Objective Morals Debate (Atheists only)

[9Westy9]

That's why I tried to avoid theism, because it eventually leads down to "God made us to do this".

Not what I was saying. I'm not advocating a 'God said so' type of morality. Only a 'we were made this way' type of morality.

Not everybody feels that way about killing.

How is it self evidently true? Just because it has reason behind it?

Because we can observe that people naturally do A instead of B. People only do B when they feel they have to.

For example, a sadist would like torturing people, a pacifist would try to avoid violence.

But a sadist wouldn't like being hurt. You might have an argument for a sadomasochist. That's when the views of the majority have to come into play

 

[waitasec]

Well, unless it is an unconscious reaction, we don't have to follow the instinct's goal.

i'm not sure what you mean by a conscious reaction though

do you mean for example
when someone smiles at me, i immediately react to that in a positive way
whether i smile back or feel good.

Sarcastic or realistic?

realistic...

Yep, and all I'm saying is that what we make it doesn't fit everybody, otherwise I agree.

i'll use music to make my point...
a chord consists of more than one note...all of which are tuned to the overtones of the tonic...
any dissonance will cause a disarray and confusion

They have their own type of reasoning, just because it isn't recognizable because it isn't seemingly an anthropomorphic-like culture doesn't mean it isn't there. Perhaps if you want to continue debating about humans not being animals you should start another thread, because I get pretty aggressive and would probably take us off track in this thread.

fair enough...



great questions

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If a person defines their self as the type of person that is willing to kill, desiring of agony for themselves, purposely pursuing that which is purposely unhealthy, or other nonsensical things, then they are entitled to. They can run around in traffic or roll around in poop if it makes them suffer like they want. :sarcastic

Well then what defines suffering as an absolute bad?

The context of objective morals usually has a background context. That is, the question usually arises in this sort of way, "if you don't believe in god, why not murder, rape and steal? Why do what is good, and how can there be good or evil?" And the answer is pretty elementary: just like the person asking the question, the person answering the question prefers peace, happiness, and flourishing, and there are objectively better or worse ways to meet those goals than others.

Prefers! They prefer it! Doesn't make it objective or absolute...

If, however, a person doesn't even share the basic goals, there's not much to discuss. If the axiom of eudaimonia being preferable to suffering is lost on them, then the best one can do is wish them well and move on. If they want to die or inflict suffering on their selves, then they can do so.

Then why imply it as 'bad' just because you do not do so?

If they want to do so to others, a cooperative force will likely eventually stop them. Either way, the chance of them breeding and having kids that breed themselves isn't too high, their moral systems are unlikely to catch on because they are inherently self-destructive.

I like how you used 'their' moral systems, we can agree that morals aren't objective then?

That's why the topic of objective morality is separated into two parts: better ways of achieving a given goal, and agreeing on a goal to begin with. There's not much to discuss concerning medicine if the participant actively prefers to be unhealthy.

If it is in a matter of what someone prefers, there is no right or wrong morals, thus no objective morals.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I believe there are no such beliefs about "good" that anyone can propose that fit "if it's good for me, it's good for everyone," etc. If anyone suggested this, they were in error (converse fallacy of accident). On the other hand, a morality that's objective does exist in the idea that, because of similiarities in societies that essentially stem from how we interact, our societies can uniformally structure us to believe certain things in certain ways. Further, we are so structed to interact in certain ways that essentially shape societies. We are truly self-made creatures.

Again, saying to build societies is not good enough. What type of society do YOU want? I'm sure there are people that want another type, thus different moral system to achieve that form of society. Thus morals too are subjective.

In other words, we can believe that "if it's good for everyone, it's good for me."

Why can we believe that? It's obviously not correct..

We constantly compare our actions and achievements with those of others and emulate each other; we challenge each other to conform, and sometimes to not conform; we shape how society will shape us, and measure ourselves by how well we fit. When it comes to 'good' or 'bad', our conscience is that measuring tool: shame, guilt, pride, honour and duty.

You might be interested to read some Confucius.

Society's morals are not absolute...

 

[work in progress]

I didn't say there are any morals that every human agrees on.

Then you don't have truly objective morality! I have thought that the generally universal standards we have that declare the obvious: murder, theft, rape etc. to be wrongs, and respect for and helping others to be good, to be evidence of objective morality. But, there are a number of nihilists who contend that a higher standard of evidence is needed to apply that definition of "objective."

I noticed something from Michael Ruse awhile back, say that our belief in morality is likely an adaptation that furthers our reproductive goals. Point being that our biology may make us think that we have an objective code of rules that are real or objective, even if they are not. So, this could be one more arena where can find ourselves believing things without evidence.

I had thought that nihilism implies non-belief in any standards for ethics and morality, but just as every other philosophical position is full of nuances and sub-categories -- so is nihilism apparently. According to Alex Rosenberg's definition of "nice nihilism," we could accept the social conventions without the need for declaring them inherently objective. In Praise Of Nice Nihilism -- Indyweek interview of Alex Rosenberg

I think you have to adopt a position I call “nice nihilism.” “Nice” because that’s what the lesson of science explains, why we are nice, why we are cooperative—with the doubtful exception of a couple of psychopaths on one end of the extreme and Mother Teresa on the other—most people are cooperative, agreeable, moral, law-abiding people and we don’t need any further justification. It's, so to speak, in our genes. We were built that way and our species never would have survived on the bottom of the food chain on the African savannah a million years ago unless we figured out how to cooperate, and that’s basically the cause of our moral core, [the one] that everyone accepts. To look for something more by way of justification is a mistake.
And the rest of the book explains why we shouldn’t believe what introspection or consciousness misleadingly tells us about the nature of ourselves, the meaning of our lives—
—we should NOT believe what consciousness tells us?


​

Our ethics reflect predispositions formed over human history (and likely pre-human ancestors as well) and may work for us individually and for societies in general, without having to take that next step of declaring them objective. Attempting to create an objective standard through the use of science and naturalistic philosophies for anything, including morality, seems like a risky venture by the moral realists because what if they're wrong? What if the objective ethical systems designed by utilitarians and other naturalists don't work? Would that mean we are resigned to fatalism or absurdism without finding that objective standard?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not what I was saying. I'm not advocating a 'God said so' type of morality. Only a 'we were made this way' type of morality.

What exactly do you mean we were made this way then?

Because we can observe that people naturally do A instead of B. People only do B when they feel they have to.

People do something = it is absolute?

And that's what I'm debating against, they don't 'have to' do anything, because what we do is subjective.

But a sadist wouldn't like being hurt.

A masochist would.

You might have an argument for a sadomasochist. That's when the views of the majority have to come into play

So majority wins on what is right? Are you serious? So it was absolutely good to slave blacks? It was absolutely good to burn science books because they are against Jesus? Etc.

 

[Penumbra]

Well then what defines suffering as an absolute bad?

Prefers! They prefer it! Doesn't make it objective or absolute...

Then why imply it as 'bad' just because you do not do so?

I like how you used 'their' moral systems, we can agree that morals aren't objective then?

If it is in a matter of what someone prefers, there is no right or wrong morals, thus no objective morals.

I suggest you re-read some of my posts if you're still asking me these questions, Sum.

I've specifically described it in two separate steps- having objectively better ways of achieving a given goal, and deciding on the goal to begin with. As for achieving the goal, just like anything else, there are better ways of getting there than others. These can be demonstrated via reasoning or history. As for deciding what the broad goal is (like choosing eudaimonia over suffering), there is no standard to say which is better or which is worse, other than logic. Some goals are self-destructive and therefore rare (because it fails the iterative process that life goes through to continue existing). And there's not much a person who favors eudaimonia can say to someone who favors suffering.

 

[Willamena]

Again, saying to build societies is not good enough. What type of society do YOU want? I'm sure there are people that want another type, thus different moral system to achieve that form of society. Thus morals too are subjective.

That's indulging the fallacy again (right for one, right for everyone).

Why can we believe that? It's obviously not correct..

It's not supposed to be an example of "correct," just "objective".

 

[The Sum of Awe]

i'm not sure what you mean by a conscious reaction though

do you mean for example
when someone smiles at me, i immediately react to that in a positive way
whether i smile back or feel good.

Not sure for that example; but conscious reactions are reactions in which you can control yourself, not just automatic body defenses.

i'll use music to make my point...
a chord consists of more than one note...all of which are tuned to the overtones of the tonic...
any dissonance will cause a disarray and confusion

Yes, but there is also different styles of music.

fair enough...



great questions

Thanks

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I suggest you re-read some of my posts if you're still asking me these questions, Sum.

I can't make out the answers to these questions from your posts apparently.

I've specifically described it in two separate steps- having objectively better ways of achieving a given goal, and deciding on the goal to begin with.

Yes and the goal is not objective, how can there be objective morals surrounding a non-objective goal?

As for achieving the goal, just like anything else, there are better ways of getting there than others.

Yes, I agree.

These can be demonstrated via reasoning or history. As for deciding what the broad goal is (like choosing eudaimonia over suffering), there is no standard to say which is better or which is worse, other than logic. Some goals are self-destructive and therefore rare (because it fails the iterative process that life goes through to continue existing). And there's not much a person who favors eudaimonia can say to someone who favors suffering.

Logic doesn't even have the ability to determine better or worse unless logic has the ability to say "Step Brothers was a better movie than Inception". It's subjective, opinion thoughts.

There is no better or worse goals, for opinions are not facts.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That's indulging the fallacy again (right for one, right for everyone).

I don't quite understand, you do believe that it is right for one, right for everyone? All I'm saying is society's opinions are not absolute.

It's not supposed to be an example of "correct," just "objective".

That makes no sense, why does something you morally believe in have to be believed by everyone?

 

[Willamena]

Society's morals are not absolute...

I don't know about that --society's pretty good at imposing absolutes that we believe. Look at the way it's structured you to believe that "absolute" is universal, that "universal" is objective, that "objective" is correct, and that these correlations are universally acceptable. (They're not, but that doesn't matter.)

 

[Willamena]

I don't quite understand, you do believe that it is right for one, right for everyone? All I'm saying is society's opinions are not absolute.

No, I don't believe that --I said as much in post #100.

That makes no sense, why does something you morally believe in have to be believed by everyone?

It doesn't. That's indulging the fallacy again.

Just to be clear, you're indulging a fallacy. You're arguing a straw man. You're bashing your head against a brick wall of your own making. You're... I've run out of idioms.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't know about that --society's pretty good at imposing absolutes that we believe. Look at the way it's structured you to believe that "absolute" is universal, that "universal" is objective, that "objective" is correct, and that these correlations are universally acceptable. (They're not, but that doesn't matter.)

No, just didn't think of the word universal at the time.

Society isn't absolute even if it made me, you, or all of us believe something, it is just based off of opinions as is all morals, that means subjective.

Objective:
(of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Good and bad is a personal feeling/opinion: Fact and Opinion ........................................................

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No, I don't believe that --I said as much in post #100.


It doesn't. That's indulging the fallacy again.

Just to be clear, you're indulging a fallacy. You're arguing a straw man. You're bashing your head against a brick wall of your own making. You're... I've run out of idioms.

I don't see what your point is then sense I don't believe that either...

 

[waitasec]

Yes, but there is also different styles of music.

and what style of music do you suppose does not adhere to this law?

it could be argued of course that taste is acquired for a certain style of music..
but our ears, for the most part, can tell dissonance from harmony

Thanks

but of course....

 

[The Sum of Awe]

and what style of music do you suppose does not adhere to this law?

Not sure.

it could be argued of course that taste is acquired for a certain style of music..
but our ears, for the most part, can tell dissonance from harmony

But does harmony have to be good is the question.

 

[Penumbra]

I've isolated these two statements to try to explain further:

Yes and the goal is not objective, how can there be objective morals surrounding a non-objective goal?

Suppose I want to live in a house. Further suppose that, for some strange and non-objective reason, I'd prefer that house to be safe, well-built, clean, and energy efficient.

Two companies try to build a house to sell to me. One of the companies measures twice and cuts once, takes pride in their work, focuses on long-term value, and ends up building a house that is measurably safer, sturdier, cleaner, and more energy efficient. The other one is sloppy, dirty, doesn't really care, and doesn't hire very capable people, so they end up building a really crappy house that doesn't meet my expectations.

One of the two companies objectively met my goal better than the other one. One can argue with me if they want to about whether my goal was reasonable (they could say I should prefer to live in a dirty, energy inefficient, and unsafe house), but it's a fact rather than opinion that, based on the goal I did assign, one of the companies met it better than the other.

...

Or another example. Suppose a patient goes to a hospital, and for some strange, non-objective reason, would prefer to leave the hospital healthier than they arrived (as compared to the other possibilities of leaving less healthy, or equally healthy).

One doctor does a bunch of checks, and finds that the patient has a mildly fractured leg, and determines that a number of careful steps can result in healing the leg and getting the patient healthy again, so she proposes doing that. Another doctor uses poor methodology and misdiagnoses the patient's problem and suggests cutting off the leg, suggesting it's not salvageable. Now suppose the patient listens to the first doctor and ends up with a healthy leg. This doctor objectively met the patients goal better than the second doctor, even if one wants to argue that the patients goal of wanting to be healthy again was silly.

Logic doesn't even have the ability to determine better or worse unless logic has the ability to say "Step Brothers was a better movie than Inception". It's subjective, opinion thoughts.

It depends on what the goal was.

For instance, suppose two school principles share the goal of reducing teenage pregnancy in their schools. One of them implements an abstinence-only sex education system, and teenage pregnancy increases by 10% over the next five years. The other one implements a program that teaches about sexual diseases, the proper use of birth control, and also advices that abstinence is the surest way to avoid pregnancy, and teenage pregnancy decreases by 20% over the next five years. And then further suppose there are 50 other schools that did this, and on average, the schools that taught the full range of pregnancy and disease prevention reduced pregnancy and diseases considerably more than abstinence only education.

One of the two programs met that particular goal better than the other. Now, one could argue that their goals were nonsensical to begin with, and that they should instead try to increase sexual diseases and teenage pregnancy, but regardless of that, they did have initial goals and one of them met those goals better than the other one did, objectively.

Your example is invalid unless you assign a goal for those movies to measure by.

 

[9Westy9]

What exactly do you mean we were made this way then?

Thought it was obvious. The golden rule is what we'd do in our natural state. It's the reason we don't just kill everyone and become cannibals.

So majority wins on what is right? Are you serious? So it was absolutely good to slave blacks? It was absolutely good to burn science books because they are against Jesus? Etc.

It was viewed such at the time. Now we have different standards. Why? Because the minority convinced the majority. It's the job of the minority to convince the majority as to why they're right.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I've isolated these two statements to try to explain further:


Suppose I want to live in a house. Further suppose that, for some strange and non-objective reason, I'd prefer that house to be safe, well-built, clean, and energy efficient.

Two companies try to build a house to sell to me. One of the companies measures twice and cuts once, takes pride in their work, focuses on long-term value, and ends up building a house that is measurably safer, sturdier, cleaner, and more energy efficient. The other one is sloppy, dirty, doesn't really care, and doesn't hire very capable people, so they end up building a really crappy house that doesn't meet my expectations.

One of the two companies objectively met my goal better than the other one. One can argue with me if they want to about whether my goal was reasonable (they could say I should prefer to live in a dirty, energy inefficient, and unsafe house), but it's a fact rather than opinion that, based on the goal I did assign, one of the companies met it better than the other.

It's not a fact that it is not better than the other one... I read the whole thing, it's still merely an opinion.

...

Or another example. Suppose a patient goes to a hospital, and for some strange, non-objective reason, would prefer to leave the hospital healthier than they arrived (as compared to the other possibilities of leaving less healthy, or equally healthy).

One doctor does a bunch of checks, and finds that the patient has a mildly fractured leg, and determines that a number of careful steps can result in healing the leg and getting the patient healthy again, so she proposes doing that. Another doctor uses poor methodology and misdiagnoses the patient's problem and suggests cutting off the leg, suggesting it's not salvageable. Now suppose the patient listens to the first doctor and ends up with a healthy leg. This doctor objectively met the patients goal better than the second doctor, even if one wants to argue that the patients goal of wanting to be healthy again was silly.

It depends on what the goal was.

Exactly, it depends on what the goal is, and the goal among humans isn't always to bet he same.

For instance, suppose two school principles share the goal of reducing teenage pregnancy in their schools. One of them implements an abstinence-only sex education system, and teenage pregnancy increases by 10% over the next five years. The other one implements a program that teaches about sexual diseases, the proper use of birth control, and also advices that abstinence is the surest way to avoid pregnancy, and teenage pregnancy decreases by 20% over the next five years. And then further suppose there are 50 other schools that did this, and on average, the schools that taught the full range of pregnancy and disease prevention reduced pregnancy and diseases considerably more than abstinence only education.

One of the two programs met that particular goal better than the other. Now, one could argue that their goals were nonsensical to begin with, and that they should instead try to increase sexual diseases and teenage pregnancy, but regardless of that, they did have initial goals and one of them met those goals better than the other one did, objectively.

Your example is invalid unless you assign a goal for those movies to measure by.

Are you saying I'm just making an excuse for the ones who failed? I'm not.

Anyway, I do agree that there are some morals for a certain goal that are better than the other, but not everyone follows that goal, the goal is not objective, but there are inter-objective (kinda created a word there) morals for that subjective goal.

But they are not really objective being that they are based around opinions and feelings, bad and good is feeling and opinion, whether or not one gets you to the goal better.