Morality

[F1fan]

Was hitlers society moral? They fall into that category.

To them under their legal authority, yes. To the rest of the world, no. This evolution of morals is why it is subjective.

But thus far in this discussion no one has mentioned the biological and evolutionary traits that lead to the basic moral framework of any animal. Bees and sharks were mentioned, and if they have behaviors that kill off other mates then their evolved traits can allow for that behavior and not affect their numbers. The same applies to human evolution. We evolved to be tribal and select those with our favored traits to be good to, and shun outsiders. This is why slavery was moral to the Christians of the American South, or exterminating the Jews was acceptable and a duty to the Catholics and Lutherans of Germany.

 

[epronovost]

Morality, in my opinion, is neither objective or subjective. Morality is just a set of axioms, principles and rules designed to achieve an objective: that of living together in harmony and prosperity. The variety of ethics and moral codes is due to the fact nobody knows exactly how to achieve this lofty objective perfectly under any circumstances so we had to try out different things, use reason, etc.

 

[Link]

Ethics can be justified even from hedonistic foundations to be objective and explained. The difference in Islam, is the light of value in a human is from God because God is the light of all light. But an Atheist who values human beings, can justify objective morality from the premise humans have value.

If you believe in value, even hedonism wise where pleasure is the measure of it, you can justify objective morals and ethics although hedonism has complications in that ethics often.

Human rights also can be justified within any moral framework.

In Islam, however, we believe in God to be the best guide towards morals and ethics, and best able to prove them, and that ultimately guidance from God is the guidance. As for command theory, it's debunked.

The reason why God's guidance is the guidance is not that reason can't understand morals and they don't have proofs, it's that humans tend to follow conjecture and desires when not following God's provided insights into ethics, morals, and guidance.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

I personally don't believe there is objective morality. It's all subjective. Those who argue that morality IS objective always go for extreme examples, usually asking if it could ever be moral to sexually abuse a child. But it seems to me that if morality really is objective, then you wouldn't need to resort to extremes in order to demonstrate it. For example, is it moral to ground a child for a year if they steal a chocolate bar? What is the morally appropriate punishment, objectively speaking, for that transgression? Moral objectivists pretty much never have a response to that, and when they do, they almost never agree. So much for absolute morality.

But another point...

The difference between subjective and objective morality is where the guidelines come from. If we decide on the rules for ourselves, then it is subjective. But if the rules are set by some outside source, then they are objective.

But if we say that God is the source of mortality, I have to wonder, how did God determine what is moral and what is immoral? 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? After all, God's not getting it from some outside source. Sure, we have to follow the moral guidelines he lays down, but that doesn't make it objectively moral. It's just subjective morality one step removed from ourselves. It's little different to a child saying that their morality is objective because it was laid down by their parents.

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.

 

[Link]

You should study human rights, ethics, philosophy of it under an Atheist professor Tiberius. They will show you how it can be objective (morality) and will even argue as to why divine command theory is not needed (and they are right in that perspective).

 

[SigurdReginson]

I don't think there is some monolithic "atheist epistemology" for morality. Each person's epistemological toolset is unique to that individual - hense, his/her subjective understanding of morality.

Speaking for myself, one of the main goals in realizing moral behavior for myself is to "reduce suffering." It's simplistic and vague, but that allows me to work with more epistemological tools and switch them out for ones that work better at realizing that goal as I find and test them.

As for objective morality, what would that even look like?... If morality were an objective reality, it seems to me that it would be observable in nature, and it would be expressed in all forms of life rather than being limited to humans. But instead, we see the concept of "morality" being divided into even more varieties from cultural group to cultural group rather than having a single, objective understanding. I don't see how such a thing as "objective morality" could exist, honestly... But I am open to the idea. Maybe you could explain to me what your idea of objective morality would look like?

 

[Link]

The difference between subjective and objective morality is where the guidelines come from. If we decide on the rules for ourselves, then it is subjective. But if the rules are set by some outside source, then they are objective..

This is not true, an outside source can show us a moral teaching and guide us to it, but we have to see it ourselves and understand it and know why it's right or wrong, for it to be objective. Because there is many problems with this outside thing without inner realization.

First, how do we know it's right? If we blindly follow, we can't know. And even if we know x book is from God, how do we know x teaching is the proper translation, what God meant, etc. and how do we distinguish from situation it belongs with situation it doesn't belong, and if it's a parable or not, etc...

You can never know something objectively morally from mere words, as words can be misunderstood. Even ahadith from Mohammad (s), they can be misunderstood. Words are not enough. It takes understanding and also holistic approach.

And what you said about differences is irrelevant. Differences don't mean no one is right about x or y stuff. And multiculturalism can work with objective moral frameworks, if we come together ready to leave bad teachings and adapt good ones and not one culture tries to enforce everything on another but all learn from one another.

 

[sayak83]

Was hitlers society moral? They fall into that category.

Did the people Hitler oppressed not part of the interconnected society? I specifically used the word interconnected for that reason. A group is interconnected when the actions of one impacts the others within this group.

 

[Tiberius]

This is not true, an outside source can show us a moral teaching and guide us to it, but we have to see it ourselves and understand it and know why it's right or wrong, for it to be objective. Because there is many problems with this outside thing without inner realization.

First, how do we know it's right? If we blindly follow, we can't know. And even if we know x book is from God, how do we know x teaching is the proper translation, what God meant, etc. and how do we distinguish from situation it belongs with situation it doesn't belong, and if it's a parable or not, etc...

You can never know something objectively morally from mere words, as words can be misunderstood. Even ahadith from Mohammad (s), they can be misunderstood. Words are not enough. It takes understanding and also holistic approach.

And what you said about differences is irrelevant. Differences don't mean no one is right about x or y stuff. And multiculturalism can work with objective moral frameworks, if we come together ready to leave bad teachings and adapt good ones and not one culture tries to enforce everything on another but all learn from one another.

I completely disagree.

We do not need to understand something for that thing to be objectively true. The fact that we can not accelerate a rocket to faster than the speed of light is an objectively true fact, even if we do not understand why we can't do it.

And the differences DO matter when it comes to God, because if we define subjective morality as being an opinion about what is morally correct, then any proclamation about morality that comes from God must be subjective, since it is God's opinion. Or are you suggesting that what God says is moral comes to him from some higher source?

 

[Link]

I completely disagree.

We do not need to understand something for that thing to be objectively true.

You are right, but for us to apply it, and for it be morally good for us to do, we have to understand it, is what I'm saying.

 

[Link]

And the differences DO matter when it comes to God, because if we define subjective morality as being an opinion about what is morally correct, then any proclamation about morality that comes from God must be subjective, since it is God's opinion.

You phrase something one way, and I can phrase another, and then it's about what we believe, the following is from Misbahal Shariah:

Following the example of another is nothing more than what has been bestowed upon the spirit at its origin, when the light of time was mixed with that of eternity. Following a model, however, does not consist of adopting the marks of outward actions and claiming descent from the awliya' of the faith from among the wise and the Imams. As Allah said,


يَوْمَ نَدْعُو كُلَّ أُنَاسٍ بِإِمَامِهِمْ

The day when We will call every people by their Imam. (17:71)

that is, whoever follows someone with effacement is pure. And elsewhere,


فَإِذَا نُفِخَ فِي الصُّورِ فَلَا أَنسَابَ بَيْنَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ وَلَا يَتَسَاءلُونَ

So when the trumpet is blown, there will be no ties of relationship between them on that day, nor shall they ask of each other. (23:101)

The Commander of the Faithful said, 'Souls are a drafted army. Those who know each other are intimate, and those who do not know each other differ from each other.' Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyah was asked who had taught him good manners, and he replied, 'My Lord taught me manners in myself. Whatever I find to be good in people of intelligence and insight I follow and use; whatever I find ugly in the ignorant I avoid and forsake forever. That has brought me to the path of knowledge. There is no sounder way for the astute believer than to follow the example of others, because it is the clearest path and soundest goal.' And Allah said to Muhammad, the greatest of His creation,


أُوْلَـئِكَ الَّذِينَ هَدَى اللّهُ فَبِهُدَاهُمُ اقْتَدِهْ

These are they whom Allah guided, therefore follow their guidance. (6:90)

Elsewhere He said,


ثُمَّ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ أَنِ اتَّبِعْ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ

Then We revealed to you: Follow the faith of Abraham, the upright one. (16:123)

If the faith of Allah had had a path straighter than following a model, He would have recommended it to His prophets and His supporters.

The Holy Prophet said, 'There is a light in the heart which is illuminated only by following the truth and intending towards the right path. It is a part of the light of the prophets which has been entrusted in the hearts of the believers.'

 

[Tiberius]

You are right, but for us to apply it, and for it be morally good for us to do, we have to understand it, is what I'm saying.

No we do not.

Let's say there actually was some objective morality, and it was objectively morally correct to not kill. It would be morally good for us to not kill, even if we did not understand why we shouldn't kill.

 

[Link]

Empathy is nothing but belief and seeing truthfully values in others. This is what keeps a lot of people from killing others. However, if we thinking not killing others is moral yet we see Yemen and people are being slaughtered there and we know 20 million people are on the brink of starvation and are not empathetic towards them, this is where God's wrath takes place over a human, we are in paradox at that point. If we don't kill not to go to jail, it's not morally good. If we let our governments oppress others and cause killings around the world, then apathy towards all that oppression is same as killing a human.

Oppressors, their supporters and those who watch idly are all partners, and they are heartless.

 

[F1fan]

This is not true, an outside source can show us a moral teaching and guide us to it, but we have to see it ourselves and understand it and know why it's right or wrong, for it to be objective. Because there is many problems with this outside thing without inner realization.

Yet we humans being fallible mortals may be mistaken that there's an outside source that shows us and guides us morally, yes? What we can think is guided morality may just be our own desires, yes?

 

[firedragon]

Oh I’m an idiot I’m afraid, so such terminology flies over my pea brained head.
I just know that we, as a “moral Christian society” excused spousal rape for literal years, claiming it was not immoral. So why would that be evidence for absolute morality? Clearly we had to correct ourselves over time. I believe in ethics, morality is merely justification for your own sins.

I wil approach you from a Christian perspective since you are a Christian.

1. You seem to believe that your morality is against this older society where spousal rape was quite alright. So why is that immoral to you?
2. What would Jesus or God the father have approved of? The morality of that society or yours?

 

[F1fan]

Empathy is nothing but belief and seeing truthfully values in others. This is what keeps a lot of people from killing others. However, if we thinking not killing others is moral yet we see Yemen and people are being slaughtered there and we know 20 million people are on the brink of starvation and are not empathetic towards them, this is where God's wrath takes place over a human, we are in paradox at that point. If we don't kill not to go to jail, it's not morally good. If we let our governments oppress others and cause killings around the world, then apathy towards all that oppression is same as killing a human.

Oppressors, their supporters and those who watch idly are all partners, and they are heartless.

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

 

[WonderingWorrier]

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.

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.

Let's say there actually was some objective morality, and it was objectively morally correct to not kill. It would be morally good for us to not kill, even if we did not understand why we shouldn't kill.

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.

 

[idea]

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.

For religious groups, ethics are subjective, and only serve the group.

For STEM groups... well, here is an example.

The NSPE code of ethics:
Code of Ethics | National Society of Professional Engineers

In short (more details in link)
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:

1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

Note that #1 pertains to all of humanity, no matter what country, nationality, gender, it applies to everyone. When it comes to laws of nature, ethics and morals are defined by things like "is this carcinogenic?" or "can this building withstand the climate it will be built in?". The nice things about the laws of nature, they apply equally to everyone, no matter who you are or where you live. Ethical engineers protect everyone's welfare.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

For religious groups, ethics are subjective, and only serve the group.

For STEM groups... well, here is an example.

The NSPE code of ethics:
Code of Ethics | National Society of Professional Engineers

In short (more details in link)
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:

1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

Note that #1 pertains to all of humanity, no matter what country, nationality, gender, it applies to everyone. When it comes to laws of nature, ethics and morals are defined by things like "is this carcinogenic?" or "can this building withstand the climate it will be built in?". The nice things about the laws of nature, they apply equally to everyone, no matter who you are or where you live. Ethical engineers protect everyone's welfare.

The education of an engineer expands thought and capability.
Some engineers go into the direction of weapons while some engineers go into the direction of spacecrafts.
Its all adaption for expansion of life. Objective morality. Whether we are aware of it or not.

 

[SomeRandom]

I wil approach you from a Christian perspective since you are a Christian.

1. You seem to believe that your morality is against this older society where spousal rape was quite alright. So why is that immoral to you?
2. What would Jesus or God the father have approved of? The morality of that society or yours?

I’m not Christian. Sorry.
1. My morality is non existent. I believe in ethics. Ethics are much more in line with my core values. Do not hurt others. Show compassion and empathy.
2. Society has long claimed that Jesus and God almighty sanctioned their moral behaviour. Which included (but no limited to) rape, domestic violence, slavery as sanctioned by the literal Bible no less and other immoral acts.
So please tell me about objective morality again???