Objective Morals. Are they any better?

[wizanda]

Better for whom, just believers?

The problem with a subjective view is often it is self serving in some way, and even independent authors of any religious texts must be observed for their own biases.

How can the morals from a "Subjective being" be consider "Objective"?

When the standards of objective morality become easier to understand for everyone.

Religion was originally social boundaries we all followed for the betterment of everyone; it has become stagnated in the past with old ideas, and needs evolving for modern times.

How are objective morals better than subjective ones?

Because we have to all agree to certain principles to co-exists; if one of us says it is fine to rape, steal, adulterate, etc, and the other says not, we have issues, with social cohesion.

Are morals from God better than morals from atheists or non-believers?

The Source of our reality manifests everything at a quantum level, where it is 100% logical, and you want us to compare it to mortals who systematically choose not to question their reality, as they've heard about some book they think is about it?

In my opinion.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Because all theists are outstanding citizens with impeccable morals?
How about: "...some humans seem to have no form of morality"?

Because they do not follow any form of rules, everything is allowed for them. It is few who are that way, but they exists.

 

[Raymann]

Those definitions of "subjective" and "objective" strike me as lame, inadequate, and wholly misleading. Try again.

Seriously, give it another try. You're bright. You can do better.

Sorry, I'm always under the assumption that everybody understands better when I am simplistic rather than too complicated.

Here is an interesting definition I liked:

Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures

Now that we have that out of the way it should be clear that what I mean is that religious people seem to think that "Objective Morals" can only happen if they come from God.
That obviously is not something I'm ready to accept based on the definition I just gave you.

unfortunately some Atheists seem to have no form of morality, and when they meet someone who wishes to teach them, it becomes ugly and heated discussion happens. And more often then not, the Religious person get slammed down and spoken badly about, and their religion get beaten to death by the angry Atheists.

I am glad that only some Atheists seem to have no form of morality.
But that is also the case with religious people, isn't it?
My problem is the belief that religion is the main source of good morals when in reality it has been proven that most crimes are committed by religious people.

Seems to be missing the point.
They are arguing from the axioms that a) God objectively exists and b) they know (some of) His views on morality
It's not a contradiction if you believe God exists (which they do) and that (some of) His morals are knowable.
Rejecting these axioms is different from their beliefs being contradictory.

The problem with a)
is that no God has never been objectively proven to exist.
Therefore b) is not proven either.
Even a religious person should admit that God cannot be objectively proven to exist.

 

[Augustus]

How about: "...some humans seem to have no form of morality"?

Pretty much all humans have some form of morality, although these don't necessarily conform to what the average person might consider moral/immoral.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I am glad that only some Atheists seem to have no form of morality.
But that is also the case with religious people, isn't it?
My problem is the belief that religion is the main source of good morals when in reality it has been proven that most crimes are committed by religious people.

There are those who follow a religion who also lack morality yes. You find this in every community, country, and religions. But the majority of both Believers and Atheists do have a form of morality.
Some better than others.
Those who take spiritual practice and growth seriously do develop a very high sense of morality.
But yes religious people do struggle today to keep a high moral standard too

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Pretty much all humans have some form of morality

Psychopaths don't.

But it's kind of besides the point I was making, which was about how warped it was to try and single out atheists as being the only group among which there are individuals without morals.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think being a religious person makes you more moral than a person with no religion like myself.

I'ld go even further and say that many a time, the religious beliefs and associated "religious duties", makes the followers immoral.
Oftenly, religious beliefs are a very clear obstacle to moral behaviour. To the point of followers being no more or less then morally bankrupt.

Jihadi's are an extremely obvious example... their immorality flows directly from their religious beliefs. They wouldn't be doing what they are doing, if it wasn't for their religious beliefs that they ought to be doing what they are doing.

In contrast, while an atheist can certainly be immoral or even have a flat out immoral worldview - those morals (or lack thereof) can never be tied directly to their atheism. Because atheism doesn't make any claims about that (or anything else, for that matter). There are no "duties" associated with it. No "guidelines" for behaviour. No "moral guidelines" whatsoever.

Whatever the worldview / morality is of an atheist, it will necessarily have other underpinnings then their atheism.

 

[PruePhillip]

Personally, I find it ridiculous when a religious person defends their morals as being the better ones.
The main argument a religious person uses to defend this claim is that their morals come from God.
I don't quite understand why a moral coming from God is called "Objective".
Maybe because in the eyes of a religious person God is impartial and has no reason to favor any of the sides, one way or the other.
That's what I think they believe, not sure that is correct.
There is a problem with that logic:
How can the morals from a "Subjective being" be consider "Objective"?
That doesn't make any sense.
That is a semi contradiction to me.
You believe in an unproven God but the morals taught by this unproven God are proven (objective).
I hear that all the time from very educated people who engage in long and intricate discussions trying to corner the opponent in logic traps trying to prove their point.
For the purpose of this discussion:
Subjective means beliefs not proven.
Objective means proven facts.

How are objective morals better than subjective ones?
Are morals from God better than morals from atheists or non-believers?
Any proof of that?
Better for whom, just believers?

Depends upon what god you are referring to.
The God of the Judaeo Christian tradition is fairly specific about morals,
ie love, forgiveness, compassion, humility, grace etc..
I see these are being fundamentally objective.

 

[Mock Turtle]

How could you prove that they were objective perhaps?

In addition - what is the difference between optimal morality (behaviour for a group or society) and objective morality, if the latter coincided with the former? And how could one tell them apart? If we looked at game theory we might arrive at the former but would this necessarily imply the latter?

 

[Moz]

Personally, I find it ridiculous when a religious person defends their morals as being the better ones.
The main argument a religious person uses to defend this claim is that their morals come from God.
I don't quite understand why a moral coming from God is called "Objective".
Maybe because in the eyes of a religious person God is impartial and has no reason to favor any of the sides, one way or the other.
That's what I think they believe, not sure that is correct.
There is a problem with that logic:
How can the morals from a "Subjective being" be consider "Objective"?
That doesn't make any sense.
That is a semi contradiction to me.
You believe in an unproven God but the morals taught by this unproven God are proven (objective).
I hear that all the time from very educated people who engage in long and intricate discussions trying to corner the opponent in logic traps trying to prove their point.
For the purpose of this discussion:
Subjective means beliefs not proven.
Objective means proven facts.

How are objective morals better than subjective ones?
Are morals from God better than morals from atheists or non-believers?
Any proof of that?
Better for whom, just believers?

If the morals contained in the bible are not from God.... then they are the distilled wisdom from our past ancestors as they worked out how to get along with each other. Either way to dismiss them as some illogical contradiction is just terrible thinking.
The morals were not TAUGHT by this unproven God ... they were taught by generation upon generation of people who saw value in the lessons because they bothered to understand them at deeper levels.

Personally, I find it ridiculous when a religious person defends their morals as being the better ones.
Better ones than what? There are no secular morals, that world is a shifting morass controlled by ideologies not morals.
Solzhenitsyn found that without religious certainty entire societies could be turned to evil in the name of the common good. His insights should be considered, they are from ground zero of secular thinking.

 

[Erebus]

I can understand the second one somewhat, though I disagree with the notion that God existing = God's morals are objective. Or that anything in theology considering its diversity likely has guidance. But they obviously wouldn't see it that way.

The existence of a god doesn't necessarily mean that god's morals are objective. If there's an omnipotent god who decides that its morals are objective, then they are objective because otherwise that god wouldn't be omnipotent.

That's probably the best argument I can think of for the existence of a god suggesting the existence of objective morality. It's not a view I personally hold though and I feel that it raises a lot of very troubling implications.

 

[Augustus]

Psychopaths don't.

But it's kind of besides the point I was making, which was about how warped it was to try and single out atheists as being the only group among which there are individuals without morals.

Pretty much all... I'd also be quite surprised if psychopaths had no morals, just severely defective ones in certain areas. But mental illness aside:

Obviously you are right in noting deficient morals are not the preserve of any individual group, but, imo, saying people have no morals is the wrong approach.

People tend to justify their 'immoral' behaviour with their own values.

ISIS, who almost everyone would see as immoral, carried out their atrocities for very 'moral' reason (i.e. moral in their opinion).

Most people still need to justify their own behaviour to themselves as it's hard to live without your own approval.

 

[danieldemol]

Solzhenitsyn found that without religious certainty entire societies could be turned to evil in the name of the common good. His insights should be considered, they are from ground zero of secular thinking.

Solzhenitsyn was a reactionary to communism and his insights do not cover a sufficient range of secularisms

 

[Raymann]

Raymann said: ↑
Personally, I find it ridiculous when a religious person defends their morals as being the better ones.

Better ones than what? There are no secular morals, that world is a shifting morass controlled by ideologies not morals.
Solzhenitsyn found that without religious certainty entire societies could be turned to evil in the name of the common good. His insights should be considered, they are from ground zero of secular thinking.

Secular is a form of government that works without the influence of religions.
Some people use the word secular as a synonym of non-believer. (not religious).
So what are you saying that the west (which is mostly secular) has no morals?
Or is it just the people who are not religious that have no morals?
Regardless of the case, I would say most people know that stealing, killing or raping is immoral whether they are religious or not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Pretty much all... I'd also be quite surprised if psychopaths had no morals, just severely defective ones in certain areas. But mental illness aside:

Obviously you are right in noting deficient morals are not the preserve of any individual group, but, imo, saying people have no morals is the wrong approach.

People tend to justify their 'immoral' behaviour with their own values.

ISIS, who almost everyone would see as immoral, carried out their atrocities for very 'moral' reason (i.e. moral in their opinion).

Most people still need to justify their own behaviour to themselves as it's hard to live without your own approval.

It's interesting that you should mention ISIS, because I wouldn't be so quick to say that their atrocities are moral in their opinion...

It's not really their opinion. It's rather the opinion of the authority that they blindlessly obbey. Or at least: what they try to hide behind.
These people avoid having themselves to answer to, because they unload that baggage on their god. "God thinks it's moral, who am I to question that?"

It's actually what makes "divine command theory" as a moral worldview extremely problematic.

 

[Moz]

Solzhenitsyn was a reactionary to communism and his insights do not cover a sufficient range of secularism’s

Solzhenitsyn was an eyewitness to the worst that humanity has ever done. His insights into what it takes to turn men into the sort of people who can do what was done in the Soviet Union as probably the most relevant source on the malevolence and depravity of mankind that was produced during the 20th century.
His conclusion was that the people who did those things did them because they thought that their was no God watching them. Without God all things are permissible,.

A reactionary! Dude you should be slapped for such an unthinking comment. Weighing in as if you know something and to begin with reactionary. Dead set comrade your ideology is showing. Do you really know anything but a thumbnail of the horrors of collectivism?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Solzhenitsyn was an eyewitness to the worst that humanity has ever done. His insights into what it takes to turn men into the sort of people who can do what was done in the Soviet Union as probably the most relevant source on the malevolence and depravity of mankind that was produced during the 20th century.
His conclusion was that the people who did those things did them because they thought that their was no God watching them. Without God all things are permissible,.

A reactionary! Dude you should be slapped for such an unthinking comment. Weighing in as if you know something and to begin with reactionary. Dead set comrade your ideology is showing. Do you really know anything but a thumbnail of the horrors of collectivism?

And seemingly with God. Not recognise the historical records concerning religious wars and/or atrocities?

 

[Polymath257]

The notion that there exist an "objective set of morals" is at best an hypothesis -- and not one for which there is much compelling evidence. Yet -- to be sure -- the notion does have some wee bit of evidence in favor of it.

The evidence in favor of the notion chiefly consists in the widespread, cross-cultural acceptance of certain values and/or morals. For instance, everywhere you go in the world, lying in order to protect an innocent member of your in group from coming to harm at the hands of someone from an out-group is almost always considered moral. There are numerous such "universals" or "near universals" -- which somewhat suggests there might be objective morals. However, there are a number of hurdles you would have to overcome before you could consider that bit of evidence compelling.

There are some interesting studies in monkeys (I think it was macaques) where they showed a sense of fairness: they would refuse a treat if their companion didn't get it and they thought one was deserved. This shows that some aspects of morality go back to before we were even human. Objective? I'm not sure that is the word I'd use. Biological, perhaps.

I see moral *systems* as optimization peaks for smooth functioning of human societies. Those systems that don't provide certain basics will be overthrown as people get fed up with them. Those systems that consistently provide, and thereby survive, are considered 'good'. I think one mistake many people make is assuming that there is only one system that is a 'moral optimum'.

 

[Moz]

Raymann said: ↑
Personally, I find it ridiculous when a religious person defends their morals as being the better ones.



Secular is a form of government that works without the influence of religions.
Some people use the word secular as a synonym of non-believer. (not religious).
So what are you saying that the west (which is mostly secular) has no morals?
Or is it just the people who are not religious that have no morals?
Regardless of the case, I would say most people know that stealing, killing or raping is immoral whether they are religious or not.[/QUOTE

It seems to me that if there is to be an agreed upon secular morality it would need some sort of governmental endorsement codified by legislation to keep everybody on the same page.

That seems to be how the gender thing will end up being handled. Disagreement will be defined as hate and hate can be punished. Sorted. That is extremely stupid and dangerous. Morals based on an individual relationship with a divine power keeps state based interference from skewing things towards dystopian outcomes.
.................................
So what are you saying that the west (which is mostly secular) has no morals?

Yes i think that there are no moral considerations built into the system. The West will do whatever it needs to do to keep its place.
...............................................................

I would say most people know that stealing, killing or raping is immoral whether they are religious or not

Well most people know that if they do these things the state will probably punish them. When state control breaks down so do those supposedly moral barriers.
The actual examples that we have from history show that humans will rape, kill and steal until they run out of victims if they can get away with it.

 

[Moz]

And seemingly with God. Not recognise the historical records concerning religious wars and/or atrocities?

Yeah all those wars had NO POLITICAL motives. It seems that without religion war is just as prevalent so maybe religion was not the cause of those other wars.
Atheist governments actually seem to be a little more bloodthirsty than the religious ones if you do the numbers. I thought the argument was that without God to mess things up we would reach some sort of human induced golden age of reason.
Is that really what you see as happening?
Btw... the christianity that i follow has not been responsible for a single death in war fare in the last 2000 years. People of my ilk are the ones other christians killed as heritics so i got a beef against them as well. A pox on all their bloodstained houses.