Oculus
J A F O
I see ignorance is your forte. Even the dissection eludes you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Morality is not subjective
- Thread starter JRMcC
- Start date
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
If they don't determine morality, then why does it tend to vary so widely among different cultures and even the same place over different periods of time? It used to be unthinkable and morally reprehensible that a woman be allowed to work, vote, or run anything, but now we think it unthinkable and morally intolerable to say a woman can't do those things.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Because the singular reason to consider that premise would be for religious reasons, which are frankly, absurd.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
I appreciate the response.
I've read a lot of Lewis. He's a little overrated, personally.
Would you have that same opinion if you transposed yourself into some of the stories of the Bible?
Would you find that your morals, which you assume derive their origin from what God wrote on your heart, agree or conflict with some of the directives that God gave to Noah or Moses? Would you feel justified and uplifted in helping to slaughter women and children in your pursuit of conquest over the holy land? Would you feel like you were blessed to smash babies upon the rocks? Would you enjoy the raping of young women for the purpose of making them your bride?
I think your argument here is good, it just doesn't go far enough.
There's no one on Mars, or your backyard, and that's the point. We cannot have morality unless we have the actions of people to observe. A Universe without people would, by definition, be non-moral. Objective morality necessitates a morality that would exist regardless of our existence, and that simply isn't. Even using your own argument, if the Universe was filled with Raccoons, there would be no morality, right? If you think that a highly advanced species of Raccoon that could develop language and and government would then be subject to moral codes, then you believe that morality is subjective.
It's the only basis for objective morality that there can be. What would be the basis of your objective morality if it's not god?
JRMcC
Active Member
How did you come to the conclusion that the existence of some kind of god is the only way morality could be objective?
Say we live in a godless universe where no one has ever come up with the idea of god (why would the necessarily? There's no such thing as god). I come up to you and say
"hey S_S_E, I don't think right and wrong is something we make up up. I think it is universally true, for example, torturing children is universally wrong. Morality is objective, not subjective." What do you think?"
You would be totally dumbfounded? My argument would be totally nonsensical?
JRMcC
Active Member
Nice response. You're so right that you don't even have to put forth arguments. You are a special one indeed.
JRMcC
Active Member
Again, the argument I've been making (though this argument alone doesn't make the theory) is that past behavior and attitude does not affect the truth. Your example doesn't affect moral truth any more than past beliefs about the solar system affect scientific truth.
JRMcC
Active Member
So I'm imagining that I'm devout Jew in Biblical times? I personally don't believe god gave moses much of anything.
Ok I think I get the hypothetical. I suppose I would be doing some of those bad things which you and I both know to be bad (partially thanks to passed down moral knowledge).
I think part of what you're saying is that when you just follow your intuition (as people in ancient times presumably did) you get a lot of bad behavior, which is a good point. There are other factors to consider. People have always treated morals as objective, I'm not sure I've ever met someone who really talks and acts as if morality is subjective. People in your scenario probably thought they were doing the right thing in most cases, but people have (at least in general) tried to strive for goodness. And this of course presumes there is objective goodness to be attained.
Little scientific knowledge/progress can be made in one lifetime, in the same is true of moral progress. Over time we have passed down knowledge regarding morality, and we are now closer to a good moral understanding than we once were.
Believe it or not I think the people in your scenario are more moral than Chimpanzees who have been known to torture each other for fun. So I think there's a continuum here.
I just think that morality would be irrelevant if there were no intelligent creatures. Time would also be irrelevant but we don't doubt that time is real.
Lol. So I guess we're flipping the question back and fourth. I don't get how you came to that conclusion but I would just appeal to intuition as well as a certain kind of logic. For example I've interpreted a lot of the arguments against me in the following way: "James, people in the past used to think all sorts of BAD things are GOOD. Isn't morality subjective?" You can see that they're framing things in a way that a moral objectivist would. We all do that almost all the time. It's not "I/we think slavery is wrong" it's "slavery is wrong". Do you know where I'm coming from at least? God doesn't have to factor into this at all.
In essence, virtue ethics focuses on character, or on people aspiring for excellence in some particular ideal, rather than on labeling behaviors as "right" or "wrong." Put another way, the focus is on what sort of person you want to be. For example, a college student would do well to uphold a virtue of studiousness because this virtue is important to being a successful student (and presumably, a student wants to be a successful one). There are cultural expectations for personal character that play into the dynamic, often informed by social roles. It'd be expected that a counselor, for instance, embody the virtue of selflessness, as a good counselor must listen to the problems of their client without their own ego getting in the way. In both of these examples, there's no declaration that it is "morally wrong" if a student is not studious, or a counselor is not selfless. It just means they are probably bad at what they do.
It seems to me that, in simple terms, different humans understand reality differently because... well... they are different from each other and their environments are non-homogenous too. But I'm not sure this is what you were getting at?
I'm not sure I take your meaning or where you are going with this, but technically the sciences (yes, plural) are a practice (like riding a bike)? The common parlance of "Science (as if it is somehow singular... lol) is a body of knowledge" is... well... precisely that. Not quite what the sciences are... disciplines or practices.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
But, with things such as the solar system, many cultures prior to the age of science independently determined the sun is the center of the solar system and that the planets revolve around it. With morality, how can it be determined as to whether or not something is true without any objective measurements and no universal agreements?
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
If God isn't factoring into this discussion then it's a different ballgame, so just forget all that other stuff.
I don't think we KNOW that those things are bad - we simply agree that they are. You and I share a similar morality because of a whole slew of factors, both biological and social. The fact that we recognize that our moral standard is different than those of the past, and will be different in the future, is evidence itself that morality is subjective, isn't it?
Precisely.
Time is irrelevant, really. We use it for measuring things and to help us put our existence into perspective - but it's good for very little else. Our understanding of time is also quite limited and subject to our vantage point of the Cosmos and our specific set of variables. There's not a Universal time, for example. A day on Earth has no equal anywhere else in the Cosmos, so far as we know, meaning that time as we measure it is good only for this one little ball of dust and means nothing elsewhere. There is no "Objective" Time.
I'm not sure how you're referring to Objective Morality then. Is it just this thing to be discovered, like some loft version of morality that we are always striving towards?
If so, then you've done a wonderful job of defining subjective morality, a morality that's taken generations to hone before eventually become pretty globally accepted... That differs greatly from the claim of an objective moral code laid out before we were created, like the laws of nature.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
I would say..hey, that idea reflects a lot of different religious views, especially abrahamic ones, yet doesn't in any way mirror reality.
Look, even if every single human agreed with your particular moral set(of which there are many), that could, at best, provide the first stages of a case for that particular moral set being universally accepted by humans...which is still a far stretch from having it be some sort of universal law like gravity.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Again with your equating morals with genetics or worse a disease.
Now you further confuse things by mixing up "no morals" with immoral.
I have no problems putting everyone in a box when everyone belongs in that box.
I have already stated that I have not seen, heard, been presented, etc. anything to even imply that in the really real world there is someone who does not know about or even not have a sense of right/wrong.
So just like my position on god....
how is it a generalization when you are unable to present even a single real world exception?
I have no idea why you are so scared of boxes, but I do not share your fear.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
This.
Is my point. I do that is why I do not say every single person on this earth has morals and there is no person who does not.
Its a generalization. We cant proove it false (or true) unless we know one each person. Since we do not how can a generalized statement be true?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
So "god exists" is a generalized statement?
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
We have to have it come from somewhere, unless we want anarchy.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Saying "everyone has morals" (my words) is a generalized statement.
Where does god play in?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
If the statement "everyone has morals" is a generalization, then it follows that "god exists" is also a generalization seeing as I have seen just as much evidence for a moral-less person as I have for god.
Morals are the consequence of our nature. We are beings possessing something no other animal (so far as we know) does: the ability to communicate about that which is not immediate, tangible and real. We are also social animals, but unlike ants and bees, who cooperate extremely inflexibly in large numbers, we are restricted to flexible cooperation only in smaller groups, in which we can know something about all the others. UNLESS! And this is where that communication about the unreal comes in -- unless we can invent stories upon which we all agree. Nationalism, religion, money -- none of these things actually exist. We believe in money because everybody else believes in money. It has value for that reason and for no other reason. It is, in and of itself, not worth anything at all.
Our morality follows from the requirement for us to cooperate with others. In small groups (150 or fewer), we can do this because we know everybody, and moral behaviour is obvious -- it's what everyone expects of everyone else. In large groups -- towns, cities, countries, empires -- we do so only in the context of the stories we've come to share that define our group. What might be moral behaviour for an Aztec would be deeply puzzling to a Baha'i. What may be moral to a communist would be odd indeed to the committed capitalist.
Our morality follows from the requirement for us to cooperate with others. In small groups (150 or fewer), we can do this because we know everybody, and moral behaviour is obvious -- it's what everyone expects of everyone else. In large groups -- towns, cities, countries, empires -- we do so only in the context of the stories we've come to share that define our group. What might be moral behaviour for an Aztec would be deeply puzzling to a Baha'i. What may be moral to a communist would be odd indeed to the committed capitalist.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
When using the word "everyone" it makes the statement a generalization.
Yes, "god exists" is a generalization since (relating to "everyone") not everyone believes in god.
Since I haven't met every single person on the earth, I'd say personally majority of the people I came across with have morals. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would not have morals. and I know that I am not 100 percent correct. Unless their is a universal study that shows humans are inherited with morals, I don't see how I can logically and objectively say that no such person exists.
That's why a lot of people use "majority", "some", "a lot of us". or personally use pronouns rather than proper nouns to refer to a set of people with similar values even though they have different beliefs. It's to avoid generalization.
Once you say "everyone has morals."
Everyone believes in god
Everyone knows two and two is four.
Then, unless there is prove that all people do not just a percentage studied, where how can this be true?