Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Moderator cut: Orphaned response
For an old post of mine:
Quote:
Does An Objective Morality Exist?
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
-- William Shakespeare (Hamlet)
Before I begin, I want to make it clear what I am not saying. I am not saying morality or good and bad do not exist. I am saying that they only exist as subjective constructs. I am not suggesting that if no objective morality exists, that we should then allow anyone to do what they want. The question of “what do we do now?” is separate from “does objective morality exist?” I am only treating the latter question in this post. I do have a moral system that in many ways is likely to be very similar to yours.
What does objective mean? Objective means having actual existence or reality; uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices; or based on observable phenomena. It is contrasted with the adjective subjective. Subjective means proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world; or particular to a given person; personal.
What is morality? Morality is concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct.
If you disagree with any of my definitions, let’s discuss that first before we move on. If we are on the same page so far, I am going to tackle this question from a couple of different angles: the necessity of an observer and relativity.
Necessity of an Observer
One possible phrasing of the topic in question is, “Does the distinction between good and evil exist in the external world or only in the human mind?” It is my contention that it takes an observer to make a judgment to make something good or bad.
Let’s try a thought experiment. If a behavior is engaged in, and no one ever judges it, does its badness exist? The behavior may result in pain or death, but if no one ever evaluates it (including you as you imagine it), does it have a badness characteristic? A behavior can only gain a badness quality if an evaluator gives it one. It is not a physical quality; it cannot be measured with an instrument. Badness only resides in the eye of the beholder; it does not exist independent of an observer. That makes it subjective by definition. Remember subjective means proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world.
Now, some believe that there is an objective, external morality that is established by God. But, we are faced again with the fact that now God is the evaluator. The badness of the behavior exists in the mind of God, not in the external world. God’s opinion of what is moral does not establish an objective morality, as not all accept the idea that he has the final word on declaring something good or evil. If God does exist, I do not accept his morality as an objective standard. He is simply one being, one evaluator of behavior, as am I. If he exists and is all-powerful, he may enforce consequences upon me for my behavior, but that does not make the behaviors objectively good or evil. He is not the final say of good and evil unless we make him so for ourselves. Every person creates good and evil for themselves in their own minds. Consequences exist whether someone believes in them or not, but only a person or god can create good and evil, for good and evil are nothing more than evaluations. And evaluations are not properties of a behavior as they cannot exist outside of an evaluator.
Other people may believe that behaviors have a goodness or badness quality, independent of any observer’s evaluation. They claim that the universe bestows this quality on behaviors. But, what does that mean? Consequences can follow behaviors as in karma, but that is a cause and effect relationship or a conditional reward type situation. It does not mean that a behavior is “good” or “bad”.
Now that I have shown that the distinction between good and evil exists only in the mind, I believe I have demonstrated that there can be no objective morality.
Relative Morality
Another way to phrase the topic in question is, “Although morality may exist only in the mind, can we humans through logic and reason identify morals that are not ‘particular to the individual,’ but are universal and ‘uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices’ and in that sense be objective?” Let’s take a look at that.
Logic and reason are operators; they need something to work on. The kind of moral system you end up with depends on what you subjectively choose to start with. Deductive reasoning requires you to subjectively choose some premise to start with, such as “whatever promotes life is good,” and then deduce moral behaviors that are consistent with that premise. Now, one can evaluate the system that was derived from the premise on the basis of consistency, soundness, and completeness, but one cannot objectively evaluate the premise itself. The problem is that there are nearly an infinite number of premises from which to start and no objective way to determine which premise is best. This is because the only way to judge a premise is with another premise. I imagine much of the discussion to follow will revolve around demonstrating this is true in several specific cases.
Allow me to demonstrate with just one specific case. Suppose an individual started with the premise that “might makes right” and thereby justifies genocide. Now there are many ways in which you can challenge this premise using your own subjective standards: reciprocity, beneficence, non-malevalance, sustainability, utility, etc. This individual may not share those values or think your criticisms are relevant. Is there a way to demonstrate that those values MUST be part of any valid moral system? What many people believe are essential elements of a moral system are not in actuality. It is usually because they cannot see their own subjective assumptions. It takes patience to identify these. How are you going to challenge the premise that “might makes right” objectively, without simply using another premise that they could validly deem irrelevant?
Example:
Joe: “Might makes right”.
Sue: “But, how are you going to feel if someone stronger than you kills you?” (This is using the premise that if you wouldn’t like the behaviors justified by your moral system committed against you then your moral system is inferior).
Joe: “I would not like it, but that would not make the behavior wrong. If they are stronger, they are right. Their behavior is consistent with my moral system; therefore it is good.”
Sue: “But, if you would not like it, then it is bad. And it would cause other people to suffer and that is bad.”
Joe: “Why? Might makes right. It doesn’t matter whether I or anyone else likes it or suffers.”
Sue: “A moral system must take into account human suffering; else you cannot call it moral.”
Joe: “No it doesn’t. That is your own prejudice talking. Morality is defined as a system to identify good behavior from bad behavior. Where in there do you see a stipulation to consider human suffering?”
Sue: “But that thinking could lead to the destruction of all mankind.”
Joe: “Destruction is part of life. Evolution by natural selection, survival of the fittest, it results in the hardiest organisms, and that is a good thing.”
Sue: “How can you say that?”
Joe: “I just have a different moral system than you. I value different things.”
As you can see the appeals to the values of reciprocity, human suffering, and sustainability had no result. There is no objective reason why Joe must agree to evaluate his moral system by Sue’s values. Two people must share a set of subjective values before they can agree on where one moral system is better than another. Nothing requires us to predicate our moral system on any particular value. That is what ensures that there is no objective morality.
Other people might contend that we can know what is good or bad by looking at what people agree are good or bad. Consensus of opinion is not proof of objective good and evil for it could just be opinion, and opinion is by its very nature subjective. For example, before Copernicus, there was consensus that the sun and planets revolved around the earth, but that did not make it objective reality. I think we should pay attention to areas of consensus when formulating our subjective moralities.
Nothing requires that we must define what is good based on the opinion of the majority. I could have a moral system based on “might makes right.” You could disagree with my moral system, but there is absolutely no way to objectively show me that I am wrong. The same goes for every moral system. The only way to criticize their premises is to use other premises for which there is no objective reason why others must acknowledge that those premises are the standard by which all moral systems may be objectively judged and compared. One can always subjectively judge, using one’s own preferred premises. There is no way to objectively determine which morality is best; therefore, there is no objective morality.
Some may acknowledge that there is no objective way to identify which moral premises are best through logic, but they contend that all people will find the same morality by listening to our consciences. If we consider whether something is good or bad, we will get a feeling about it. In order for this method to be objective, we all would need to get the same answer. One counterexample can demonstrate that this is not an objective method. When I was a true believing Mormon, my conscience was trained to give me a bad feeling about drinking alcohol. Now, as a non-believer, my conscience gives me no signal that drinking alcohol is wrong.
Other people may believe an objective morality may be found in the Bible. This is an appeal to authority. First, the Bible does not present a consistent moral system, but even if it did, it is only subjective opinion for one to consider the Bible as the standard by which to judge all conduct.
We may be able to objectively identify which behaviors lead to mistrust, or suffering, or hardship. But, we cannot objectively identify which behaviors are good, because goodness is an evaluation that is based on one’s personal premises.
Let me share with you my subjective morality.
Quote:
1) Strive to use your best judgment. Realize that these 10 statements are aspirational in nature. Their intent is to guide and inspire toward the very highest ethical ideals. There may be times when the most appropriate course is to supercede one of these principles, so use your best judgment. Practice moderation - you need not run faster than you have strength.
2) Strive to limit the harm one causes. Be aware of the possible consequences of your actions, and make a reasonable effort to not cause unnecessary injury or obstruction or damage. This includes harm to one's self, others, all living things and the environment. This does not mean that you should seclude yourself so as to limit the chances of doing anyone harm and it is understood that by living you will cause some harm - you have to eat something, your body fights bacteria, you will produce some waste products, etc. Be reasonable with one's expectations on this point.
3) Strive to benefit one's self, others, and the environment. In as much as it is possible, and with respect for the desires of others (i.e., don't help when your help is reasonably not wanted), help all to live healthily and adaptively.
4) Strive to be trustworthy. Excepting times when honesty puts others in danger, seek to be honest in your dealings with others. Hold in confidence information that should be kept confidential. Act with integrity and be true and honest with one's self.
5) Strive to take appropriate responsibility for one's actions. Keep your word and uphold your commitments. Repair the damage your actions may have caused. Sincerely apologize to, and if possible reimburse, individuals you may have injured. Know the laws and what is expected of you. Once you have done what you can to right your wrongs, forgive yourself and move on.
6) Strive to be fair and just. Inasmuch as possible practice equity. Be aware of and try to limit the influence of one's biases and prejudices.
7) Strive to respect and protect the rights and dignity of one's self, others, and all of creation. It is not enough to ensure that you are not mistreating others, you must strive for social justice for humans and the humane treatment of animals. All people have a right to self-determination. Special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making.
8) Strive to be patient and forgiving. Try to have patience with one's self, others, and anticipated events in life. Free yourself of the bondage of resentment and disappointment.
9) Strive to gain understanding. Knowledge enables one to make better use of that which is available and helps one to successfully adapt to one's environment.
10) Strive to love, show empathy, and be compassionate. We are a social species and for much of our lives are dependent on one another. It is important to our well-being and mental and emotional health to have strong relationships with others. Loving is satisfying to the soul and beautiful. Empathy and compassion can calm arguments and disagreements.
And, finally, how I find meaning in my life, even though I believe that our lives end at death.
Quote:
I realized that although my existence has no eternal or cosmic meaning or significance, my existence could have meaning and significance locally, in space and time to the people around me whose lives I touch and influence. My life matters to my wife and kids. If I committed suicide, it would deeply sadden them and disadvantage them in their lives. And I choose to care about their feelings. And although, they, like me, are nothing more than a contained chemical reaction and all the feelings they have are nothing more than a chemical reaction playing itself out, I am a homo sapien and I am content to do what homo sapiens do, care about the feelings of other homo sapiens, even while knowing my "caring" is just a chemical reaction itself. My wife and kids give my life meaning, locally in space and time, no matter how ephemeral. The human mind is the only thing capable of giving meaning and it is also the only thing that craves it. So, I get my need for meaning fulfilled bythe only humans I'll ever know (my contemporaries). It would be convienient to be like the deer who have no need for meaning and blissfully live their lives without it. But, I am a human, so I will do what humans do: live my life, satisfy my needs, experience my emotions, and enjoy my fellow humans.
We are all going to die anyway. This planet won't be here forever, so why does anything matter? We are all living pointless lives according to atheism.
Because, unlike you apparently, I care about myself and the people around me. I want them to have a good life, for however long they may have it. I want my kids to live in a better place than I found it.
Because, unlike you apparently, I care about myself and the people around me. I want them to have a good life, for however long they may have it. I want my kids to live in a better place than I found it.
Because, unlike you apparently, I have a heart.
When did I say I don't care about anyone? I would risk my life to help someone because Christ said true love means complete sacrifice. Atheists love making things up. What is the point in making a better world? There would be no difference if this world became a smoldering ball of fire today or a million years from now, according to secular thinking. Think about it. The only thing that keeps anybody going is their built in awareness of a creator. Atheists lie to themselves, its really depressing.
When did I say I don't care about anyone? I would risk my life to help someone because Christ said true love means complete sacrifice. Atheists love making things up. What is the point in making a better world? There would be no difference if this world became a smoldering ball of fire today or a million years from now, according to secular thinking. Think about it. The only thing that keeps anybody going is their built in awareness of a creator. Atheists lie to themselves, its really depressing.
If you had bothered to read my post then you'd know. Here again for your convenience:
Quote:
I realized that although my existence has no eternal or cosmic meaning or significance, my existence could have meaning and significance locally, in space and time to the people around me whose lives I touch and influence. My life matters to my wife and kids. If I committed suicide, it would deeply sadden them and disadvantage them in their lives. And I choose to care about their feelings. And although, they, like me, are nothing more than a contained chemical reaction and all the feelings they have are nothing more than a chemical reaction playing itself out, I am a homo sapien and I am content to do what homo sapiens do, care about the feelings of other homo sapiens, even while knowing my "caring" is just a chemical reaction itself. My wife and kids give my life meaning, locally in space and time, no matter how ephemeral. The human mind is the only thing capable of giving meaning and it is also the only thing that craves it. So, I get my need for meaning fulfilled bythe only humans I'll ever know (my contemporaries). It would be convienient to be like the deer who have no need for meaning and blissfully live their lives without it. But, I am a human, so I will do what humans do: live my life, satisfy my needs, experience my emotions, and enjoy my fellow humans.
So with moral relativism we can't judge someone like Hitler. He wasn't evil after all. He thought what he was doing was moral. Atheism truly is sick.
What's the old saying about History, if we don't study or learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. Maybe you better study history because as I recall Hitler was a Roman Catholic.
What's the old saying about History, if we don't study or learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. Maybe you better study history because as I recall Hitler was a Roman Catholic.
You had to bring Hitler in on post #11??? You must be desperate.
I am desperate. I care for all of you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
