Morality or Obedience?

[Sparko]

There are objective effects Sparko, and the effects of human behavior are real effects, and thus are objective, even if the moral laws being followed are not objective existing realities themselves.

It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who doesn't even know what "objective" means and insists on making up his own definition that is incorrect.

[seer]

You are the reason we created gods seer.

Someone said, if God didn't exist we would have to create him...

[carpedm9587]

That is exactly the point. You value X, so you ought to do Y. Valuing X is not an "is" statement (i.e. it is not a fact).

For example...

1. I value killing people for money.

2. Therefore, as a rational being, I ought to kill people for money because it furthers my values.

I think you're missing the point about valuing. Valuing is not about actions - it's about basic characteristics of life: liberty, life, knowledge, happiness, trust, prosperity, etc. We also don't value all things equally - which will translate to a hierarchy when our moral codes come into conflict.

What we value is a fact - it is simply a subjective fact, and it can be influenced.

[carpedm9587]

But that says that morals are just whatever you value and are therefore not objective.

Now you've got it. Morals are rooted in what we value - and they are subjective to the individual. Of course, everyone else's moral code is objective to me...because it is not rooted in MY reasoning and opinion.

[carpedm9587]

I guess we just have to disagree.

I don't think the position is a result of religions around the world thinking it should be, it is a a result of logical argument.

My moral code is also the result of a logical reasoning process - rooted in the things I value.

Presumably, your moral code is also based in logical reasoning, and it is also rooted in what you value: your god.

I don't want you to think that I am saying that atheists cannot have a moral framework or that they cannot be moral individuals. But atheists determining their own moral framework is, by definition, subjective and not objective. Something objective cannot be framed by individuals or society...something objective is brute fact.

I have never said that my moral code is anything other than subjective, Element. Indeed, I believe yours is as well. We both root our moral code in the same things: things we value. We just value (in part) different things.

[carpedm9587]

Someone said, if God didn't exist we would have to create him...

Or...we have created our gods in our own image and likeness...

[Starlight]

Satan is not a universal omnipotent being. God is.

In your view does that have something relevant to do with morality? Can you explain your reasoning further?

Not all humanity values the same things, or if they do, going about fulfilling those desires are often quite different. Greed, lust, dominance, war are just as much a part of this picture as anything else.

Humans do many different things and sometimes act immorally. How does that disprove anything I said?

Second, why is preserving humanity in the first pace a moral good?

In Carpedm's view, because it is a value held by the vast majority of humans.

men largely have understood the Golden Rule for centuries

Right, so you acknowledge that basically all humanity has always had a basic understanding of the shared principles of secular morality? Even those who didn't believe in any divine lawgiver still understood the golden rule. Secular morality for the win, then.

the problem is and has been and will be getting men to follow it.

!!! Okay, it seems to me you've massively changed topics. You've gone from claiming there isn't agreement about what is moral etc and that God is somehow required in order for a moral framework to even exist etc. And now you've totally switched topics to the assertion that the problem is actually all about getting people to choose to be moral!

I don't see that positing God helps you with that topic much... Given we're all 'sinners', none of us can achieve salvation through living morally according to the beliefs of most/all Christian posters in this forum, so that provides pretty much zero incentive to live morally. If you believe in God you might want to live morally to 'please him' even if that doesn't actually translate into any direct reward for you, but that's little different to me trying to live in a way my human father would approve of so he is pleased with me and proud of me.

[Starlight]

It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who doesn't even know what "objective" means and insists on making up his own definition that is incorrect.

Yes, this is what I have been trying to tell Seer, and trying to explain to him that he should stop using these terms because he is using them incorrectly so is failing to communicate as a result.

[Starlight]

Essentially what I have been trying to convey for a while now. Nicely done.

IIRC, when I did my own philosophy major many years ago, I wrote an essay on exactly that topic. Lecturer loved it and graded it A+.

[JimL]

It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who doesn't even know what "objective" means and insists on making up his own definition that is incorrect.

No it isn't Sparko, I believe that you know exactly what I mean even if i'm not using the term exactly the way it is usually understood, at least by you. If human behavior, or a system of morality, followed by its adherents, leads to certain definite positive social effects, then those effects are not subjective, are they? If those effects, the resulting social order say, are not subjective, then what would you call them? I call them objective. But regardless of my use of the term, it shouldn't be that difficult for you to follow the gist of my argument. The cause of those effects, the cause of the social order, are not the moral imperatives themselves, the morals themselves do not exist, the cause of the resulting social effects is the actual behavior of those adhering to those moral imperatives.

[Starlight]

But atheists determining their own moral framework is, by definition, subjective and not objective. Something objective cannot be framed by individuals or society...something objective is brute fact.

I see it as being a bit like measuring things in meters versus yards.

Distance objectively exists. It is a real thing. It is measurable.

When we measure it, we might select from among many different ways of measuring it and different units of measurement, for pragmatic reasons, depending on what suits our purposes. We might measure it in meters, or yards, or light-years, or miles, or kilometers. We might measure it with a ruler or with a laser or with a telescope or a map or approximately estimate the distance with our eyes or steps etc.

I see largely the same thing as applying to morality. The actions people take objectively exist. They are a real thing. They are measurable.

When we come to measure them or talk about them, we select from among many different ways of measuring them and talking about them and different types of measurement. We might talk about their consequences and the resultant happiness they produced, or the physical injuries they caused, etc. Or we might talk about the intentions that the person doing the action had, and look at whether in their mind they intended to harm or benefit others etc.

Just as every distance in the world is objectively real, and could in principle be estimated or measured in different units of measurement if there were a scientist present with the right tools for the job, so too every action in the world is objectively real, and could in principle be measured in various ways if there were a scientist present with the right tools for the job.

Of the various ways of measuring actions, I personally find that for pragmatic reasons, people in general tend to pay the most attention to 3 ways of measuring things about the actions:
1. Positive/negative interpersonal intentions - did the person taking the action, in their own mind, and according to their own understanding of the world at the time, intend to harm others or benefit others or neither? (Altruism of intentions)
2. List of the consequences with focus on things recognized as harms/benefits - measuring the various consequences of the action, and applying our society's / humanity's shared understanding of the various things that are 'harmful' or 'beneficial', what consequences did the action have (e.g. did it hurt or help someone's physical or mental health, did it damage or improve property owned by someone, did it decrease or increase someone's freedom etc)? (List of good/bad consequences)
3. Overall assessment of the action's consequences (or anticipated consequences) on the happiness of all - did (or would) the action result in a decrease or increase of combined happiness across all beings? (Utilitarian happiness maximization)

There's often so much overlap between those three that measuring any one of them is often as good as measuring all three, just like if you've measured something in yards you don't need to measure it in meters. Actions are objective real and in principle are measurable in any way we would care to measure them, and all three of those measuring systems are ways of measuring any given action in history. And it's pretty much those three measuring systems that atheists around the word attach the label 'morality' to. Some people prefer to focus more on one of them and less on the others (e.g. I prefer the first, Carpedm the second, and JimL the third), but I consider that to be a bit like saying that I prefer to use meters and JimL prefers to use yards as our units of measurement of distance. In each case it's a personal preference and we acknowledge that the other person is themselves measuring something real and true.

To summarize, actions like distance, are objectively real. Different people have slightly different pragmatics reasons for using slightly different types of measurement in how they choose to measure distance and actions. But those measurements themselves have a truth value - the distance has a true value in meters, the action was performed with intentions by the person taking the action etc. People making slightly different selections off measurement method doesn't affect the fact that there are objectively real things to measure and that the measurement methods all in principle have truth values.

[carpedm9587]

No it isn't Sparko, I believe that you know exactly what I mean even if i'm not using the term exactly the way it is usually understood, at least by you. If human behavior, or a system of morality, followed by its adherents, leads to certain definite positive social effects, then those effects are not subjective, are they? If those effects, the resulting social order say, are not subjective, then what would you call them? I call them objective. But regardless of my use of the term, it shouldn't be that difficult for you to follow the gist of my argument. The cause of those effects, the cause of the social order, are not the moral imperatives themselves, the morals themselves do not exist, the cause of the resulting social effects is the actual behavior of those adhering to those moral imperatives.

I have to agree with Sparko, Jim; you are using the term "objective" in a nonstandard way. Something that is objectively true is true without recourse to opinion or preference. 2+2=4 is objectively true. It doesn't matter what anyone feels or thinks about it - it's true. The basic laws of logic are objectively true. I realize that you are trying to say that something that is "in the best interests of" a society or humanity is "objectively true," but the fact is that "in the best interests" is itself a subjective measurement. You can't measure "in the best interests" until you have defined the metric against which you are measuring it. Is it a monetary metric? A health metric? A liberty/freedom metric? You want to say that there is some "out there - objectively good for society - metric, but you cannot define it."

I think you're trying to hang on to an objective (and universal? absolute? eternal?) moral framework - but I don't think you're being successful at it. It might be time to let it go.

[JimL]

I have to agree with Sparko, Jim; you are using the term "objective" in a nonstandard way. Something that is objectively true is true without recourse to opinion or preference. 2+2=4 is objectively true. It doesn't matter what anyone feels or thinks about it - it's true. The basic laws of logic are objectively true. I realize that you are trying to say that something that is "in the best interests of" a society or humanity is "objectively true," but the fact is that "in the best interests" is itself a subjective measurement. You can't measure "in the best interests" until you have defined the metric against which you are measuring it. Is it a monetary metric? A health metric? A liberty/freedom metric? You want to say that there is some "out there - objectively good for society - metric, but you cannot define it."

I think you're trying to hang on to an objective (and universal? absolute? eternal?) moral framework - but I don't think you're being successful at it. It might be time to let it go.

Well, that is not my point with Sparko, the only point I was trying to make with him, is that if there is an overall best moral system, I happen to think there probably is, but if there is a best overall moral system to go by
then it would be objectively true no matter if everyone agreed or not. Objective truth has nothing to do with whether we all agree or not.

[Starlight]

I realize that you are trying to say that something that is "in the best interests of" a society or humanity is "objectively true," but the fact is that "in the best interests" is itself a subjective measurement. You can't measure "in the best interests" until you have defined the metric against which you are measuring it. Is it a monetary metric? A health metric? A liberty/freedom metric? You want to say that there is some "out there - objectively good for society - metric, but you cannot define it."

In this context, I would be interested in seeing your response to this post in which I argued that there are, actually objective truths about human values that can be increasingly illuminated by science, and that therefore in principle there exists a discoverable objective reality about such truths that we can progress toward. In that context, I don't have an issue with JimL saying "the best interests of" can be impartially/scientifically ("objectively") measured.

At the end of the day this might just be a matter of terminology about arguing over what the words 'subjective' and 'objective' mean. But if you think about scientifically-discoverable truths about sociology, I think it's wrong to call them 'subjective' in general. If a scientist goes out and measures and quantifies human behavior and human values and human interactions or whatever else, those are IMO objective truths about humanity. An individual human's preferences might be subjective, or whimsical or whatever, but once you start measuring whole human populations and doing repeatable scientific studies of behavior / beliefs / values etc, the results are not subjective results, they are objective truths that the people studied did indeed have those behaviors/beliefs/values. Science can increasingly progress toward objectively true statements about what humanity as a whole values (and due to everyone's status as 1. conscious beings, 2. biological beings, and 3. evolution in a herd species there is strong inter-person agreement of values), and can increasingly progress toward objectively true statements about how a particular action impacts the world with regard to furtherance/hindrance of those values (e.g. measuring if the impacts of a political policy is good or bad according to the values), and thus there are objective truths out there about these moral issues which we can progress toward discovering more of. I am personally happier to label that "objective morality" than I am "subjective morality", though I can see why someone might like the label "intersubjective morality".

[element771]

What we value is a fact - it is simply a subjective fact, and it can be influenced.

Then we agree. What you value is subjective.