Morality or Obedience?

[JimL]

Actually it does. It renders your entire argument invalid and incomprehensible since only you know what you mean by whatever term you decide to redefine.

Well if you're unable to comprehend the argument Sparko, and you'd rather quibble over the use of terms, then that's your problem, and you're not really interested..

[element771]

Well if you're unable to comprehend the argument Sparko, and you'd rather quibble over the use of terms, then that's your problem, and you're not really interested..

Can an objective truth be wrong?

[JimL]

Can an objective truth be wrong?

Truth can't be false. Law of non-contradiction.

[element771]

Truth can't be false. Law of non-contradiction.

I agree.

That which is in best interests of humanity is ultimately objective, not subjective, that's why. We could all be in agreement, and still be wrong. Of course being reasoned beings that isn't likely to be the case.

So if the best interest of humanity is objectively true, they it could not be wrong due to the law of non-contradiction.

[Starlight]

Happiness is one thing we value - but it is not the only thing. Some people will forego happiness for life or liberty. I think you're struggling to make an absolute claim because there isn't one.

How would you feel about these absolute claims:

A. Scientific research, by means of numerous polls, studies, anthropological research, psychological research etc, can uncover the values that are almost universally shared by humans (due to their nature as 1. conscious beings, 2. who have a bodies with common biological needs, 3. which have evolved in a herd environment) and can increasingly rigorously categorize and quantify those shared values.

B. Furthermore scientific research can increasingly well assess how a given action or political policy results in positive or negative effects relating to those shared values.

C. Thus, there exists objective truth about what the shared valued of humanity are. As humans through history we have always had pretty good intuitions about what these shared values are through talking to others in our society and seeing what everyone values, but increasingly we can get closer and closer to nailing it down precisely.

D. Thus, the statement that "an action is moral or immoral to the extent that it preserves/increases or destroys/decrease those things that humanity values", is in fact a universally applicable morality. It is objectively measurable, and increasingly so due to modern scientific tools.


I would also note that the question of "to what extent is measuring a person's 'happiness' a good heuristic tool for measuring the extent to which the world is preserving or destroying the things a person values?" is currently a topic of active scientific research. One might reasonably expect that if someone is seeing the things they value be destroyed, they will be unhappy, and if they are seeing they things they value be preserved and increased they will be happy. Current findings suggest happiness is actually a really good measure of this (and that furthermore various different ways of measuring happiness are in sufficient agreement that it's simplest just to survey people as to how happy they are because they know the answer and can tell you - subjecting them to brain scans etc adds little). So JimL's view that you increase happiness is functionally the same as a morality defined above in D.

[carpedm9587]

Sure, you can rationally defend the moral obligations you perceive.

You cannot rationally show that they are objective or that I should hold them.

It wuld be very odd for me to claim that I can show a relative/subjective moral framework to be objective...

So can I assume that your objection to relative/subjective moral frameworks is the same as Seer's: it's not absolute/objective?

[carpedm9587]

I don't think so. All things tend to effect happiness. Having life and liberty obviously effects ones happiness. Without them one can't pursue it.

So happiness is your ultimate metric for morality? If it makes us happy - it's moral?

[seer]

In the same way, obeying the will of God is a subjective goal. Why not have everyone obeying my will? Or Trump's will? Or Satan's will? Or the Communist Party's will?

Well God's law would be objective to humankind, universal and binding. Therefore there are objectively right moral answers.

You are accusing others of exactly what your own system is vulnerable to. And you are once again confusing descriptive moral relativism (the observation that not everyone agrees about moral views) with meta-ethical moral relativism (the claim that there is no true moral view).

But in your world, and in Jim's, there are no universal moral truths, and never will be.

Both you and Jim are asserting that there is a true view, which not everyone knows or agrees with.

In my view God is the source for universal ethics, no such source exists for the atheist.

[Starlight]

Well God's law would be objective to humankind

You're not using the word 'objective' correctly here. If your sentence even has any meaning, I don't understand what it is that you're trying to say.

Why God's law and not Satan's? Both are outside humankind. Why not pick an animal and have them make the decisions as to what's moral? They're outside of humankind too.

But in your world, and in Jim's, there are no universal moral truths, and never will be.

Utterly false. Seems like you aren't even reading my posts.

[element771]

It wuld be very odd for me to claim that I can show a relative/subjective moral framework to be objective...

So can I assume that your objection to relative/subjective moral frameworks is the same as Seer's: it's not absolute/objective?

Sorry I think I may have misunderstood what you were saying.

Yes I would agree with Seer broadly speaking.

I believe that...

If theism is true, then morality is objective. It is true independent the evolutionary processes that shaped our perception of morality.

If atheism is true, then our morals are a product of evolution that allowed us survival benefit but have no objective meaning. They could have been different just as we could have evolved 6 fingers.

[seer]

You're not using the word 'objective' correctly here. If your sentence even has any meaning, I don't understand what it is that you're trying to say.

Why God's law and not Satan's? Both are outside humankind. Why not pick an animal and have them make the decisions as to what's moral? They're outside of humankind too.

I'm using objective in relationship to humankind, or the universe as a whole. God's law would exist no matter what our subjective opinion about that law was. And that law would be universal, and binding.

Utterly false. Seems like you aren't even reading my posts.

Yes you are just making stuff up. Name one universal moral truth.

[JimL]

I agree.



So if the best interest of humanity is objectively true, they it could not be wrong due to the law of non-contradiction.

If there is a moral system to be found which best serves the interests of human society, then it would obviously be true that there is a best moral system.

[carpedm9587]

Sorry I think I may have misunderstood what you were saying.

Yes I would agree with Seer broadly speaking.

I believe that...

If theism is true, then morality is objective. It is true independent the evolutionary processes that shaped our perception of morality.

Even if theism is true, Element, it is a subjective act to elect to subjugate one's moral authority to another. The atheist can do that to the "social norm." The athiest could elect to do that to any of the religious moral codes. The theist is simply electing to take the moral code they believe is demanded by their god, which is documented in books written by men, and subjugating their moral will to it. Indeed, they subjugate their will to one particular interpetation of it. Even if they all agree that they should align with the Christian god, they still come away with moral codes that are aligned in some respects, and different in others. Indeed, it does not seem to me that anyone can make the claim that there is any more or less variation in theistic moral frameworks than atheistic ones.

If atheism is true, then our morals are a product of evolution that allowed us survival benefit but have no objective meaning. They could have been different just as we could have evolved 6 fingers.

Whether atheism or theism is true, our moral frameworks are grounded in what we value. The theist value god - and sees subjugating their moral will to this god as a "good," so they do. The atheist does not believe such a god exists, so our moral frameworks are rooted in the other things we value: life, liberty, happiness, health. Ultimately, they are rooted in whatever the individual values. Fortunately, as Starlight and I were discussing, there is a lot of similarity in what we value because we share a great deal in common. But there are also differences, just as there are with theists.

And yes - moral codes can and do change over time.

[JimL]

So happiness is your ultimate metric for morality? If it makes us happy - it's moral?

I think so, but I would say rather that happiness is human societies ultimite metric for morality, not my own, or any individuals metric. Like I said previously, I don't think that morality makes any sense if you live alone on an island.

[Starlight]

I'm using objective in relationship to humankind, or the universe as a whole.

In the interests of clarity then, can I ask that you stop using/misusing the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' and say what you really instead? If you mean "a source of morality outside the universe" then say that as opposed to saying "an objective source of morality" because that is not what the word "objective" means and you are confusing other people.

God's law would exist no matter what our subjective opinion about that law was.

So would Satan's law. So would the horse we had chosen to select laws by its random running toward whichever post it like. Lots of things exist outside my opinion.

And that law would be universal, and binding.

Can you clarify what you mean by these words? In what ways it is universal? Is Satan's law also universal? In what way do you mean 'binding'? That God has a big stick he will hit people with at some point (hell)? Although it doesn't seem to be at all binding in the sense that sinners skate free cos Jesus so God's law is apparently never enforced on us.

Name one universal moral truth.

I have named several already in this thread.

See this post and this post for answers to that question.