Atheists Who Say that Morals Are Subjective or Non-Existent

[Autodidact]

Please present an objective moral law.
Not a law that most people agree with, like killing is wrong.
But a truly objective moral law.

Please see my posts above.

 

[McBell]

Please see my posts above.

Seems you will need to provide the definition of "objective" that you are using.

 

[Valjean]

MSizer makes a good point about the universality of certain principles upon which most or all systems of morality are based, but as far as constituting an objective, axiomatic law of the Universe -- i'm not so sure. It may just be the universality of human psychology at play. I do agree with his premise, mind you, but not for these reasons.
However... I don't think it matters, in a practical sense. Those principles we all agree on are sufficient to form the basis of a de facto universal system of morality.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

The point is that rape is only wrong because of the effects on the victim, not because of the act itself.

 

[Valjean]

But doesn't consideration of the effects of an action constitute a moral principle in itself?

 

[dust1n]

I disagree. It is an objective fact that if you get up right now, go down to the street and put a coin in someone's parking meter, you will immediately be happier, and will continue to be happier for about 24 hours.

No it's not, and you can't prove any such assertion.

Not to mention, anyone who has psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies would not get the same enjoyment.

And if this was 'objective' than if I really wanted to be happy, I would convert all of my money in coins and put them in every parking meter. If I did it 100 times, I should be 100 times happier. Perhaps I should sell my house, and give all the money out via parking meters so I can be truly happy.

Unfortunately, there is no objective correlation between happiness and putting coins in parking meters.

We know this about you because we've researched it. So if you want to make the most of your life, it is an objective fact that you should make the most of any opportunity to be kind to others.

BTW, an objective statement wouldn't use such subjective terms as 'most' (twice) and 'kind'.

 

[Willamena]

No it's not, and you can't prove any such assertion.

Not to mention, anyone who has psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies would not get the same enjoyment.

And if this was 'objective' than if I really wanted to be happy, I would convert all of my money in coins and put them in every parking meter. If I did it 100 times, I should be 100 times happier. Perhaps I should sell my house, and give all the money out via parking meters so I can be truly happy.

Unfortunately, there is no objective correlation between happiness and putting coins in parking meters.

This is, again, looking at 'objective' as 'universal', but there is nothing in the definition of objective that implies that. It's not necessary that it be true for every instance of coin-in-meter for every person.

 

[Magic Man]

And if this was 'objective' than if I really wanted to be happy, I would convert all of my money in coins and put them in every parking meter. If I did it 100 times, I should be 100 times happier. Perhaps I should sell my house, and give all the money out via parking meters so I can be truly happy.

I'm not going to argue with the overall point here, but this doesn't really address the issue. Something can make you happy in small doses, but not in large ones. A bowl of ice cream makes me happy, but 10 quarts of it would not make me happy. That doesn't speak to whether or not it makes you happy.

BTW, an objective statement wouldn't use such subjective terms as 'most' (twice) and 'kind'.

You could easily rephrase it to not use those words, but it gets the point across. Besides, I'm not sure why an objective statement can't include those words, especially "most".

 

[Willamena]

I disagree. It is an objective fact that if you get up right now, go down to the street and put a coin in someone's parking meter, you will immediately be happier, and will continue to be happier for about 24 hours. We know this about you because we've researched it. So if you want to make the most of your life, it is an objective fact that you should make the most of any opportunity to be kind to others.

The 'objective fact' here is not that putting coins in meters makes you happy, but that tests have shown that putting coins in meters makes you happy.

 

[McBell]

This is, again, looking at 'objective' as 'universal', but there is nothing in the definition of objective that implies that. It's not necessary that it be true for every instance of coin-in-meter for every person.

Objectivity is both a central and elusive philosophical category. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject.
Source
​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Objectivity is both a central and elusive philosophical category. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject.
Source
​

If we go by that definition, I'd say that there's no such thing as objective morality. How can you have a set of judgements that's independent of any judgements?

 

[Orias]

Objectivity is both a central and elusive philosophical category. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject.
Source
​

So basically morality is existant because it is a concept and people abide by the human behavior known as morality, though it is also non existant because it is not 'truth'.

 

[Willamena]

Objectivity is both a central and elusive philosophical category. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject.
Source
​

Right; and "Contrary to this, most recent philosophers, since the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant, have concluded that scientific knowledge is systematic knowledge of the nature of existing things as we perceive them, rather than as they are in themselves," which is the definition that Dust1n began with.

Neither imply universality. Even the defintion I favour doesn't ("the act of referencing reality in determining the truth... the recognition of reality as the ultimate standard of evaluation. It is the acceptance that all knowledge is knowledge about reality.")

Source

 

[Willamena]

If we go by that definition, I'd say that there's no such thing as objective morality. How can you have a set of judgements that's independent of any judgements?

Bingo.

 

[Autodidact]

No it's not, and you can't prove any such assertion.

Remember, science is never about proof,it's about evidence. Studies have been done about the effect of doing acts of kindness (among other things) on happiness and well-being. The evidence is strong. I'll dig them up if you like.

Not to mention, anyone who has psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies would not get the same enjoyment.

Yes, I believe I said this in the beginning, or at least I usually do. None of this applies to socio-paths. Of course, socio-paths don't follow moral rules anyway, so there's not much point in discussing it with them.

And if this was 'objective' than if I really wanted to be happy, I would convert all of my money in coins and put them in every parking meter. If I did it 100 times, I should be 100 times happier. Perhaps I should sell my house, and give all the money out via parking meters so I can be truly happy.

No, the fact that being kind leads toward happiness does not necessarily imply that the smartest thing you can do is to give away everything you own. There's research on that too. A minimal level of financial security is also necessary for happiness. But your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. The objective fact that being kind makes you happy does not imply that it's all you need to do. There is objective evidence that vitamin C is good for you. It doesn't follow that you should eat nothing but vitamin C.

Unfortunately, there is no objective correlation between happiness and putting coins in parking meters.

Actually, there is.

Abstract Altruistic (other-regarding) emotions and behaviors are associated with greater well-being, health, and longevity. This article presents a summary and assessment of existing research data on altruism and its relation to mental and physical health. ... The article concludes, with some caveats, that a strong correlation exists between the well-being, happiness, health, and longevity of people who are emotionally and behaviorally compassionate, so long as they are not overwhelmed by helping tasks.

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

Drawing on data from the USA, our estimates suggest that people who volunteer report better health and greater happiness than people who do not, a relationship that is not driven by socio-economic differences between volunteers and non-volunteers.
Doing well by doing good. The relationship between formal volunteering and self-reported health and happiness





References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


Francesca Borgonovi, Social Science & Medicine
Volume 66, Issue 11, June 2008, Pages 2321-2334

Want some more?

BTW, an objective statement wouldn't use such subjective terms as 'most' (twice) and 'kind'.

I think you're confusing objectivity, relativism and universality. There is nothing subjective about "most," it means more than half. If you don't like the term "kind," (I think it's a fine word that we all understand) substitute "altruistic."

This is just one area of ethics. There is also research on honesty and other issues.

 

[Autodidact]

The 'objective fact' here is not that putting coins in meters makes you happy, but that tests have shown that putting coins in meters makes you happy.

Yes, I assume that science works, and that we can learn about the natural world through empiricism.

 

[Autodidact]

Objectivity is both a central and elusive philosophical category. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject.
Source
​

O.K., I'm good with that.

 

[dust1n]

This is, again, looking at 'objective' as 'universal', but there is nothing in the definition of objective that implies that.

There is a difference in philosophical objection and objection in other contexts, so unless I am confused to which one we are referring to, a 'moral objection' would be something that is in truth in all of morality.

It's not necessary that it be true for every instance of coin-in-meter for every person.

It is actually quite necessary if your assertion is that all humans will be happier for putting a coin in a meter or that any human will be happier at any point in time putting a coin in the meter.

 

[Autodidact]

If we go by that definition, I'd say that there's no such thing as objective morality. How can you have a set of judgements that's independent of any judgements?

Cf my posts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Cf my posts.

I can see how they get you as far as "altruistic acts can make you happy", but I don't see how you make the leap to morality. Is the objective of morality to maximize happiness? How would you go about demonstrating this?