Morality? Right or wrong?

[rrobs]

go with whatever helps you sleep at night.
Just don't expect others to fall for it.

Why wouldn't everyone fall in line behind me? It wouldn't make any sense not to.

Just kidding.

 

[Milton Platt]

What do you mean by objective?

Fair question. That term gets stretched beyond comprehension sometimes.
I mean objective with regard to an agreed-upon standard....societies agree on what is moral or immoral, that is why there is variation around the globe in many instances. When I said not "objective in the ultimate sense", I mean that nothing is inherently moral or immoral, since both are value judgements. In other words, morality does not exist in and of itself, independently of human thought (sometimes more properly called absolute morality).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Show what?

From your post:

Perhaps. I wouldn't say I "believe in" objective morality.
Instead, I'ld rather say that moral evaluation is a proces of objective reasoning.

It's a deduction. "if you do x and y, then a and be are the demonstrable consequences".
And based on wether a and b are outcomes that are beneficial or detrimental to the overall well-being of sentient creatures, they get labeled moral or immoral (or amoral, if it doesn't matter).

Show that outcomes as beneficial or detrimental to the overall well-being of sentient creatures can be found using objective reasoning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Off course it is.
Physical and mental health / well-being are a thing.
Societal health is a thing.

These are things subject to entire scientific fields..; medical science, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, etc.
And those are evidence based fields of research.



Go find a person suffering from depression and tell him or his doctor that.

Please explain evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fair question. That term gets stretched beyond comprehension sometimes.
I mean objective with regard to an agreed-upon standard....societies agree on what is moral or immoral, that is why there is variation around the globe in many instances. When I said not "objective in the ultimate sense", I mean that nothing is inherently moral or immoral, since both are value judgements. In other words, morality does not exist in and of itself, independently of human thought (sometimes more properly called absolute morality).

I don't called that objective. It is a subjective value system agreed upon by several humans and thus inter-subjective as shared subjective.
It is not objective in any of these meanings of objective:
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
-having reality independent of the mind

In a sense you are apparently doing the same thing as some religious people do. They declare their subjective beliefs objective in effect. If we use your standard religion is objective as in regard to an agreed-upon standard....societies agree on what is moral or immoral. I.e. that the moral comes from a God, God is moral and is objective as agreed upon.
You are in effect conflating inter-subjective as shared subjective beliefs and objective.

 

[Brian2]

Uhu.
Then there's a problem with the argument, right?
A problem of evidence, in fact. Because premises are to be established with evidence.
Obviously for an argument to be working well, the premises need to be substantiated/evidenced in some way.

Yet different people accept and/or reject different things as evidence,,,,,,,,,,,,or the evidence points in a different direction etc

Right. This is why you should support your premises with rational, independently verifiable evidence.

So, exactly as I said: reason and evidence.

Does that mean that you are going to decide what is good evidence for everyone? I wish I could do that.

 

[Brian2]

It seems that the difference in that, is that I come at it from a starting position based on evidence, while theists come at it with a starting position in mere faith based beliefs.
I can honestly say that I consider my starting point to be superior, while the faith based starting point is inherently flawed.

I would say that an atheist starting point is also a faith based starting point.

Hmm. Well... I'ld say that if the "societal good reasoning test" is the standard against the "god propositions" must be measured, then why even bother with the "god propositions"... instead, we can (and should) just go with the reasoning test instead.

It would be great to all agree on what is good for society, even just amongst atheists. It would be great if we could all agree on whether there is a God and which God it is and how it wants us to behave.

Obviously. And they aren't even hard to find. Homophobia and slavery comes to mind (in relation to "biblical morality").

Interestingly the anthropologist JD Unwin, after studying cultures in the world and in history noted that societies whose sexually morals became slack collapsed soon afterwards and those with strict sexual morals were robust and strong.
Slavery is not condoned in the New Testament, it was just accepted as a part of life in those days. Christian influence over the years which has pushed for the abolition of slavery, with it's teachings about the value of each human life and about how we should treat our neighbour and who is our neighbour.
Needless to say many Christians have followed the ways of the world in this area as in many others.

This fails at the reasoning test imo.
Morality is about how you treat or deal with other people.
Selfish behaviour by definition is counter to that, as you will be sacrificing good treatment of others in favor of personal gain.

What I was saying is that to use "the good of society" as the ultimate test for morals is a subjective test which not all people would agree with,,,,,,,,,,,and of course not all people would agree with what is good for society anyway. Someone has to set the rules, right. With no ultimate authority to set the rules then subjectivity rules.

I disagree.
It's not like there are 100 definitions of what well-being is about.
It deals with health in all its forms: physical health, mental health, societal health,..
I don't think these things are a matter of "opinion".

Probably most would agree that these things are good things.

I never said that a reasoned morality will always come up with the same perfect answers.
At best, I'ld say that it would come up with far better answers, in general, as opposed to a superimposed and unquestionable morality dictated by a perceived authority.

I suppose a religion superimposing their morals on everyone is not the best outcome even if that religion sees it's standards as best for society. And anyone imposing their values on everyone would be the same even if the one imposing the values claims that they have been arrived at with evidence and reason.
We do have a diverse society with varying values and Governments have to walk tight ropes at times to lead the way and demand certain standards and allow freedom also. In a diverse society I guess a what is good for society and a do what you like without harming others approach might be the way to go, but there are always struggles about what is good for society and what is harming others and about people wanting freedoms that others see as causing harm. Interesting, but subjective societies we live in.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please explain evidence.

evidence
/ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/

noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

From your post:


Show that outcomes as beneficial or detrimental to the overall well-being of sentient creatures can be found using objective reasoning.

I'll give an example.

Action taken: walking out with a baseball bat and smashing random people' face in.

Consequences:
- physical pain/death for those people, as shown by medical science
- psychological shock for bystanders, potentially resulting in mental trauma which impacts their daily life in terms of bad sleep, loss in productivity, loss of focus, increase of stress, all of which is detrimental to their own mental health as well as to their contribution to the economy / society, etc. In fact it comes with a cost for society which needs to invest in care to get them back on track. As shown by medical science as well (psychology / psychiatry)

Additionally, if such actions are so frequent that they even become common then this will make certain types of people immune to the sight of violence, which lowers to threshhold for them to engage in it themselves as violence becomes increasingly seen as "normal", which makes previous problems rise exponentially. As again shown through psychology and psychiatry.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yet different people accept and/or reject different things as evidence,,,,,,,,,,,,or the evidence points in a different direction etc

A lot of people don't understand the concept of evidence.
A lot of people also reject evidence based not on the nature of the evidence, but as a defense mechanism to protect their beliefs.

Does that mean that you are going to decide what is good evidence for everyone? I wish I could do that.

Not me. Reason.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

evidence
/ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/

noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Off course it is.
Physical and mental health / well-being are a thing.
Societal health is a thing.

These are things subject to entire scientific fields..; medical science, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, etc.
And those are evidence based fields of research.

So give truth or validity that you have positive well-being. Remember you then have to explain truth and validity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would say that an atheist starting point is also a faith based starting point.

That makes no sense, if you know that atheism is simply the lack of faith concerning theistic claims.

It would be great to all agree on what is good for society, even just amongst atheists. It would be great if we could all agree on whether there is a God and which God it is and how it wants us to behave.

As history (and the present day also) has shown, it most certainly would not be great if we would all agree on a god belief. Go look at all the theocracies today and in history. Life wasn't exactly "great" then.

This is why would should let reason and evidence guide us, instead of our emotions and faith based beliefs.

Interestingly the anthropologist JD Unwin, after studying cultures in the world and in history noted that societies whose sexually morals became slack collapsed soon afterwards and those with strict sexual morals were robust and strong.

Even more interestingly, homosexuality wasn't at all what he was talking about. His case was about monogamy and stability. Homosexuality can be just as monogamous and stable as any heterosexual couple.

Slavery is not condoned in the New Testament

It's literally allowed and regulated and condoned in the OT. And the NT doesn't contradict or revoke it at all.
Meaning that the bible indeed condones it, allows it, regulates it. And no point does it say don't do it. Not even a little bit.

Christian influence over the years which has pushed for the abolition of slavery, with it's teachings about the value of each human life and about how we should treat our neighbour and who is our neighbour.
Needless to say many Christians have followed the ways of the world in this area as in many others.

Yes, yes, after 2000 years of christianity, it was christianity that inspired abolition.
Nevermind the southern opposers who fought to keep slavery while defending their case with a bible.

What I was saying is that to use "the good of society" as the ultimate test for morals is a subjective test

I disagree, except perhaps in moral dilemma's while a decision MUST be made.
In all other cases, real consequences can be analysed into a conclusion using real data.
I'm not saying it is always an easy process. I'm not even saying it will always yield the right answer.
What I'm saying, is that it's the best way to go about it, with the least potential of making bad decisions.

which not all people would agree with,,,,,,,,,,,and of course not all people would agree with what is good for society anyway.

Numbers don't lie though.

Plenty of people disagree that it's good for society to invest massively in green energy and just take the economic setback that will be caused by a swift changing of gears in how we deal with energy.

But the numbers don't lie. In the long run, keeping the status quo will hit 10 times harder.

See, numbers and facts and big data have a tendency to disagree with our intuitions.

Someone has to set the rules, right. With no ultimate authority to set the rules then subjectivity rules.

The "ultimate authority" is reason and evidence. Not a "who".

I suppose a religion superimposing their morals on everyone is not the best outcome even if that religion sees it's standards as best for society

This is the point. It matters not what it assumes is best for society.
The question is, can they show how it is best for society? Can a valid case be made for it? Can that case be supported by reason and evidence?

THOSE are the question. The question is not "does this iron age god approve?"

And anyone imposing their values on everyone would be the same even if the one imposing the values claims that they have been arrived at with evidence and reason.

This is the point also. If they have been arrived at with reason and evidence, then you don't need to just "claim" that. Instead, you can show it, demonstrate it.

We do have a diverse society with varying values and Governments have to walk tight ropes at times to lead the way and demand certain standards and allow freedom also. In a diverse society I guess a what is good for society and a do what you like without harming others approach might be the way to go, but there are always struggles about what is good for society and what is harming others and about people wanting freedoms that others see as causing harm. Interesting, but subjective societies we live in.

Sure. I never said it's easy.

I'm only saying that making bare pronouncements and empty assertions about "absolute authorities" are not the answer. In fact, they are the problem.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'll give an example.

Action taken: walking out with a baseball bat and smashing random people' face in.

Consequences:
- physical pain/death for those people, as shown by medical science
- psychological shock for bystanders, potentially resulting in mental trauma which impacts their daily life in terms of bad sleep, loss in productivity, loss of focus, increase of stress, all of which is detrimental to their own mental health as well as to their contribution to the economy / society, etc. In fact it comes with a cost for society which needs to invest in care to get them back on track. As shown by medical science as well (psychology / psychiatry)

Additionally, if such actions are so frequent that they even become common then this will make certain types of people immune to the sight of violence, which lowers to threshhold for them to engage in it themselves as violence becomes increasingly seen as "normal", which makes previous problems rise exponentially. As again shown through psychology and psychiatry.

Then show that as objective and with truth and/or validity(evidence).
The key being back to objective reasoning and evidence.
In short, I accept your example as a case of "bad". But I want evidence and objective reasoning for it. Not that I feel it is bad as that is subjective.

 

[columbus]

evidence
/ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/

noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

One problem with this definition is that it doesn't take into account the huge variation in how strong or weak evidence can be, or the subjective nature of gauging the strength. Not that it's wrong, just inadequate for the kind of discussion we're having here.

Evidence that one person considers rock solid might be completely dismissed by another person. What evidence is "compelling" to a belief is very subjective thing.
Tom

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One problem with this definition is that it doesn't take into account the huge variation in how strong or weak evidence can be, or the subjective nature of gauging the strength. Not that it's wrong, just inadequate for the kind of discussion we're having here.

Evidence that one person considers rock solid might be completely dismissed by another person. What evidence is "compelling" to a belief is very subjective thing.
Tom

I don't believe in evidence when it comes to morality, but that is because I make a strong division between objective and subjective.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No need to pretend.
You went to great lengths to avoid talking about the people who were required to pierce their ears

Which ironically are the very people being talked about in the post you "replied" to.

no one is required to pierce their ears.

If an indentured servant (aka a slave in the israelite system) comes to the time he is to be set free, but loves his master so much he wishes to continue to serve him for the rest of his life, THEN he voluntarily will have his ear pierced to indicate this status.

 

[columbus]

I don't believe in evidence when it comes to morality, but that is because I make a strong division between objective and subjective.

Why not?
Why do you think evidence has no impact on rational reasoning concerning morality?

How do you make this strong distinction? I understand the strong distinction in the abstract world, like math. But here in the real world there's little or nothing that is entirely objective. Morality is entirely about the real world and therefore quite subjective.
Tom

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So give truth or validity that you have positive well-being. Remember you then have to explain truth and validity.

I have no clue what you are asking.

Sounds like you are asking me to "show" how being healthy is preferable to being sick?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't believe in evidence when it comes to morality, but that is because I make a strong division between objective and subjective.

I'm not buying that. Or you didn't think it through.

Let's have an example.
100 years ago, people didn't see anything wrong with burning fossil fuels to generate workable energy to power our machines, homes, etc.

Then evidence surfaced that showed how damaging that is to the global climate.

Global awareness of this is quickly rising, as a direct result for that evidence.
The moral evaluation of burning fossil fuels is shifting. And this, as a direct result of discovering new evidence. Evidence that informs us better about the consequences of our actions.

So really, without any evidence at all, it is impossible to form moral judgements in a lot of cases... because how are you going to assess the moral implications of something, if you are unaware of the consequences of actions? And how else then through evidence, are you going to figure out what the consequences of actions are?

 

[Brian2]

A lot of people don't understand the concept of evidence.
A lot of people also reject evidence based not on the nature of the evidence, but as a defense mechanism to protect their beliefs.

Yes I have noticed what looks like that even in academia.

Not me. Reason.

Because you seem to think that your basis for morality, social good and reason, are going to magically get everyone to agree with you about morality whereas I would say it would require force or coercion to bring consensus.

Interestingly in this discussion I actually do think that people have a basic knowledge of right and wrong which has been given to us whether we are atheist or theists or whatever, but I also see how easily this can be taken and turned into something else depending on our experiences, upbringing etc