Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[ArtieE]

That's not an argument that values aren't subjective. And calling values subjective is not a "a denial of the need or possibility of morality."

It is also incorrect that reason cannot be used to determine how to act.

The objectively moral act is the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of our society and its citizens. We use logic, reason and common sense to try to determine which act that is. From the perspective of an objective observer, the objectively correct way for a member of a species with a survival instinct to behave is to behave in a manner that increases chances of survival.

 

[Augustus]

You just have to try to do the moral thing, to pick the strategy you think would be most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and the people. Of course we can't see into the future so people can have different opinions about what the objectively moral thing is.

How do you feel about these? (correct me if I'm distorting your position)


If I murdered a man, it would be objectively moral to kill his children (or entire extended family) lest they grow up wanting to seek revenge? That better safeguards my future and that of my kids.

The Nazis thought killing Jews would safeguard the future of their society, was it objectively moral? Most mass killings have been done for 'moral' reasons from the perspective of the perpetrator after all.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Of course values are mind dependent in a more fundamental sense. They are generated by minds and depend on minds for their existence. If sentient beings disappear, so does values.

That's what distinguishes the subjective from the objective. If every conscious agent deciding what is right and wrong disappears tomorrow, so will morality and moral values.

But Jupiter, which has exists objectively, won't.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You just have to try to do the moral thing, to pick the strategy you think would be most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and the people.

That's a choice, not something imposed on us by an alleged objective reality.

Right now, people are deliberately warming up the earth. They don't share these so-called objective morals you describe regarding societal well-being. Are their values objectively true or subjective? Whatever your answer, why are yours objectively true but either theirs aren't, or are incompatible to the point of being mutually exclusive with yours?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The objectively moral act is the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of our society and its citizens. We use logic, reason and common sense to try to determine which act that is. From the perspective of an objective observer, the objectively correct way for a member of a species with a survival instinct to behave is to behave in a manner that increases chances of survival.

I still believe that we are using different definitions of objective and subjective. Maybe I should ask you what the difference between objective and subjective morals is to you. How do we determine when a moral value is subjective or objective?

 

[sayak83]

That's what distinguishes the subjective from the objective. If every conscious agent deciding what is right and wrong disappears tomorrow, so will morality and moral values.

But Jupiter, which has exists objectively, won't.

I have found that different people use the word objective differently. Many people would call national borders or what $100 can buy to be objective, as they cannot change them to whatever they want by their own will willy-nilly. In engineering, units of measure (meters, seconds etc.) are also called objective for the same reason. But these concepts would disappear if humans disappear or we collectively lose the concept of money or nation states or standards of measurements.

 

[Curious George]

You're silly. Of course your morals are subjective. They are subject to the time and society you live in. 200 years ago in Europe your moral ideals would have been entirely different concerning witches, slavery, a woman's place in society, etc.

That is a limited view. Certainly many before have made the case that morals are sociocultural but this is not the end point. While society and cultures do in fact influence morals, those societies and cultures are all striving towards the same "ought." Specifically, they are influencing morals to what they see as the most beneficial. The myriad variables make the morality seem completely subjective. But, there are a few variables that would persist. For instance no society had behaved in a way that ending all life is beneficial. While you might find some wayward groups that have proposed such, that niether society or culture at large has suggested this would seem to be evidence (not proof) that acting in a manner which does not end all life is moral. The idea that we have evolved certain traits can and is absolutely used to argue objective morality. That some subjectivity persists does not mean objective morality does not exist.

 

[Curious George]

The objectively moral act is the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of our society and its citizens. We use logic, reason and common sense to try to determine which act that is. From the perspective of an objective observer, the objectively correct way for a member of a species with a survival instinct to behave is to behave in a manner that increases chances of survival.

It is not quite that easy. You have the words "beneficial" and "detrimental" in there. Those words are not necessarily objective in themselves. However, plenty of ethics writers have argued exactly what you are saying. So you are in good company. The idea that morality must be subjective is not as conclusive as others suggest.

 

[ArtieE]

If I murdered a man, it would be objectively moral to kill his children (or entire extended family) lest they grow up wanting to seek revenge? That better safeguards my future and that of my kids.

If everybody in your society were of the subjective opinion that murdering somebody else and their extended family was moral and right everybody would be dead including you. You wouldn't have a future. Hence going around murdering people is wrong because it results in non-survival.

The Nazis thought killing Jews would safeguard the future of their society, was it objectively moral? Most mass killings have been done for 'moral' reasons from the perspective of the perpetrator after all.

On the planet today everybody are members of the same society. Humans. We're all in the same boat.

 

[ArtieE]

That's a choice, not something imposed on us by an alleged objective reality.

Right now, people are deliberately warming up the earth. They don't share these so-called objective morals you describe regarding societal well-being.

The objectively moral thing to do is to behave in such a way that we increase our chances of well-being and survival. Sometimes reality is simply so complicated that we can't tell what the right thing to do is. But deliberately destroying our own habitat is objectively immoral. They know it too but do it anyway.

 

[Curious George]

I still believe that we are using different definitions of objective and subjective. Maybe I should ask you what the difference between objective and subjective morals is to you. How do we determine when a moral value is subjective or objective?

Well this could be a problem. After all, how can we determine subjective vs. Objective existence? How much more convoluted a discussion will be with abstract morals. Yet we operate in this phenomenal world with concepts of objective and subjective just fine. If we are to accept reality as we collectively perceive it as objective, so too should we accept morals as we collectively perceive them as objective.

 

[ArtieE]

I still believe that we are using different definitions of objective and subjective. Maybe I should ask you what the difference between objective and subjective morals is to you. How do we determine when a moral value is subjective or objective?

We make moral decisions every day. The objectively moral thing to do for a member of a species with a survival instinct is to do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and the individuals in it. So that is what I am trying to do. Those are not my subjective values. Those were laid down by evolution and natural selection with no subjective input from me. That's just how we evolved.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have found that different people use the word objective differently. Many people would call national borders or what $100 can buy to be objective, as they cannot change them to whatever they want by their own will willy-nilly. In engineering, units of measure (meters, seconds etc.) are also called objective for the same reason. But these concepts would disappear if humans disappear or we collectively lose the concept of money or nation states or standards of measurements.

Good observation. I'm pretty sure that Artie and I are using the words "subjective" and "objective" differently. Perhaps you and I as well.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is a limited view. Certainly many before have made the case that morals are sociocultural but this is not the end point. While society and cultures do in fact influence morals, those societies and cultures are all striving towards the same "ought." Specifically, they are influencing morals to what they see as the most beneficial. The myriad variables make the morality seem completely subjective. But, there are a few variables that would persist. For instance no society had behaved in a way that ending all life is beneficial. While you might find some wayward groups that have proposed such, that niether society or culture at large has suggested this would seem to be evidence (not proof) that acting in a manner which does not end all life is moral. The idea that we have evolved certain traits can and is absolutely used to argue objective morality. That some subjectivity persists does not mean objective morality does not exist.

Does a moral value go from being subjective to objective if it begins as the idea of a single person and eventually becomes universally accepted?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well this could be a problem. After all, how can we determine subjective vs. Objective existence? How much more convoluted a discussion will be with abstract morals. Yet we operate in this phenomenal world with concepts of objective and subjective just fine. If we are to accept reality as we collectively perceive it as objective, so too should we accept morals as we collectively perceive them as objective.

For me, something is objectively real or true if it continues to exist or be true even if nobody is left to know it. We generally know which of the phenomena of conscious existence inform us of our internal reality and which represent external reality. When I enjoy a glass of lemonade, and you are watching, I know which of my experiences you are sharing with me and which you are not. You're also seeing a glass with a yellow (or pink if that was my choice) liquid with my hand clutching it and pouring some of it into my mouth (or being sipped through a straw if that is my choice).

We both know that if indeed this is lemonade in the glass, I am experiencing something wet, cold, tart, and sweet, but only I both know it and am experiencing it. You only know it. And I am aware that you only know it.

I would say that you were experiencing the objectively real aspect of my experience,and I was experiencing the same objective truths as you, as well as a host of subjective experiences, and I would know which is which.

If we were both died at that moment from a gas leak, for example, the glass, perhaps now shattered after being dropped, and its contents, perhaps now spilled, would persist for a time. And we both know that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We make moral decisions every day. The objectively moral thing to do for a member of a species with a survival instinct is to do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and the individuals in it. So that is what I am trying to do. Those are not my subjective values. Those were laid down by evolution and natural selection with no subjective input from me. That's just how we evolved.

I think that we are probably in agreement about what is the case, but not on what to call it.

 

[Augustus]

If everybody in your society were of the subjective opinion that murdering somebody else and their extended family was moral and right everybody would be dead including you. You wouldn't have a future. Hence going around murdering people is wrong because it results in non-survival.

But if I murdered someone out of rage, even though I know it was wrong and now deeply regret it, I can't take it back. So contingent on this fact do I a) kill his family or b) risk my own who are totally innocent, they only had a bad father?

On the planet today everybody are members of the same society. Humans. We're all in the same boat.

Unfortunately we are not. We define ourselves partly in contrast to other people who we oppose. Look at America now for an easy example and that's people in the same country with a common identity. Millions of people think Obama is literally the anti-Christ, or that Trump is a potential Hitler.

We are an adversarial and tribal species; 'Humanity' is bunk. We only care about those who we can identify with and identify common self-interest with (although this can be a pretty wide section of global society).

Do you consider ISIS as part of 'your society' for example? For me they are the opposite.

Human identity is a result of:

a) Who we think we are
b) Who we think we are not

 

[ArtieE]

But if I murdered someone out of rage, even though I know it was wrong and now deeply regret it, I can't take it back. So contingent on this fact do I a) kill his family? or b) risk my own who are totally innocent, they only had a bad father?

Let's see if you can figure that out. What do you think would do the least harm to others? A or B? Do that.

Do you consider ISIS as part of 'your society' for example? For me they are the opposite.

Human identity is a result of:

a) Who we think we are
b) Who we think we are not

I don't follow. Since we are just a phone call away and physically just a plane ride of a few hours away from any place and everyone on the planet we are in reality one society with all kinds of moral and immoral members and everything we do impacts everybody else. But we all have one objectively moral duty: To do what we can to do what is beneficial for the well-being and survival of as many members of our society as possible regardless of differences in sex or race or religion or anything.

 

[Curious George]

For me, something is objectively real or true if it continues to exist or be true even if nobody is left to know it. We generally know which of the phenomena of conscious existence inform us of our internal reality and which represent external reality. When I enjoy a glass of lemonade, and you are watching, I know which of my experiences you are sharing with me and which you are not. You're also seeing a glass with a yellow (or pink if that was my choice) liquid with my hand clutching it and pouring some of it into my mouth (or being sipped through a straw if that is my choice).

We both know that if indeed this is lemonade in the glass, I am experiencing something wet, cold, tart, and sweet, but only I both know it and am experiencing it. You only know it. And I am aware that you only know it.

I would say that you were experiencing the objectively real aspect of my experience,and I was experiencing the same objective truths as you, as well as a host of subjective experiences, and I would know which is which.

If we were both died at that moment from a gas leak, for example, the glass, perhaps now shattered after being dropped, and its contents, perhaps now spilled, would persist for a time. And we both know that.

And yet you and I were objectively thinking, and after we died those thoughts are nowhere to be found.

If for some reason I perceived you as not drinking lemonade but some foul green liquid that reeked of sewage, yet all other percieved the liquid as yellow and sweet/tart? Who would be right. If I percieved you moving your hand back and forth as though you thought there was a glass of lemonade yet you percieved each drink who would be right? You can talk of when no one is around to observe it all you like.

The noumenal world may exist, but you and I cannot know it separate from our phenomenal world. Just because the existence is contingent on life or humans does not mean that the existence is not real.

 

[Curious George]

Does a moral value go from being subjective to objective if it begins as the idea of a single person and eventually becomes universally accepted?

If I convince the world I have six fingers on one hand does that change the fact that I have four and a thumb?