Morality

[firedragon]

They are getting better if we agree that harm is bad and help is good, yes. But that premise is itself a subjective judgment. There's no objective reason we have to accept that premise. It's just the case that most of us do, because we have an instinctive interest in our own well-being and the well-being of others we care about.

Thus, how do you know that there is "no objective morality" because people are evolving? Are you saying that because people have subjective morality, there is no objective morality?

 

[Left Coast]

Thus, how do you know that there is "no objective morality" because people are evolving? Are you saying that because people have subjective morality, there is no objective morality?

I'm saying that there is no objective reason that we must accept the end goal of reducing/avoiding harm as the fundamental goal of morality. If you don't share that as a fundamental value, there's nothing I can say to you to "objectively" demonstrate that you ought to share it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It was created by you MT. No one else. You dreamt it up.

).

It follows from all the objective morality nonsense.

 

[firedragon]

I'm saying that there is no objective reason that we must accept the end goal of reducing/avoiding harm as the fundamental goal of morality. If you don't share that as a fundamental value, there's nothing I can say to you to "objectively" demonstrate that you ought to share it.

Saying something objectively is not objective morality.

Also, I never made a claim about what objective morality contains. Like avoiding harm or what ever. Hope you understand.

 

[firedragon]

It follows from all the objective morality nonsense.

Nice. Thanks.

 

[Brian2]

I'm saying that there is no objective reason that we must accept the end goal of reducing/avoiding harm as the fundamental goal of morality. If you don't share that as a fundamental value, there's nothing I can say to you to "objectively" demonstrate that you ought to share it.

I would agree that there is no objective morality without a higher being, our creator who knows objective morality and tells us about it. Otherwise it's anything goes, or law of the jungle or rule of the majority when it comes to morals.

 

[Tiberius]

Not really. They claiming the accused are of objective morality. They just dont realise that's a contradiction.

Not clear on what you're trying to say here...

 

[Tiberius]

Do whatever we wanted and look at the results in many instances.
It has not stopped us from doing what is evil however.
If we ask the question where in the universe could morals be found, I would give the answer, in us. (animals don't seem to function at that level on the whole even if we humans think we see it at work at times).
If we look at us in history we can get a reasonable idea of what behaviours have been seen as wrong in societies.
If we take common wrongs as a guide that might tell us something about morality in the fabric of the universe.

If it's in us, then it's subjective. The fact that different people have different views only supports the idea that morality is subjective.

 

[firedragon]

If it's in us, then it's subjective. The fact that different people have different views only supports the idea that morality is subjective.

Not really. That only says that people are different.

Your assessment is like saying since in ABC city in XYZ country has more crime, there is no code of law in the country.

 

[Tiberius]

Not really. That only says that people are different.

Your assessment is like saying since in ABC city in XYZ country has more crime, there is no code of law in the country.

If people are different, and morality is in people, then the morality is different between different people. ANd thus there is no objective morality.

 

[firedragon]

If people are different, and morality is in people, then the morality is different between different people. ANd thus there is no objective morality.

Are you 100% sure its morality that is different? If that is the case, what is the source of this so called morality? Is it morality or motivation? Is it an inclination or a sense of duty?

Can you explain?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I would say that there are facts that one can know concerning morality.
However, it is ultimately "subjective" in the sense that the starting point is defined by humans.

If we can agree on what constitutes "good" and what constitutes "bad" in rather unambiguous terms, then we can make rather objective evaluations of specific actions and decisions.

Is morality a biological outcome

Behavior evolved, yes.
And morality is concerned with behavior. Social behavior in particular.

It just so happens that I stumbled upon a Stanford course the other day on youtube. Been watching some of it during lunch. Extremely interesting topic. It's a whole series. Looks like the entire course is uploaded:

1. Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology - YouTube

I love how he can accurately predict the model of social interaction and parental behavior of a species, merely by look at a male and female skull. And not even into detail.

Truly fascinating topic. I recommend the linked series if you're interested in that sort of thing.

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.

Comparing humans to bee hives or sharks, is of course a rather ridiculously invalid comparison.
So... yeah.

This is in the category of "not even wrong".

It seems like many atheists seem to hold the position that morality is subjective in this forum.

Why the sudden jump to atheism? Weren't you talking about behavioral biology?

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.

Well.... yeah. Isn't that obvious?
I mean, that morality changes as we learn more about the world and gain deeper understanding of social structures and what-not?

Go back 400 years and see what kind of nasty stuff people commonly thought was okay back then.

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?

No.

What is the atheists epistemology?

Atheism isn't a thing that has things like doctrines and rules and rituals and dogma's and what-not.

Seems to me you are merely asking about secular morality.
Simple: reason.

In the "objective" morality of theist, every question that goes "why is x wrong?" is / can be answered with "because god says so".

In secular morality, you are actually expected / required to provide a solid reason for why X should be considered wrong. And if you can't come up with such a reason, then why should it be seen as wrong?

That's about it in a nutshell.
It's not that complicated.

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.

Insofar as by "objective morality" you mean "whatever my god says", then yes.
And rightfully so, I will add.

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.

I've never seen an atheist, on this forum or anywhere else, ever say either of those things.

That is objective morality. Which means these people are contradicting themselves without realising it.

Huh? You don't make sense.

Even if I would agree to the above statements - which I don't - then how would that follow?

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.

Well... if the premise here is that X is a philosophy which is fundamentally violent against the innocent, then I'ld argue that violence against the innocent is bad therefore the philosophy must be bad.

Why is violence bad? Well, because it increases suffering and decreases well-being.

And if increasing suffering while decreasing well-being doesn't fall under the category of "bad", then I don't know what you are talking about when you use the word "bad".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Was hitlers society moral? They fall into that category.

The Jews they were trying to exterminate are / were part of the interconnected society as well.
Hitler's actions severely increased overall suffering in both the victim nations as well as his own people.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What about sociopaths who are genetically incapable of empathy? About 1 in 24 people are born this way.

They become CEO's.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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".

They were demonstrably wrong, 6 million times over.

(not counting all those others that died in other ways as a direct result of nazi action)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Darwin didn't have a clue concerning behavioral biology.

In short, if Darwin said that (I don't even know - I'll believe you), then Darwin was wrong there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you have a moral value you possess that says "its a bad thing". Do you have any idea where it comes from?

Reason

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's a good thing boy raping priests don't breed their traits into their offspring then.
Do you think that atheists are more moral than religious people?

Not particularly and it's kind of hard to tell.
But when looking at demographics of say, prisons, then it does seem to be such that atheists are extremely underrepresented as compared to the general free public.

 

[wellwisher]

The confusion about morality is that morality was designed for group cohesion and not the whims of the individual. Morality is based on the concept that the team can become more that the sum of its parts. While a good team requires the individual places limits on themselves for the benefit of the team.

A good analogy is a sports team. The individual players cannot call all the shots all the time or the team breaks down. The coach will make rules like, thou shall never miss practice. This may not be convenient for all the players all the time, but it is needed to build the team. Morality is not about short term gain. The long term goal is to make the team of players more than the sum of its parts. If successful and they win the championship, all players rise above. This takes sacrifice and consistency. Sometimes it only makes sense when you hold the trophy.

If you look at the ten commandments in the context of the team all these rules make sense; good coaching. Thou shall not steal, if followed, saves physical and emotional resource and enhance team security and unity. Do you feel better about your neighbors the everyone is honest ro do you feel closer when there are thieves among you?

In the news, shoplifting and stealing is rampant in San Fransisco due to Democrats party teaching immorality; relative morality. Businesses will shut down, people get defensive and places to shop dry up for all, including the moral tram players. The team called San Fransisco is made worse. The Democrats will then bare false witness and blame someone else for their immoral teachings hurting the team. They will lie and call this observation racism. They have destroyed many beautiful city teams that way; Detroit.

Relative morality is based on the premise that anyone can be a coach. Morally is based on the premise that only elite coaches can win the championship. The best moral systems are scalable from local to international championships; expanded team spirit; esprits de corp.

 

[1213]

See, if you think about it, a person may want to get killed, so because he will treat others the same way he wants to be treated and kill others.

I think that is a silly idea. No one wants to be killed against his will. therefore, if person really goes by the rule, he doesn’t kill anyone against the person's will.