Morality or Obedience?

[seer]

In my opinion morality consists of behaviors which in the end are beneficial to all of humanity, not just beneficial to some.

That is the point Jim, in your opinion. Which is no more correct or valid than an opposite opinion.

[carpedm9587]

That is the point Jim, in your opinion. Which is no more correct or valid than an opposite opinion.

Which is another way of saying, "subjective/relative moral frameworks aren't universal/absolute/eternal/objective."


(sorry - I just couldn't resist)

[JimL]

That is the point Jim, in your opinion. Which is no more correct or valid than an opposite opinion.

No, you misunderstand my point seer. What I'm suggesting is that whatever is in the best interests of human beings and human society is in their best interests whether they know it or not. Some may think that slavery is in the best interests of human society, some may disagree, but only one of those two perspectives is true even if we don't know which one it is.

[element771]

The slaves would be part of humanity and society as a whole. In my opinion morality consists of behaviors which in the end are beneficial to all of humanity, not just beneficial to some.

Ok....what if the slaves voluntarily let themselves be enslaved and tortured because they agreed that it was better for society as a whole. Now you have everyone in society that agrees that having slaves and torturing them serves the greater good. Does that make it moral?

[JimL]

Ok....what if the slaves voluntarily let themselves be enslaved and tortured because they agreed that it was better for society as a whole. Now you have everyone in society that agrees that having slaves and torturing them serves the greater good. Does that make it moral?

I don't think it's about subjective agreement, thats the point. Morality is those behaviors which are in the best interests of human individuals and human society as a whole whether they undersrtand it to be in their best interests or not. That's the sense in which I see morality as being objective.

[seer]

Which is another way of saying, "subjective/relative moral frameworks aren't universal/absolute/eternal/objective."


(sorry - I just couldn't resist)

I understand bro, it's like tourette syndrome...

[element771]

I don't think it's about subjective agreement, thats the point. Morality is those behaviors which are in the best interests of human individuals and human society as a whole whether they undersrtand it to be in their best interests or not. That's the sense in which I see morality as being objective.

I think that this is the problem. If morality had a grounded in something, you would not have to say I see. You would just say slavery is wrong...

Someone could come in and say...I see morality as something that benefits primarily myself.

How could you respond to that other than saying that we just see things differently?

[JimL]

I think that this is the problem. If morality had a grounded in something, you would not have to say I see. You would just say slavery is wrong...
Well I think that you would have
Someone could come in and say...I see morality as something that benefits primarily myself.

How could you respond to that other than saying that we just see things differently?

Well, I think that whether morality were objectively grounded or not wouldn't make any difference as far as we humans are concerned. Right and wrong, knowledge of what behaviors are in our collective best interests, would still remain subjective as far as we are concerned. If we knew what moral behaviors were in our best interests then it wouldn't matter if those behaviors were objectively grounded or not.

[carpedm9587]

I understand bro, it's like tourette syndrome...

Yes it is - but you can get yourself some good drugs for that...

[element771]

Well, I think that whether morality were objectively grounded or not wouldn't make any difference as far as we humans are concerned. Right and wrong, knowledge of what behaviors are in our collective best interests, would still remain subjective as far as we are concerned. If we knew what moral behaviors were in our best interests then it wouldn't matter if those behaviors were objectively grounded or not.

But how could you justify that you were right and someone else's morality was wrong?

[JimL]

But how could you justify that you were right and someone else's morality was wrong?

Well you couldn't, not in either case, because even if murder was objectively immoral, we wouldn't know it. In order to objectively justify who is right you would have to objectively know who is right. But we do have reason and can, I think, pretty much come to consensus on most things, like murder, slavery, rape, or theft etc. etc., that they are neither a good thing to happen to anyone, nor a good thing for society as a whole.

[element771]

Well you couldn't, not in either case, because even if murder was objectively immoral, we wouldn't know it. In order to objectively justify who is right you would have to objectively know who is right. But we do have reason and can, I think, pretty much come to consensus on most things, like murder, slavery, rape, or theft etc. etc., that they are neither a good thing to happen to anyone, nor a good thing for society as a whole.

How about this way...ma complex point of view are hard to get across on a forum or I may just might not being doing a good job here. If anyone else can do a better job, please step in.

Currently, we do know that murder is wrong. We cannot deny that murder is wrong, something inside of us just won't let us do it.

If God exists, then that intuition corresponds to some ultimate reality for lack of a better phrase.

This ultimate reality can never change because of the objectiveness of it.

If someone changes their mind in the theistic worldview, they cannot say that they are right...the can only say that they are ignoring an objective truth. That is because the truth of the statement "murder is wrong" is firmly rooted in a higher reality.


If God doesn't exist, then that intuition corresponds to nothing other than itself.

There is nothing that prevents this intuition from being different or changing. There is also nothing inconsistent with someone saying...since this feeling that murder is wrong is only a feeling, then I choose to change it.

If someone changes their minds in the atheistic worldview, no on can tell them they are wrong...the reason is that they can say it is arbitrary that we evolved this way so I am going to decide that I don't like that rule anymore. It may have served us in the past BUT we are no longer under that selective pressure in society so I am going to no longer adhere to that rule. And no one can say, that is wrong but there is no ultimately reality that grounds the rule. It is subjective by definition and is more like an opinion than a "rule".

[JimL]

How about this way...ma complex point of view are hard to get across on a forum or I may just might not being doing a good job here. If anyone else can do a better job, please step in.

Currently, we do know that murder is wrong. We cannot deny that murder is wrong, something inside of us just won't let us do it.

Currently, we do not know that murder is objectively wrong. We can, and some of us do, deny that murder is objectively wrong, even if subjectively we do believe that murder is wrong.

If God exists, then that intuition corresponds to some ultimate reality for lack of a better phrase.
This ultimate reality can never change because of the objectiveness of it.

If god exists, then we still can't know that our subjective feelings correspond to his ultimate reality.

If someone changes their mind in the theistic worldview, they cannot say that they are right...the can only say that they are ignoring an objective truth. That is because the truth of the statement "murder is wrong" is firmly rooted in a higher reality.

If a theist changes their mind concerning the objective nature of morality, then I would assume they changed their mind because they no longer believe the theistic world view of an objective morality. They wouldn't be ignoring an objective truth, they would just no longer believe it to be an objective truth.

If God doesn't exist, then that intuition corresponds to nothing other than itself.

I think, that if god doesn't exist, then our moral understanding would be based on reason, which it is in either case anyway.

There is nothing that prevents this intuition from being different or changing. There is also nothing inconsistent with someone saying...since this feeling that murder is wrong is only a feeling, then I choose to change it.

Well thats true enough, if morals are objective realities, then they are objective realities, but our feelings, intuition, or beliefs will always be subjective and so always subject to change. But that murder is wrong for example is not just a feeling, it's based on reason. Thus the adage "do unto others as you would have done unto you.

If someone changes their minds in the atheistic worldview, no on can tell them they are wrong...the reason is that they can say it is arbitrary that we evolved this way so I am going to decide that I don't like that rule anymore. It may have served us in the past BUT we are no longer under that selective pressure in society so I am going to no longer adhere to that rule. And no one can say, that is wrong but there is no ultimately reality that grounds the rule. It is subjective by definition and is more like an opinion than a "rule".

First, i'm assuming that the theistic moral perspective has changed over time. So, I think that argument is problematic on its face. Ultimately, in my opinion, the reason that we change the moral rules that we live by is due to reason. Reason, one might say, is the ultimate reality that grounds the moral rule.

[Tassman]

Right, that is what I was referring to.

OK!

I think the phrase "moral values based on societal norms leads to absurdity" needs additional phraseology to make it more understandable from the atheist perspective. How about this.... Moral values based on societal norms and the consistency of living this way as a society leads to absurdity.

The main argument that we theists make is that it is not that atheists cannot be moral people because they don't believe in God. That would be like saying someone who doesn't believe in air could not breathe. Indeed, some of the noblest and charitable people I know are atheists. That isn't what is being said.

We are saying that you cannot have objective morality without God. However, because we intuitively think objective morals are real...it is impossible to live like morals are subjective. For example, my atheist student agrees that without God there are no objective morals. However, he still lives his life like there are objective morals. I asked why he did this even if they were an illusion. After a bit of poking and prodding (I am a great mentor), he admitted that he just feels that the way to live. This is exactly the theists point. The idea that morals can be just subjective ideas is so absurd that people cannot actually live this way (except for people with mental health issues).

We ALL

So if we would extend the person out to society, it would also be ridiculous to have a subjective sense of morality. With no bedrock, societal norms can change based on popularity. We usually point out the progressive morals that have come about (end of slavery, etc) but there are also societal norms that are terrifying (WWII, etc). The societal norm for the Nazi's was that Jewish people weren't human. Without an objective standard, we cannot say that out societal norm is "better" than theirs because it is all subjective.

It is not just subjective; it is grounded in our naturally selected innate qualities as social animals. These qualities include empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking. This is the basis of sociality among primates.

But, unlike chimpanzees, humans are not locked into the primate sociability of our origins. Humans have the wherewithal to develop and change. Hence our development from purely tribal creatures to a society where tribalism is being displaced by a universal, multicultural society as encapsulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I still don't think that is a reasonable generalization. You could substitute a number of characteristics that aren't religious in nature and that would still apply. For example, population size comparisons, wealth of country, climate, homogeneous population, etc.

I am also hesitant to use generalizations as well. I am politically liberally minded but am a Christian. I have been painted with the brush before that assumes that I am a conservative (in this case it was used as a pejorative by another party).

This takes us back to the interpretation of the facts.

[seer]

Yes it is - but you can get yourself some good drugs for that...

Nice come back!