality, there are examples of similar values existing before the Bible was written, so there are clearly other things going on.

 

[Orias]

If morality is relative, then how come my views differ from yours?


The ordinary non-philosophical view is that the word 'subjective' is the complete opposite (negation or contradictory) of the word 'objective'. If something is subjective, it's not objective, and vice versa. 'Subjective' is thought to mean "from someone’s point of view. ' Objective' means 'not just from someone’s point of view.' An objective matter is one that everyone (who is sane, rational, and appropriately informed) will agree about. 'Subjectivity' connotes lack of objectivity. Ethical subjectivism is the view that since we can’t be 'objective' about morality, morality must be purely 'subjective'.-Sandra LaFave


Thinking Critically about the Subjective-Objective Distinction magical link

 

[Adramelek]

I personally am amoral. Terms such as "good" and "evil" are purely subjective concepts to me. For instance, if some guy is going down the street murdering people with a shot gun or even worse with a chainsaw, the act itself is objectively neutral. It is how we as individuals perceive the act in our own subjective universes that makes it either "good" or "evil". And for the record, according to my own personally determined morals such an act of violence against other human beings would be an extremely abominable and evil act. However, puting to death a sub-human who would exact such molevolance against other human beings would be "good" and Just according to my personally determined morals.

/Adramelek\

 

[McBell]

Terms such as "good" and "evil" are purely subjective concepts to me.

"good" and "evil" ARE purely subjective terms.

 

[Willamena]

"good" and "evil" ARE purely subjective terms.

:yes: As well as objective.

 

[DallasApple]

Is that part of the definition of rape?

If you want to make the case that deliberately creating a feeling of violation is objectively wrong, then go for it, but recognize that this isn't the same as the original claim.

My point in all this is that our fundamental assumptions about right and wrong start to break down when you take them outside the bounds of human society. This makes it difficult or impossible for any morality to be truly objective.

Are you talking about wolves or dogs? By chance....

Love

Dallas

 

[Oberon]

Altruism, happiness, and health: it’s good to be good,Stephen G. Post, International Journal of Behavioral Medicine

The problem with such studies is that they are not tests of the effects of specific behaviors on health, but tests of the effects of culturally-based interpretations of behaviors. In other words, even if the results (and understanding of the results) of the studies are accurate, whether or not a behavior is "good" or "bad" depends greatly on culture and other factors outside of the individual. Therefore, in a culture which values, say, enforcing a second class citizenship on women, then men who do so will likely have the same "health benefits" from acting "morally" in this way as do the subjects described in the study.


I don't know whether morality is objective or not, nor am I convinced by all arguments that it is if God exists, but I see no way for objective morality to exist without some higher power (god, zeus, karma, whatever) apart from humanity.

 

[Adramelek]

[/size][/b]

I don't know whether morality is objective or not, nor am I convinced by all arguments that it is if God exists, but I see no way for objective morality to exist without some higher power (god, zeus, karma, whatever) apart from humanity.

I understand what your saying Oberon. For me, as a disciple of the Left-Hand Path I personally have no need for some higher power in order for me to know and understand that acts such as murder and rape are simply wrong and should be lawfully forbidden in an advanced society. People have the right to live their lives and prosper in peace in a civilized society governed by the rule of law. Nobody has the right to take the life of or violate an innocent. To me it is simple common sense. All gods, laws, philosophies, governments, concepts of morality, have all been created and conceived through the higher intellect of mankind.

/Adramelek\

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I concur with the OP, but I place an added restriction: Moral Framework only applies to those beings capable of voluntary action and reaction. In the absence of a network of decision making the moral framework would necessarily be reducible to that of strictest utilitarianism (do that which benefits the group according to whatever material, social, ideological, etc factors are being weighted for) since you would be dealing with robots or plants (things which are either in an ideal state or they are not).


Completely subjective Moral Relativism is a philosophical disease. It is one thing to suggest that ethical considerations are beyond the scope of human analysis (Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism: quite simply suggesting that such problems are unsolvable because our tools or conceptions are too complex for full understanding/analysis), but quite another to suggest that we cannot have any bedrock upon which a moral framework can be situated.

Survival of the Species is a biological imperative that all social systems are derived from. This means that to a lesser or greater extent this is weighted into all Moral systems whether we like it or not. Not sustaining the species equals dying off. End of discussion.

Selfishness is a biological/psychological imperative that all social systems are derived from. If we could not derive benefits for ourselves then as actors we would cease acting. Again, all social systems are derived from this, and that means moral systems are whether we like it or not.

Altruism is a biological/psychological imperative that all social systems are derived from. Biologically species will instinctively seek a certain degree of harmony in order to maximize self-benefit and survival of the species. And psychologically we are unable to exist in a vacuum of human contact (we go insane if we try). Thus, here again, all social systems are derived from this, and that means moral systems are whether we like it or not.


The issue is one of complexity (can ethical constraints that are consistent and applicable: i.e. will people actually follow them; be created or is it impossible) not existence. If everything was purely subjective, then no maxim could be generalized (and yet there are some behaviors which have been universally outlawed by every human culture on earth; precious few, but they exist), and attempts to generalize a maxim would always result in failure no matter the size of the population.

The latter issue (generalizing maxims resulting in failure) is the important one. Legislating morality is something that fails at the size of a nation. Prohibition and efforts like it have unilaterally failed across the world. So we know that generalizing morality across populations of a certain size fail. But we also know that playgrounds with small children manage to arrive a certain code of conduct (unspoken rules of interaction or precedence) that while not perfect (biases exist) are accepted by the vast majority or all of the "constituents." Populations of a certain size can accept generality without failure.

The issue is complexity: what size causes "rule induced failure?" and is it within our capability to understand morality as a totality?

MTF

 

[Orias]

I concur with the OP, but I place an added restriction: Moral Framework only applies to those beings capable of voluntary action and reaction. In the absence of a network of decision making the moral framework would necessarily be reducible to that of strictest utilitarianism (do that which benefits the group according to whatever material, social, ideological, etc factors are being weighted for) since you would be dealing with robots or plants (things which are either in an ideal state or they are not).


Completely subjective Moral Relativism is a philosophical disease. It is one thing to suggest that ethical considerations are beyond the scope of human analysis (Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism: quite simply suggesting that such problems are unsolvable because our tools or conceptions are too complex for full understanding/analysis), but quite another to suggest that we cannot have any bedrock upon which a moral framework can be situated.

Survival of the Species is a biological imperative that all social systems are derived from. This means that to a lesser or greater extent this is weighted into all Moral systems whether we like it or not. Not sustaining the species equals dying off. End of discussion.

Selfishness is a biological/psychological imperative that all social systems are derived from. If we could not derive benefits for ourselves then as actors we would cease acting. Again, all social systems are derived from this, and that means moral systems are whether we like it or not.

Altruism is a biological/psychological imperative that all social systems are derived from. Biologically species will instinctively seek a certain degree of harmony in order to maximize self-benefit and survival of the species. And psychologically we are unable to exist in a vacuum of human contact (we go insane if we try). Thus, here again, all social systems are derived from this, and that means moral systems are whether we like it or not.


The issue is one of complexity (can ethical constraints that are consistent and applicable: i.e. will people actually follow them; be created or is it impossible) not existence. If everything was purely subjective, then no maxim could be generalized (and yet there are some behaviors which have been universally outlawed by every human culture on earth; precious few, but they exist), and attempts to generalize a maxim would always result in failure no matter the size of the population.

The latter issue (generalizing maxims resulting in failure) is the important one. Legislating morality is something that fails at the size of a nation. Prohibition and efforts like it have unilaterally failed across the world. So we know that generalizing morality across populations of a certain size fail. But we also know that playgrounds with small children manage to arrive a certain code of conduct (unspoken rules of interaction or precedence) that while not perfect (biases exist) are accepted by the vast majority or all of the "constituents." Populations of a certain size can accept generality without failure.

The issue is complexity: what size causes "rule induced failure?" and is it within our capability to understand morality as a totality?

MTF

So basically people within certain groups and cultures will fight and defend their certain morals, religions, and ethics, and they may not care for the rest of the world. People are unique in their own individuality and beliefs.

I would have to agree with you that generalizing and trying to get a mass population to believe in the same moral ethics and standards. But then that is not really a failed attempt, the Christians have been constantly forcing their perceptions down upon the world, not so much now days, but I think you understand what I mean.

But all species of animals are social, if it were not so then no animal would exist.

I understand what you mean that because of our social nature morality exists, but I have a different way of putting it...

Morality only exists because of our voices of perception and language. All animals have their own form of 'morality'. There is certain things within each social group of animals that those animals will not do. Is that considered morality, or just something that they won't do because it doesn't benefit them in anyway?

So from what I am basically getting from this is that, if it weren't for morality we wouldn't exist. Correct me if I am wrong but this is what I think...

Man was born into existence only knowing life and the insticts he was birthed with. These instincts are, survive, reproduce, eat, survive, by any means necessary.

From the terms in which you put it, you make it sound as if morality has the ability to change, yet it is a giant generalization that everyone follows morality.

This is true to an extent, but one mans right may be anothers wrong.

If you could replace the word morality with natural, I think that would suite it better but that cannot be so. Because natural and morality are completely different, hence the different lables. But in a way, morality is just a branch of instinct, i.e. group survival.

But then again...morality would just be instinct if we had no frontal lobes.