Morality

[loverofhumanity]

Is there a thing called absolute morality? Or is it all subjective? Or do they coexist?

Is morality a biological outcome. If as Darwin says, natural selection lays the morality, “If men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hivebees, there can hardly be a doubt that our un-married females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering." Thats to justify objective morality with a biological explanation to it, where if morals are contingent on changes in biology and subject to change based on it, which makes objective morality an impossibility.

If this philosophy is true, and we were brought up under the same conditions as the nurse shark, we accept raping our partner is moral.

It seems like many atheists seem to hold the position that morality is subjective in this forum. Morality seems to be thought as entirely subjective. Which means based on the biology, social pressure, or some factor, your morality changes and that's justified.

Did this defiance to objective morality come out of adherence darwinian evolution, debunking the God idea, social moulding or actual weighing of philosophy, research and/or biology? What is the atheists epistemology?

To be clear, subjectivism is not the general principle of atheists because philosophers have written a lot on objective morality. Yet what is strange is that many atheistic apologists and evangelists seem to reject objective morality with a vengeance. But doing so, some atheists also blame all the violence on religions or/and claim "religions are by nature violent" or at least pick one religion to be immoral. That is objective morality. Which means these people are contradicting themselves without realising it.

Though the question is what is the atheists epistemology on this, the topic is the ontology of morals or moral ontology. The topic is, the foundation of morality.

My belief is that what is moral/immoral, good/bad, right or wrong is determined by the Prophets of God Who appear from age to age. Whatever They decide I believe that is true and correct beyond doubt because Their Source of knowledge comes from an All Knowing God not human thought.

 

[Brian2]

. I’m a theist (roughly speaking) and I reject absolute morality. Our moral values as a society have changed drastically over the years. We did as a society condone raping our partners. How long did it take for the law to recognise spousal rape as a bad thing again?
We absolutely used to justify domestic violence at the same time proclaiming ourselves a Christian nation (the West in general.)
We absolutely used to consider slavery a moral issue, one that made the slavers “masters and lords of their domain.”
We have drastically changed our moral standing and no longer use morality to subjugate other people, be they people of colour or women. Or at least we can no longer get away with that with majority support.
So tell me again just how moral we are as a species?

You say you reject absolute morality and yet seem to be pointing to a definite progress in morality for the better, hence towards something that is better absolutely.

 

[Brian2]

I think the only way for there to be some objective morality is for it to be ingrained in the very fabric of the universe, a fundamental concept in the same way that the speed of light is. And I've seen no evidence that such is the case.

If the creator of the universe tells us what is morally acceptable and what is not then surely that is pretty close to something that is in the very fabric of the universe in the same way that the speed of light is. (even if that speed it seems is not a constant)

 

[Tiberius]

Would adaption for expansion be objective morality?
We do it all the time. All life is doing it.

Life is changing form as it adapts and expands. Hence we have many different lifeforms on Earth.

And why do you think this could be some form of morality?

Would killing also be objective morality in the form of adaption for expansion of life?
Like conquering new lands for your own decided group of people?
Like eating other lifeforms that we call meat and vegetables?

The only difference in this objective morality is who is included in your group.
Just yourself, or does it also include others, and how many others.

Yeah, I'm really not sure exactly what you are asking here.

 

[Tiberius]

If the creator of the universe tells us what is morally acceptable and what is not then surely that is pretty close to something that is in the very fabric of the universe in the same way that the speed of light is. (even if that speed it seems is not a constant)

No, it's very different.

If God tells us, the only way for us to know is for God to tell us.

If it's embedded into the fabric of reality, then we can discover it by investigating reality.

Therefore, if objective morality was embedded into the very fabric of reality and does not exist simply because God says it, then we should be able to discover this objective morality by investigating the universe. What investigation to you propose would allow us to discover morality?

 

[stvdv]

Is there a thing called absolute morality? Or is it all subjective? Or do they coexist

What is the atheists epistemology?

Humans have a conscience, the ability to discriminate between right and wrong actions. The more you follow your conscience, choosing right action, the more moral aware you become

Both theists and atheists have a conscience

 

[Clara Tea]

Natural morality - Wikipedia

Darwin asserted that social animals survive better (so are selected by nature to survive) if they look out for one another. Thus, altruism, sympathy, and other good traits are inherited and bred into the species.

Atheists seem to be winning the war of morality. There are boy-raping priests, and greedy pastors.

 

[SomeRandom]

You say you reject absolute morality and yet seem to be pointing to a definite progress in morality for the better, hence towards something that is better absolutely.

Which means it’s improving, hence we did not have absolute morality in the first place. At the time people thought they were acting in a moral manner. What does that say about us?
We use terms like morality to excuse our crimes and make us feel better. So why would I embrace that?
Ethical values is at least honest enough to leave room for improvement

 

[firedragon]

Please explain how Nazism "maximizes well being of all in society?" When you murder 6 million people in society, that doesn't exactly maximize their well being.

In my opinion it does not "maximise wellbeing of all in society" (In my view it was one of the biggest atrocities one could fathom). It was in their view. Thats why they did it. So your it your view, it is justified because it was what they deemed was "maximising well-being of all in society".

 

[firedragon]

Natural morality - Wikipedia

Darwin asserted that social animals survive better (so are selected by nature to survive) if they look out for one another. Thus, altruism, sympathy, and other good traits are inherited and bred into the species.

Atheists seem to be winning the war of morality. There are boy-raping priests, and greedy pastors.

Thats a bias statement to make. And though this is an attempt to say "atheists are all good", and "theists are not so good", it is not a valid discussion to have here. You can open a new thread to make an assessment who is more moral with some global statistics. You could be right.

Anyway, so with "Darwin" in the picture, are you saying that Darwinian evolution objectifies morality? Can you provide the mechanism?

 

[firedragon]

That's not actually true. People like Dawkins and Harris - whom I would like to call "Movement Atheists" to distinguish their Secular Humanism from other people with atheist beliefs who do not hold those positions

So the thing is, I didnt say anything about All Atheists. Thus, you should read that comment you responded to once more.

 

[firedragon]

This can't be answered in a single post. I recommend these articles from the Stanford Encyclopedia as an introduction to the various traditions of ethical inquiry, both atheist and theist:

Deontological Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Consequentialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Virtue Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Thanks for links. But you should typically to state the epistemology you gathered.

 

[firedragon]

But my reason for rejecting objective morality, is that I don't see who or what should be the authority of such standards

I understand that. But you are going the other way around. Which means you first reject there is an authority or a yardstick, so because of that you reject objective morality. Rather, first you must analyse the subject of the thread, and afterwards decide what this so called "authority" is. Thats a completely different matter altogether. I hope you can try and understand this. It is like saying since I do not want to reach the edge of the earth to see if its flat or not, I am not going to begin my journey at all. That was just an analogy so we dont have to delve on this analogy for ever. As long as you understand my point.

 

[PruePhillip]

. I’m a theist (roughly speaking) and I reject absolute morality. Our moral values as a society have changed drastically over the years. We did as a society condone raping our partners. How long did it take for the law to recognise spousal rape as a bad thing again?
We absolutely used to justify domestic violence at the same time proclaiming ourselves a Christian nation (the West in general.)
We absolutely used to consider slavery a moral issue, one that made the slavers “masters and lords of their domain.”
We have drastically changed our moral standing and no longer use morality to subjugate other people, be they people of colour or women. Or at least we can no longer get away with that with majority support.
So tell me again just how moral we are as a species?

It's interesting - what was right is now wrong, and what was wrong is now right.
Raping spouses (sorry, 'partners') or enslaving people in not acceptable to
Christianity - but somehow Christianity is now judged by the people who violated
its principles.
So it's early days yet, we don't know what future generations of a 'post-religious'
world will believe, but going by the Gallop Poll stats below, it looks like society is
going to be coarser, and people are going to be colder.

 

[firedragon]

First of all, we are not nurse sharks or honey bees.

You have not understood Darwinian Evolution. You are taking a philosophical approach which is perfectly fine, but you did not understand the point of that example Darwin himself has given. So though you think you are saying something to me, it was to Darwin. So I would like to know how you disagree with Darwin and whats the mechanism you present that negates his natural selection to provide a biological foundation to the question.

Please explain.

 

[SomeRandom]

It's interesting - what was right is now wrong, and what was wrong is now right.
Raping spouses (sorry, 'partners') or enslaving people in not acceptable to
Christianity - but somehow Christianity is now judged by the people who violated
its principles.
So it's early days yet, we don't know what future generations of a 'post-religious'
world will believe, but going by the Gallop Poll stats below, it looks like society is
going to be coarser, and people are going to be colder.

Well they’re the ones who justified it by using Christianity. Sorry but you don’t get to claim that the past atrocities committed by Christians, using the Bible to justify their own actions, is not existent. Face your past and accept it.
Do I think todays Christians are the same from previous eras? Of course not. We as a society evolved and matured.
And if you want to talk cold and callous?Pretty sure the Libertines had that covered in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries.
Today’s youth are more socially aware than ever before and many are actively trying to promote justice, equality and working towards a better future. They will no doubt stumble and fail, as we all do. That’s just life and how we all learn and grow.
I’m more optimistic, given how many failed predictions of how cold and callous humanity is no doubt becoming. How many generations have been saying that now? 4? 5?

 

[firedragon]

Is it? What's objective about the morality involved?

When someone claims religion or one religion is evil by nature, that is a claim of objective morality.

 

[firedragon]

Is it just what God's own views are? That would make any morality that comes from God just another example of subjective morality, wouldn't it?

To be subjective, it has to have relativity and with this God concept, there is none.

 

[firedragon]

Did the people Hitler oppressed not part of the interconnected society?

That is how you view it. But your thesis was not about how you view another society somewhere else. It was about "them". The viewed it differently. So that was your standard you set. Hope you understand. If they deemed Jews as part of their society they would not consider eradicating them. So Jews were alien, and the Aryans who were superior (in their concept) were pure and need to cleanse.

You justified it. I am not saying you justified their murder, but your thesis justified their pattern as moral.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Is there a thing called absolute morality? Or is it all subjective? Or do they coexist?

Is morality a biological outcome. If as Darwin says, natural selection lays the morality, “If men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hivebees, there can hardly be a doubt that our un-married females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering." Thats to justify objective morality with a biological explanation to it, where if morals are contingent on changes in biology and subject to change based on it, which makes objective morality an impossibility.

If this philosophy is true, and we were brought up under the same conditions as the nurse shark, we accept raping our partner is moral.

It seems like many atheists seem to hold the position that morality is subjective in this forum. Morality seems to be thought as entirely subjective. Which means based on the biology, social pressure, or some factor, your morality changes and that's justified.

Did this defiance to objective morality come out of adherence darwinian evolution, debunking the God idea, social moulding or actual weighing of philosophy, research and/or biology? What is the atheists epistemology?

To be clear, subjectivism is not the general principle of atheists because philosophers have written a lot on objective morality. Yet what is strange is that many atheistic apologists and evangelists seem to reject objective morality with a vengeance. But doing so, some atheists also blame all the violence on religions or/and claim "religions are by nature violent" or at least pick one religion to be immoral. That is objective morality. Which means these people are contradicting themselves without realising it.

Though the question is what is the atheists epistemology on this, the topic is the ontology of morals or moral ontology. The topic is, the foundation of morality.

It seems to me that the notion of objective morality only came about through religions and/or philosophy, when it seems most likely that humans, like most other species, developed their forms of morality through evolution, and being subjective necessarily since such evolved for the benefit of that species. Obviously such does vary between species, since as you have mentioned (and plenty more examples) various species have vastly different apparent moral natures than humans or other species. We do rather tend to anthropomorphise much though.

The other factor as to what our morality might be based upon is mostly reason and rational thought, which seemingly is one advantage we humans tend to have over other species, hence we are not necessarily tied to our past but might be able to plan our future. Even if subjective morality might appear to be rather messy, is that not better if it would allow us to develop as a species rather than being tied to some notion of objective morality that will just not be agreed upon - especially if such comes from religions?