Morality

firedragon said:

If you present what you observe with data that's proof and is valid. But you are just stating what you feel.

Click to expand...

Again, no, it isn't proof. It's evidence. Proofs are things done in logic and math.

For example, which people, through what length of time, has changed their morality based on social consensus or evolutionary processes, and how were their changes, and what were their changes specifically?

Click to expand...

People in the United States, for example, have changed their moral views (and the laws and social standards adopted as a function of those views) as it pertains to many issues throughout the country's history. See the history of public views on slavery, racial segregation, women's rights, homosexuality, contraception, abortion, and more.

Left Coast said:

Again, no, it isn't proof. It's evidence. Proofs are things done in logic and math.

Click to expand...

Alright. So since you say, please do provide evidence.

Left Coast said:

People in the United States, for example, have changed their moral views (and the laws and social standards adopted as a function of those views) as it pertains to many issues throughout the country's history. See the history of public views on slavery, racial segregation, women's rights, homosexuality, contraception, abortion, and more.

Click to expand...

Great.

So people changed their morals? Why did they change? Is it because of moral relativism? Also, since they changed their views, is it towards what is right or wrong the changes took place?

firedragon said:

Great.

So people changed their morals? Why did they change?

Click to expand...

That's a complex question but the general reason is because humans realized that the world was a better place for everyone to live in when we adopted said changes.

Is it because of moral relativism? Also, since they changed their views, is it towards what is right or wrong the changes took place?

Click to expand...

This depends on the foundation for a person's morality. Again, as I explained earlier, if you don't care about whether actions harm or hurt yourself or others, there is no "objective" reason why I can convince you that you should. It's just the case that the vast majority of us collectively do care about that, and so we mold society in ways we believe will accomplish those ends. So in my view, and the view of most people today I think, the changes I mentioned have generally been a good thing, ie they've reduced harm and helped people live happier, freer lives.

firedragon said:

Is there a thing called absolute morality?...

Click to expand...

I think absolute morality is:

As you would like people to do to you, do exactly so to them.
Luke 6:31

Basically, that means, however you treat others, you also give right for them to treat you. For example, if you steal, you give others right to steal from you and you have nothing to defend yourself. This is why I think objective morality is in, what are the rights of people. Everyone has the same rights, because no human is really higher than other.

firedragon said:

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

Click to expand...

This is a complex topic that deserves a complex answer; but I should be clear that though I'm an atheist, I'm not speaking for atheism (as there are many moral realists that are atheists, and I'm about to argue against it).

I'm a moral noncognitivist. I don't think there are moral propositions (that moral statements have truth values). I don't think that makes any sense because I use Correspondence Theory of truth. For a statement to be propositional (to have a truth value), it has to be able to correspond in some way to reality. I don't think we cognize anything if we attempt to find content in moral statements that corresponds to reality, because at the end of the day, the content of moral statements are "ought" statements.

I don't know what it means to say that an ought corresponds to reality, and I don't think anybody else really does either. Moral statements seem to behave more like preferences to me. Consider the following statements:

1) Mushrooms are the best pizza topping.
2) Erin thinks mushrooms are the best pizza topping.
3) One ought not to punch babies.
4) Erin thinks one ought not to punch babies.

Which of these statements are propositional, and why?

I think we will easily all agree that (1) is not propositional: there's no truth content to a preference statement, right? Nothing about "being the best" corresponds to reality if "being the best" is just a vague preferential attitude.

However, I think I can convince folks that (2) is propositional. (2) has a truth value because the statement is really just saying that its content (Erin) has a particular property (she likes mushrooms on pizza), and this is either true or false in reality. This corresponds to reality.

So, (3) is a typical moral statement, so moral realists would say that (3) is propositional. But I don't see it: what about (3) corresponds to reality? If you ask me, (3) looks like it behaves an awful lot like (1) does. The content doesn't seem to produce a cognitive picture in my mind of a correspondence: what does it mean for an ought to exist in mind-external reality?

Moving on to (4), I think I can again convince folks that we have a proposition again. Much like with (2), here it's really just being said that "Erin has a particular property," and that property is "having the belief that one shouldn't punch babies."

So Erin does have a moral belief, but said moral belief isn't propositional (even if a proposition can be made about it); it's not absolute. It's not exactly a preference, but it behaves like a preference philosophically.

I think the onus is on moral realists to either demonstrate a better theory of truth than Correspondence Theory, and/or to demonstrate how an "ought" translates to an "is" in a cognitive way.

Moving on to another point: even if we can't form naked moral propositions (if my non-cognitivism is correct), we can still form objective propositions with moral properties using hypothetical imperatives (if/then statements). For instance, this is a proposition with a truth value: "If I value people not being hungry, then I should help feed the homeless." People in reality can have the property of being hungry, and I can have the property of valuing their wellbeing. If that is the case, then it follows that I should help.

The reason these hypothetical imperatives never get us to naked moral propositions or to moral realism is because we will never be able to explain the "if" portion: it's true that "if Erin values preventing suffering, then Erin should not punch babies," but why ought Erin value preventing suffering? There will never be an answer to that (at least until the moral realists make their case).

So, I think that doxastic voluntarism is false when it comes to values (we do not consciously choose them, I can't just will myself to have different values than I do; and I didn't choose my values consciously in the first place. It has been some combination of nature and nurture that gave me my values). We just happen to value the things that we value, and don't value the things that we don't. We build our moral beliefs on these values using hypothetical imperatives. I value life, so I don't cause death. I value altruism, so I don't behave maliciously selfishly. I can't just will myself to change these values, so all these old canards about "well if moral realism is false, then people would just behave like animalistic hedonists" is false.

I think this is what everybody does, even moral realists, who are simply wrong in their beliefs that moral realism is cognitive.

Edit: On a re-read, I wanted to be more clear by what I mean by a "naked moral proposition." That would be a supposed moral statement that is propositional without needing a hypothetical imperative to be propositional.

firedragon said:

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.

Click to expand...

So, it appears your OP is based on the article by Hamza Andreas Tzortzis titled Know God, Know Good: God & Objective Morality.
(For others who want to read the full essay: Know God, Know Good: God & Objective Morality)

The main gist of the essay seems to be that we human beings perceive there to be Objective Morals, therefore there are Objective Morals, and if the Morals are Objective and not derived from human beings themselves, Objective Morals can only come from God, hence God exists.

Lots of problems with the logic in this essay.

firedragon said:

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.

Click to expand...

In trying to find the Darwin quote to get full context I found the essay in which your quote was used. The author asks whether there are arguments for Objective Morals other than God and your quote was in the argument for why Biology cannot be a source for Objective Morals. The failure of the argument presented is that those who argue that our morals are derived from selected behavioral traits are not arguing in support of the existence of objective morals, but rather that morals are subjective.

The author summarizes his argument against Biology as the source for morals thus:

"Maintaining that biology provides a basis for morality removes any meaning we attach to morals. Morals become meaningless, as they are just a result of non-rational and non-conscious biological changes. However, the fact that morality comes from Divine commands gives morals meaning, because being moral would be responding to these commands. In other words, we have moral duties, and these are owed to God. You cannot owe anything to a collection of molecules."

That morals and ethics are the result of both instinctual behavior and socialization does not mean they loose value or are meaningless. They have value because a sufficient number of the population accept their value and compliance with the accepted moral and ethical codes and values are enforced by the group, through legal punishments, shaming, shunning etc.

It is not what we owe to a collection of molecules, it is what we owe to the members of our group.

Edit: I suppose that one could argue that the instinctual pre-wired behavior component that can be attributed to expressions of moral and ethical behavior can be considered objective. We have an instinctual aversion to killing babies, this would be an objective source component of the behavior, a pre-wired directive. However, combined with the tribal instinct to identify and support those in ones group and reject/defend from those outside group, we can see how one can subjectively justify killing babies outside of ones group or tribe. Overall, the complex package of instinct and learned/socialized behavior make morals and ethics essentially subjective on the whole.

firedragon said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but I've had various people describe my own beliefs to me in various ways, so can you be a little more specific on how you would define objective or absolute morality?

In the meantime...I believe morals are subjective. I've bathed on beaches where women were topless, and I've travelled in countries where that would gain you a gaol sentence (at best...lol). Whilst there are plenty of examples of commonly held morals (eg. killing is bad) I think it's worth understanding whether that commonality is what you would describe as 'absolute morals' or whether that would require them to be immutably established (either by a third party, or perhaps hardwired by our biology?)

If you'd see them as immutably established, but you don't subscribe to the example in your OP that we would be like honey bees if born as honey bees, then doesn't that really only leave God/s as the source of an objective morality? As an atheist, that means I'm looking at either hardwired morality based on our biology...and that simply doesn't seem to hold up...or I'm looking at some level of subjectivity in morality. And that does entirely seem to line up with human history and current belief.

MikeF said:

"Maintaining that biology provides a basis for morality removes any meaning we attach to morals. Morals become meaningless, as they are just a result of non-rational and non-conscious biological changes..."

Click to expand...

Thanks for doing that research!

morals are not, as this author asserts, 'a result of non-rational and non-conscious' conditions...humans may only be semi-rational, but they are also conscious (although there are subconscious, unconscious, and semi-conscious processes)...morals, like consciousness itself, may be an emergent property of conscious sentient beings...

Left Coast said:

That's a complex question but the general reason is because humans realized that the world was a better place for everyone to live in when we adopted said changes.

Click to expand...

Any research on this?

Left Coast said:

This depends on the foundation for a person's morality. Again, as I explained earlier, if you don't care about whether actions harm or hurt yourself or others, there is no "objective" reason why I can convince you that you should. It's just the case that the vast majority of us collectively do care about that, and so we mold society in ways we believe will accomplish those ends. So in my view, and the view of most people today I think, the changes I mentioned have generally been a good thing, ie they've reduced harm and helped people live happier, freer lives.

Click to expand...

Why do you think people care about others? How did people evolve to care about others? I mean, its against the theory of natural selection.

1213 said:

I think absolute morality is:

As you would like people to do to you, do exactly so to them.
Luke 6:31

Basically, that means, however you treat others, you also give right for them to treat you. For example, if you steal, you give others right to steal from you and you have nothing to defend yourself. This is why I think objective morality is in, what are the rights of people. Everyone has the same rights, because no human is really higher than other.

Click to expand...

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.

MikeF said:

So, it appears your OP is based on the article by Hamza Andreas Tzortzis titled Know God, Know Good: God & Objective Morality.
(For others who want to read the full essay: Know God, Know Good: God & Objective Morality)

The main gist of the essay seems to be that we human beings perceive there to be Objective Morals, therefore there are Objective Morals, and if the Morals are Objective and not derived from human beings themselves, Objective Morals can only come from God, hence God exists.

Lots of problems with the logic in this essay.

Click to expand...

Tzortzis probably used Darwin and Shohorab. Same sources.

MikeF said:

In trying to find the Darwin quote to get full context I found the essay in which your quote was used.

Click to expand...

Darwins "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." You can get the whole context.

MikeF said:

Edit: I suppose that one could argue that the instinctual pre-wired behavior component that can be attributed to expressions of moral and ethical behavior can be considered objective. We have an instinctual aversion to killing babies, this would be an objective source component of the behavior, a pre-wired directive. However, combined with the tribal instinct to identify and support those in ones group and reject/defend from those outside group, we can see how one can subjectively justify killing babies outside of ones group or tribe. Overall, the complex package of instinct and learned/socialized behavior make morals and ethics essentially subjective on the whole.

Click to expand...

I agree that this true. Observable phenomena is true. But why is it?

firedragon said:

Any research on this?

Click to expand...

The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker comes to mind.

Why do you think people care about others? How did people evolve to care about others? I mean, its against the theory of natural selection.

Click to expand...

Actually it isn't. Some species survive better when they cooperate. You can see examples of this, as well as formation of social groups, in other mammals especially.

firedragon said:

Why do you think people care about others? How did people evolve to care about others? I mean, its against the theory of natural selection.

Click to expand...

Because for humans evolving there has been an advantage to cooperate and establish trust in the tribe. Those who couldn't be trusted or wouldn't cooperate would be thrown out of the group, and this is a liability for early humans.

Evolution isn't about individuals, it is about groups of organisms and the traits they have that offer an advantage to survival.

lewisnotmiller said:

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but I've had various people describe my own beliefs to me in various ways, so can you be a little more specific on how you would define objective or absolute morality?

In the meantime...I believe morals are subjective. I've bathed on beaches where women were topless, and I've travelled in countries where that would gain you a gaol sentence (at best...lol). Whilst there are plenty of examples of commonly held morals (eg. killing is bad) I think it's worth understanding whether that commonality is what you would describe as 'absolute morals' or whether that would require them to be immutably established (either by a third party, or perhaps hardwired by our biology?)

If you'd see them as immutably established, but you don't subscribe to the example in your OP that we would be like honey bees if born as honey bees, then doesn't that really only leave God/s as the source of an objective morality? As an atheist, that means I'm looking at either hardwired morality based on our biology...and that simply doesn't seem to hold up...or I'm looking at some level of subjectivity in morality. And that does entirely seem to line up with human history and current belief.

Click to expand...

I will take a quote from John W Loftus because you asked for a definition of objective morality.

A great many of our moral rules are the same ones around the globe simply because we are all of the same human species. Thats the only objective morality we'd ever know, and it is an objective morality even if it isn't an ultimate, absolute, or unchanging one.

Objective morality in my understanding is moral absolutes that transcend human consensus, human reasoning and debate, relativism or biology.

Anyway, you explained that you believe morals are subjective. Yet also, you glanced upon possibilities of objective morality with something about killing. Thus do you say there is nothing called objective morality or do they both exist in some form or another?

Left Coast said:

The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker comes to mind.



Actually it isn't. Some species survive better when they cooperate. You can see examples of this, as well as formation of social groups, in other mammals especially.

Click to expand...

So you are saying that people have become good and cooperate in order to be selfish, to survive.

So what is the research that this book gives?

firedragon said:

So you are saying that people have become good and cooperate in order to be selfish, to survive.

Click to expand...

I personally don't think survival is selfishness. Self-interest is not selfishness. As a social species we are interdependent on each other for our mutual benefit.

So what is the research that this book gives?

Click to expand...

Way too long to summarize here; the book is several hundred pages. You're welcome to look it up, though.

Left Coast said:

I personally don't think survival is selfishness.

Click to expand...

I know that you dont think like that. I agree with you. I am not talking about what you or I think, I just said it is against natural selection of the darwinian theory.

Left Coast said:

Way too long to summarize here; the book is several hundred pages. You're welcome to look it up, though.

Click to expand...

Alright alright. No problem. The thing is, what you are trying to prove is that people are getting better (how ever you perceive better is) in moral values. Which means they are gathering some moral absolutes that are progressively universal. How does this prove that objective morality does not exist?

firedragon said:

I know that you dont think like that. I agree with you. I am not talking about what you or I think, I just said it is against natural selection of the darwinian theory.

Click to expand...

And I just said you're wrong about that. It's not against natural selection. Prosocial traits are selected for in some species because they aid in survival.

Alright alright. No problem. The thing is, what you are trying to prove is that people are getting better (how ever you perceive better is) in moral values. Which means they are gathering some moral absolutes that are progressively universal. How does this prove that objective morality does not exist?

Click to expand...

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.

firedragon said:

I will take a quote from John W Loftus because you asked for a definition of objective morality.

A great many of our moral rules are the same ones around the globe simply because we are all of the same human species. Thats the only objective morality we'd ever know, and it is an objective morality even if it isn't an ultimate, absolute, or unchanging one.

Objective morality in my understanding is moral absolutes that transcend human consensus, human reasoning and debate, relativism or biology.

Anyway, you explained that you believe morals are subjective. Yet also, you glanced upon possibilities of objective morality with something about killing. Thus do you say there is nothing called objective morality or do they both exist in some form or another?

Click to expand...

It's more around the definition of objective morality, in relation to whether I think it exists. So...whilst I understand my beliefs, the terms become difficult, because they are not universally used in the same manner.

Let me try and answer clearly though;
Your quote from Loftus indicates objective morality as being anything which is generally held to be true around the globe. Doesn't have to be ultimate, absolute or unchanging.

Using that definition, I would say there are some broad objectively moral concepts. Killing is probably the simplest, as is rape. However, I can also point to a lot of instances where we adjust a simple moral imperative, and allow for exceptions.

On death, some countries have the death penalty. Some have assisted euthanasia. Some have late term abortions. Historically, some societies allowed for unwanted children to be placed out in the elements (whether due to gender, birth defects, etc).
Many countries fight war. 'Justified' or not, that's an allowance of killing. Some allow police to use deadly force against dangerous fugitives.

Rape is probably less explicitly justified. However, it was occasionally used as a punishment in some Native American societies (usually for crimes such as adultery). Greek soldiers in classical times were 'allowed' to rape, and it was broadly considered acceptable, and within the rules of warfare. Marital rape wasn't considered a crime in Western countries until relatively recently. None of this is to mention less direct acceptance of sexual violence...I'm only dealing with explicit societal acceptance.

So, I could say killing and rape are objectively wrong, in a moral sense. But there'd still be a lot of discussions and arguments about context, were I able to throw this discussion open to all histories people. And on more trivial examples (eg. my topless beach example) there is no real concensus.

On the balance, I tend to reject objective morality for these reasons. However, I would agree that some things are commonly held by humans. You might consider those objective morals I guess.