Atheism And Moral Progress

[carpedm9587]

Right and that power is in the very definition of authority! Even your definition:the power to control or demand obedience from others.

The definition had three parts - see my previous responses.

What does moral authority have to do with anything? Does that state care about your personal moral peccadilloes? It still will have authority over you.

The state has "authority" over me, Seer, because I grant it that authority. I agree to live under the authority of the state as part of my social contract WITH the state. You remember, right? Government by the consent of the governed? If I did not want that authority over me, I would be moving elsewhere. If I wanted no government, I would be finding a deserted island somewhere.

No Carp, you moved the goal posts, "moral authority" is not the same thing as God imposing His moral law. You changed it because by the definitions of authority I was right and you were wrong - and you hate to admit that.

Sorry, Seer, but your mind-reading attempt is WAY off base, and not worthy of more response than this.

And your appeal to moral authority is just plain bunk anyway:

moral authority

: trustworthiness to make decisions that are right and good

How does that work in your world where there isn't an objective right or good?

Already answered - see my previous response.

[carpedm9587]

You're not presenting an argument. You're merely asserting that "morality IS about 'personal preference'". If you have an actual argument, I'd like to hear it.

I am observing how morality functions, Jim. Each of has values things to different depths. The term "morality" simply describes the process of sorting actions related to those things into "ought" and "ought not" categories. If we were living independently, that would be all there is to it. However, we live in society, and the social contract we strike up is to extend those things to those around us because that maximizes the probability that those things we value will gain protection from "the herd" if you will. Indeed, we gather with those who most moralize as we do for exactly that effect. There is no "objective" and "absolute" moral framework. I don't need to make an argument against these things because no one has ever made an argument FOR them that doesn't reduce to "morality can't be subjective, because then it wouldn't be objective."

As I said, to base morality on personal preference or choice is to make morality essentially a useless concept, since morality is about interpersonal conflict resolution and amelioration of the human predicament. To attempt to reach these goals suggests that a standard must be appealed to that transcends the immediate interests of any of the parties involved. To appeal only to the interests of the parties involved would mean a rejection of morality as an ajudication between conflicting interests in favor of a power struggle.

No. That is how morality has long been taught and believed to work, largely under the influence of religions. But that is not what happens nor is a universal/objective basis required. Because we are highly similar, we tend to value similarly. Simple reason takes us from what we value to behavioral rules. When we encounter someone who moralizes differently, we will inevitably attempt to sway them to our position. If they value as we do, that may be a fairly straightforward logical argument. If they do not, then we can hope to convince them to value differently and then we can make the logical argument. If neither of those things work (and sometimes they do not), then we either ignore (for minor issues), isolate/separate (for more serious issues) or outright contend (for the most serious issues).

As I said, when I think about what I ought to do morally, I'm not thinking about what I personally want or what is in my personal interest. I shift into another mode of thought. Hume discusses this in his Enquiry into the Principles of Morals where I shift from the "language of self-love" to another language in which I expect all my audience to concur with me. It's one in which I expect universal and objective validity. And I'm sure you're going to counter that "But it's still you who has to think that!" But that's just confusing the medium with the object of thought.

As I said, Jim, morality has been taught that way for many, many centuries. It's a hoax. If a person values "others" then they will moralize in a way to emphasize actions that value/support/enable others. If they do not, their morality will hinge on money, or whatever it is they value most. The vast majority of humanity recognizes the value of "other" and the interdependencies of a society, so most of us have moral frameworks that emphasize care for others as well as care for self.

What you're saying reduces morality to a matter of taste, over which there are no grounds for dispute or resolution. I like licorice, you don't. I like torturing kids for giggles. You don't. If it's all preference, there are no grounds for critique or resolution or amelioration between different preferences other than power, either between individuals or between societies.

Yeah - there's that "it can't be subjective because then it wouldn't be objective" argument again. As I said to Seer, that's not an argument. It's a restatement of the obvious: subjective things are not objective things.

The social moral norm might have shifted, but for you the ultimate moral arbiter remains the individual. I believe homosexuals should be stoned to death. I happen to be in the minority. Am I simply out of step, like still wearing a Nehru jacket?

You may well be, since most of society will reject that position. Further, this would fall into the "very serious" category since it threatens life which most of us value. As a consequence, if those of us who disagree with you cannot sway your position, we will definitely isolate/separate from you. If you attempt to act on that moral framework, we will likely use our collective power to arrest you, try you, and incarcerate you so that you cannot again act on that position and harm another person. That's basically how it works.

But like I said, I belong to many groups, often with conflicting moral codes, so often I am doing something, action a, that is both morally right and morally wrong.

You cannot be doing something that is both morally right and morally wrong to you, Jim. If you are in two groups with opposing moral frameworks, you will ultimately determine which one you find to be moral and reject the other. The group does not dictate your moral framework: it merely influences it to the degree you let it.

And my moral framework tells me that mine is superior and that I ought to destroy and subjugate the larger culture around me. The only justification the larger culture has for stopping me is that it is stronger than I am. Your system devolves into a Hobbsiean power struggle. It is amoral, not a moral system. Moral systems are subjunctive and one step removed and abstracted from self-interest.

This is how it has always been, Jim. If you are out of step with the larger community you coexist with, you will be ignored, shunned, or contended with, depending on the specific issue in question. If it comes to contention, then the one with the more power will will that struggle. That won't make them right and you wrong: you will still believe yourself to be on the side of moral right. It simply means you are being constrained from exercising that framework until/if you can convince others to view as you do. Look around - societies have always functioned thus.

And you have the law and the cops on your side for now. Just wait until I can buy enough of the cops and politicians and change the laws!

That is always a possibility. Should you be successful, then our society will go the way of the mafioso until that tide shifts again. I'm not all that worried about it. In the end, most of us moralize similarly, and hold to the same general moral principles.

Yes, just like the individual always decides whether or not 2+2=4. It doesn't follow from this trivial observation that maths are subjective.

Mathematical principles and moral principles have little in common, Jim. The former are absolute, the latter relative. The former are objectively real/true, the latter are subjective. If you want to compare moral codes with something they are most like, you should compare them to legal codes. These two things have much in common, and sometimes are closely related. And you will note that no one is upset if two countries have differing legal frameworks (as they commonly do). There is no need to appeal to some "universal, objectively real legal framework" to determine if one country or another "has it right," and yet we seem to function reasonably well as a collection of 200+ countries with independent legal frameworks.

Again, more assertions. If you ever come up with an actual argument, let me know. A society would be split on a moral question because it is undecided about the truth of the matter. It wouldn't be because the society is waiting to see how the polling numbers shake out. The underlying assumption is that there is some fact there to be discovered, at least in principle, even if we can never know it, not a matter of taste or preference, as in which ice cream flavor will be voted the best.

Interesting, Jim. How is what you are saying any less an assertion than what I am saying? Indeed, I am describing what is evident all around us every day. I have not heard a single argument from you that establishes that moral codes must be absolute/objective, or that such absolute/objectives actually exist and how one comes to know them.

Look, given you self-identification as "Christian," I'm going to describe what I think is your moral process. You value your god. You value this god you believe in above everything else. You also have come to believe that someone who values this god must follow the moral precepts this god has laid out. So you have chosen (subjectively) to align your moral framework to this god's framework. Where do you find this framework? I'm going to assume you use the passage of the bible to justify your moral positions. If you did not value this god, you would not have made those moral choices. You see this framework as "objective" because it's "out there" and not coming from within you - but it is you who values this god, and you who elects to align your moral framework, and you who determines which interpretation of the biblical passages you are going to align with. The entire exercise is subjective. If you have been born in the Middle East, there's a good chance you would be talking to me about "Allah's will." A little further east and you would likely be talking to me about Vishnu's moral precepts. It's not determined, of course. You could have been Christian in the Middle East, or Hindu here, or Muslim in India. BUt the odds are pretty strong you would be aligned with a different religion if you were born in a country that was predominantly of a different religion.

My moral framework is also strongly influenced by Christianity, because I was raised Christian. It is also influenced by family, personal experience, etc. It is not aligned with any particular group because I work through the issues individually and try not to let those influences dictate my positions. Of course, I cannot ever completely escape those influences.

[seer]

The definition had three parts - see my previous responses.

Yes power, right, and ability to enforce. All three apply to God or the state.

The state has "authority" over me, Seer, because I grant it that authority. I agree to live under the authority of the state as part of my social contract WITH the state. You remember, right? Government by the consent of the governed? If I did not want that authority over me, I would be moving elsewhere. If I wanted no government, I would be finding a deserted island somewhere.

You keep suggesting that consent needs to be a part of the definition of authority - that is decidedly not so.

[Tassman]

Even if one doesn't accept a deity, I think it's more complicated than that, if you mean just biological evolution. It would include cultural evolution and what reason, language and sociality would entail.

[Tassman]

Jim, we have been through this, God's law is grounded in His immutable character so it is far from arbitrary.

And this is where your argument always falls apart. Your moral law is based upon a non-existent entity.

[seer]

And this is where your argument always falls apart. Your moral law is based upon a non-existent entity.

And you know this how?

[carpedm9587]

Yes power, right, and ability to enforce. All three apply to God or the state.

But you keep forgetting that "right" thing. I am an autonomous sentient being. The state has "the right" because I grant it that right (remember - consent of the governed?). Your hypothetical god has been granted to no such "right" by me. I grant you power, because you are hypothesizing a being of near infinite power. But right? You have not shown this - only asserted it over and over again. I do not subscribe to your "monarch" model of universal governance - so how do you go about demonstrating that god has the "right?"

You keep suggesting that consent needs to be a part of the definition of authority - that is decidedly not so.

I suggest "consent" is part of "right to be governed," and you are suggesting that god has the "right" to govern my moral framework. You have not shown this - you have only shown power. Authority includes (as you note) both the right to make decisions and the power to enforce them. You lack the former.

Look, Seer, for all of your bluster about our governance and democracy and the founding fathers and your inalienable rights, your model of governance in religious matters is that of a monarchy. I do not subscribe to that model of governance for sentient beings. The right to govern is granted by the governed - it is not assumed by the governors. That is the very basis for "authority." You are correct that any agency with sufficient power can impose its will on others. If "power" is your measure of authority, I have granted multiple times that by this definition, god can be said to have "authority." However, in matters of morality, this renders the entire moral argument "might makes right." I do not subscribe to your limited definition of authority, nor do I subscribe to a "might makes right" argument of morality, and I do not subscribe to the monarchy model of governance, so your arguments (such as they are) are not going very far with me.

Not to mention that we are still in the realm of the hypothetical. You have yet to show this hypothetical being even exists - rendering "power" questionable and "trust" non-existent. You have stated that I "fall back" to this regularly, but it is a significant hole in your argumentation. You see, if the universe is indeed as godless as I believe it to be, granting moral authority to this being you hypothesize is actually granting moral authority to other people who have documented this non-existent being. It's no different than me saying, "I think I'll align my moral views to those of Seer" and ceding all moral agency to you. That is what I see you doing - only you are doing it with a small group of men dead some 1900-3500 years. I would never hand over my moral agency to another person.

[seer]

But you keep forgetting that "right" thing. I am an autonomous sentient being. The state has "the right" because I grant it that right (remember - consent of the governed?). Your hypothetical god has been granted to no such "right" by me. I grant you power, because you are hypothesizing a being of near infinite power. But right? You have not shown this - only asserted it over and over again. I do not subscribe to your "monarch" model of universal governance - so how do you go about demonstrating that god has the "right?"

It doesn't matter what you ascribe to Carp. If you did lived under an earthly monarchy or a state where you disagreed with the laws of the land, the monarch or the state still has a right to enforce its laws. Not only isn't your consent required neither is it a qualification for the definition of authority.

I suggest "consent" is part of "right to be governed," and you are suggesting that god has the "right" to govern my moral framework. You have not shown this - you have only shown power. Authority includes (as you note) both the right to make decisions and the power to enforce them. You lack the former.

Of course God has that right, even if you don't personally grant that, like the state or a monarchy He will exercise that regardless of your opinion.

Look, Seer, for all of your bluster about our governance and democracy and the founding fathers and your inalienable rights, your model of governance in religious matters is that of a monarchy. I do not subscribe to that model of governance for sentient beings. The right to govern is granted by the governed - it is not assumed by the governors. That is the very basis for "authority." You are correct that any agency with sufficient power can impose its will on others. If "power" is your measure of authority, I have granted multiple times that by this definition, god can be said to have "authority." However, in matters of morality, this renders the entire moral argument "might makes right." I do not subscribe to your limited definition of authority, nor do I subscribe to a "might makes right" argument of morality, and I do not subscribe to the monarchy model of governance, so your arguments (such as they are) are not going very far with me.

A representative republic is about the best we humans can do. But there is no democracy in Heaven, the universe is ultimately governed by a King. If that is correct, your consent, or lack of, is immaterial save for the eternal destination of your soul.

[carpedm9587]

It doesn't matter what you ascribe to Carp. If you did lived under an earthly monarchy or a state where you disagreed with the laws of the land, the monarch or the state still has a right to enforce its laws. Not only isn't your consent required neither is it a qualification for the definition of authority.

And that is where we differ. A monarch has no such "right." There is no difference between a monarch and a dictator; both rule out of power alone. They have the power to rule - but not the right. If I lived within a monarchy, I would be a member of the resistance - or I would be seeking to leave. I would be following the path of our founding fathers - and you (apparently) would be content to sit in your hovel and worship the king and his edicts. You are assuming "right," Seer. You have not made the case.

Of course God has that right, even if you don't personally grant that, like the state or a monarchy He will exercise that regardless of your opinion.

Asserted - not shown. I deny that your hypothetical god "has the right." You have yet to show your claim to be true.

A representative republic is about the best we humans can do. But there is no democracy in Heaven, the universe is ultimately governed by a King. If that is correct, your consent, or lack of, is immaterial save for the eternal destination of your soul.

Then I was correct - you subscribe to a monarchical view of religion that is power-driven. First, you cannot show this being even exists, so your argument has little/no connection to the real world. Second, I do not subscribe to a monarchical model of governance. All you are left with is power - so you are advocating for a "might makes right" moral framework. I don't subscribe to that moral framework either.

And I'll conclude with the following observation: if my worldview is wrong and there is a creator/supreme being, that being created me with the ability to moralize. It is unfathomable to me that a being that is "good" would ever punish a sentient being for doing what they, in their heart of hearts, knew to be the right thing to do. I follow my moral framework because, at my core, I am convinced that to do otherwise would be to perpetuate moral ills. If this creator being sees fit to punish me for doing so, then I will gladly walk into hell rather than do what I know in my core to be wrong just to appease someone or something else.

[seer]

And that is where we differ. A monarch has no such "right." There is no difference between a monarch and a dictator; both rule out of power alone. They have the power to rule - but not the right. If I lived within a monarchy, I would be a member of the resistance - or I would be seeking to leave. I would be following the path of our founding fathers - and you (apparently) would be content to sit in your hovel and worship the king and his edicts. You are assuming "right," Seer. You have not made the case.

Carp, you are not making sense. Exchange the monarch for the majority. Does the majority have the right to rule, even if a minority disagrees? So if the majority believes it has a right to to enforce its law and you disagree what make you right and them wrong. And I'm not assuming anything Carp. I'm just making the point that your consent or lack of has nothing to do with the definition of authority.

Asserted - not shown. I deny that your hypothetical god "has the right." You have yet to show your claim to be true.

So why does your opinion matter? What makes your opinion correct?

Then I was correct - you subscribe to a monarchical view of religion that is power-driven. First, you cannot show this being even exists, so your argument has little/no connection to the real world. Second, I do not subscribe to a monarchical model of governance. All you are left with is power - so you are advocating for a "might makes right" moral framework. I don't subscribe to that moral framework either.

Well of course all Christians are, ultimately, monarchists. And you keep saying might makes right like it is a bad thing in your relative world. But I don't ascribe to that view, I believe in a morally perfect Creator who is omniscience - who bases His moral law on His immutable character and the perfect knowledge of all behaviors and their consequences. And you offer what? Ethics based in fickle moral characters that are ignorant of long term consequences?

And I'll conclude with the following observation: if my worldview is wrong and there is a creator/supreme being, that being created me with the ability to moralize. It is unfathomable to me that a being that is "good" would ever punish a sentient being for doing what they, in their heart of hearts, knew to be the right thing to do. I follow my moral framework because, at my core, I am convinced that to do otherwise would be to perpetuate moral ills. If this creator being sees fit to punish me for doing so, then I will gladly walk into hell rather than do what I know in my core to be wrong just to appease someone or something else.

You mean like the Nazis who in their heart of hearts knew it was the right thing to exterminate Jews? Sincerity is no judge of rightness, especially in a morally relative world where no objective right or wrong exist.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, you are not making sense. Exchange the monarch for the majority. Does the majority have the right to rule, even if a minority disagrees?

ANY government has the right to rule when that right is conferred by those ruled. In America, we recognize that "the consent of the governed" does not mean we will always get our way. That's part of the social contract. Those who think like you have decided that the majority should rule, until they are in the minority, and then they want the minority to rule. In other words, they always want their way. In a representative government, we have representation. That doesn't mean we always get our way.

So if the majority believes it has a right to to enforce its law and you disagree what make you right and them wrong. And I'm not assuming anything Carp. I'm just making the point that your consent or lack of has nothing to do with the definition of authority.

I have acknowledged that - with respect to authority rooted solely in power. But the definition of authority is NOT rooted solely in power, as you yourself have acknowledged. And the fact that I don't always agree with the government I have consented to govern does not change the fact that I have consented. Unlike you - I don't withhold my consent just because I haven't gotten my own way. I don't threaten to take up arms against my fellow citizens because I have become part of the minority on any given subject.

So why does your opinion matter? What makes your opinion correct?

Funny - I was going to ask you the same question!

Well of course all Christians are, ultimately, monarchists. And you keep saying might makes right like it is a bad thing in your relative world.

I say it like it's a bad thing in my moral framework - which it is.

But I don't ascribe to that view, I believe in a morally perfect Creator who is omniscience - who bases His moral law on His immutable character and the perfect knowledge of all behaviors and their consequences. And you offer what? Ethics based in fickle moral characters that are ignorant of long term consequences?

I don't "offer" anything. I simply report what I observe all around me. And you don't "offer" anything except a great deal of unsubstantiated mythology.

You mean like the Nazis who in their heart of hearts knew it was the right thing to exterminate Jews?

Well...I was off by a few posts...but my prediction was generally correct...

Sincerity is no judge of rightness, especially in a morally relative world where no objective right or wrong exist.

No "absolute" or "objective" right or wrong exist, Seer. But we know that - because morality is subjective - and your objection is a return to "it can't be subjective because then it isn't objective," which I also predicted. And you still cannot see that this is a non-argument. How it is that you cannot see this is beyond me...but there it is...

[Jim B.]

I am observing how morality functions, Jim. Each of has values things to different depths. The term "morality" simply describes the process of sorting actions related to those things into "ought" and "ought not" categories. If we were living independently, that would be all there is to it. However, we live in society, and the social contract we strike up is to extend those things to those around us because that maximizes the probability that those things we value will gain protection from "the herd" if you will. Indeed, we gather with those who most moralize as we do for exactly that effect. There is no "objective" and "absolute" moral framework. I don't need to make an argument against these things because no one has ever made an argument FOR them that doesn't reduce to "morality can't be subjective, because then it wouldn't be objective."

That's not how morality functions. Sorting things into what one 'ought and 'ought not' do might be a necessary but definitely not a sufficient condition for morality, since that applies to prudence and everyday practicality as well. If you're saying that's how the word is used now, you're simply flat wrong. If you're a reformist and arguing that this is how we should use the word, you need to make the argument for why. But it seems like it's the former, and I have to say you're just not familiar with the field.

From the best I can tell, you seem to be arguing for some form of ethical egoism, where what makes something right or wrong is the individual's own valuing it. I, the individual person, am the nexus of moral valuation. Then you seem to be saying that because we as a species value so similarly that we can clustering to like-valuing communities, and use that majoritarian force to either persuade or coerce minority valuers into valuing as 'we' the majority do. (Are you, BTW, a follower of Ayn Rand? Just curious.)

No. That is how morality has long been taught and believed to work, largely under the influence of religions. But that is not what happens nor is a universal/objective basis required. Because we are highly similar, we tend to value similarly. Simple reason takes us from what we value to behavioral rules. When we encounter someone who moralizes differently, we will inevitably attempt to sway them to our position. If they value as we do, that may be a fairly straightforward logical argument. If they do not, then we can hope to convince them to value differently and then we can make the logical argument. If neither of those things work (and sometimes they do not), then we either ignore (for minor issues), isolate/separate (for more serious issues) or outright contend (for the most serious issues).

Whether the current conception of morality was developed under the influence of religion is immaterial, and to think otherwise would be to commit the genetic fallacy. And just for your information, again, most moral realists are atheists, and moral objectivism might not be what you think it is.

When you try to sway a 'dissident,' you say you use 'logical argument.' What kind of argument? Do you just appeal to that person's long-term self-interest? If not, that suggests that there are reasons that can be appealed to that lie beyond the interests of the person you're trying to persuade. How can that make sense? If I am the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong, why should I listen to you in the majority trying to persuade me? I may go along just out of fear as in Stalinist Russia.

What is it that changes a repressive regime where the majority was absolutely certain that they were in the right, to being less repressive? And where the dissidents were being 'persuaded' in reeducation centres? What happens in that process? Is it just a change of fashion? Or is it something like a discovery? If the US were to go back to chattel slavery, you really think that that would simply be a change in public opinion, albeit a major change, and not a regression, or if forcible Suttee were reintroduced into India?

As I said, Jim, morality has been taught that way for many, many centuries. It's a hoax. If a person values "others" then they will moralize in a way to emphasize actions that value/support/enable others. If they do not, their morality will hinge on money, or whatever it is they value most. The vast majority of humanity recognizes the value of "other" and the interdependencies of a society, so most of us have moral frameworks that emphasize care for others as well as care for self.

Again, who cares how many centuries it's been taught. Or if it was invented yesterday? Actually, my version is not the version that's been taught for centuries. The ancient version is the absolutist, apocalyptic, partriarchal version. Mine is actually quite new. Yours is probably older, from the 18th century. But who's counting? ;)

Why would anyone value others under your conception? Yours is an atomistic conception in which the self is the generative source of value and morality. As I said, morality is about conflict resolution and about sociality. Atomism and ethical egoism is the contrary. It's actually a misnomer; it's not an ethical theory at all but a psychological theory and not a very interesting one at that.

Yeah - there's that "it can't be subjective because then it wouldn't be objective" argument again. As I said to Seer, that's not an argument. It's a restatement of the obvious: subjective things are not objective things.

It can't be subjective because of the definition and function of morality. It's taste, and taste cannot function intersubjectively to resolve conflict or to fortify group solidarity. You've said as much yourself in this very post. Please tell me what morality is for if not for these things and how a purely subjecitive enterprise would go about accomplishing them.

You may well be, since most of society will reject that position. Further, this would fall into the "very serious" category since it threatens life which most of us value. As a consequence, if those of us who disagree with you cannot sway your position, we will definitely isolate/separate from you. If you attempt to act on that moral framework, we will likely use our collective power to arrest you, try you, and incarcerate you so that you cannot again act on that position and harm another person. That's basically how it works.

Begging the question again. "How it works" is what we're debating, remember? We "value life" not just because each individual's life is valuable to her. That's what you're suggesting by your egoistic atomism. If that were the sole rationale for valuing life, sacrificing one's life would be absurd, as would the whole idea of writing wills and life insurance. What you can't quite get, though, is that the law and the majority have to have something more meaningful than simply power and convention to legitimize themselves; otherwise the whole notions of civil disobedience and moral reform would be meaningless and right and wrong would be matters of convention and power.

This is how it has always been, Jim. If you are out of step with the larger community you coexist with, you will be ignored, shunned, or contended with, depending on the specific issue in question. If it comes to contention, then the one with the more power will will that struggle. That won't make them right and you wrong: you will still believe yourself to be on the side of moral right. It simply means you are being constrained from exercising that framework until/if you can convince others to view as you do. Look around - societies have always functioned thus.

For example, Wilberforce, an early abolitionist, was in an extremely tiny minority, less than a few hundred people against millions. What was he trying to convince the majority of? What was his argument trying to do? It couldn't be in terms of self-interest, because nearly all of the well-to-do white people he was trying to persuade would be personally harmed by abolition. He had to argue that there was some fact of the matter about human nature, about the worth and dignity of persons that people needed to discover, a fact that heretofore had been undiscovered or ignored.

That is always a possibility. Should you be successful, then our society will go the way of the mafioso until that tide shifts again. I'm not all that worried about it. In the end, most of us moralize similarly, and hold to the same general moral principles.

It doesn't matter if it's likely to or not. That's not the point. And there can be "Mafia States." Look at Russia. The point is that if it's all a matter of power, it doesn't matter if things are going well for us now or not.

Mathematical principles and moral principles have little in common, Jim. The former are absolute, the latter relative. The former are objectively real/true, the latter are subjective. If you want to compare moral codes with something they are most like, you should compare them to legal codes. These two things have much in common, and sometimes are closely related. And you will note that no one is upset if two countries have differing legal frameworks (as they commonly do). There is no need to appeal to some "universal, objectively real legal framework" to determine if one country or another "has it right," and yet we seem to function reasonably well as a collection of 200+ countries with independent legal frameworks.

Begging the question again. Whether or not they're relative is what we're debating, remember? And you missed the point of the math analogy.

Interesting, Jim. How is what you are saying any less an assertion than what I am saying? Indeed, I am describing what is evident all around us every day. I have not heard a single argument from you that establishes that moral codes must be absolute/objective, or that such absolute/objectives actually exist and how one comes to know them.

I have been posting arguments. Do you know what an argument is? It doesn't have to be written out formally to be an argument. You're saying "I am describing what is evident all around us everyday." Now that's an argument! And please try to learn the difference between "absolute" and "objective".

Look, given you self-identification as "Christian," I'm going to describe what I think is your moral process. You value your god. You value this god you believe in above everything else. You also have come to believe that someone who values this god must follow the moral precepts this god has laid out. So you have chosen (subjectively) to align your moral framework to this god's framework. Where do you find this framework? I'm going to assume you use the passage of the bible to justify your moral positions. If you did not value this god, you would not have made those moral choices. You see this framework as "objective" because it's "out there" and not coming from within you - but it is you who values this god, and you who elects to align your moral framework, and you who determines which interpretation of the biblical passages you are going to align with. The entire exercise is subjective. If you have been born in the Middle East, there's a good chance you would be talking to me about "Allah's will." A little further east and you would likely be talking to me about Vishnu's moral precepts. It's not determined, of course. You could have been Christian in the Middle East, or Hindu here, or Muslim in India. BUt the odds are pretty strong you would be aligned with a different religion if you were born in a country that was predominantly of a different religion.

You don't have a clue what I think, so please try to refrain from describing what you think my moral process is. I'm not doing it with you. I'm going solely by the often incoherent things you've been actually writing, not assumptions I'm pulling out of my (bleep). But hey, nothin' personal!

[carpedm9587]

That's not how morality functions. Sorting things into what one 'ought and 'ought not' do might be a necessary but definitely not a sufficient condition for morality, since that applies to prudence and everyday practicality as well. If you're saying that's how the word is used now, you're simply flat wrong. If you're a reformist and arguing that this is how we should use the word, you need to make the argument for why. But it seems like it's the former, and I have to say you're just not familiar with the field.

The sorting you are describing, Jim, is indeed the same for issues we call "moral" (I ought not kill, I ought preserve life) and those that have to do with everyday life (I ought not walk too close to that cliff, I ought to start that diet). The difference lies largely on the degree to which we value the things the actions do and do not preserve/protect. As I noted, we tend to use "moral" only for actions related to those things we most value (life, liberty, etc.).

From the best I can tell, you seem to be arguing for some form of ethical egoism, where what makes something right or wrong is the individual's own valuing it.

What makes a thing most right or wrong to that individual is indeed rooted in what they value.

I, the individual person, am the nexus of moral valuation. Then you seem to be saying that because we as a species value so similarly that we can clustering to like-valuing communities, and use that majoritarian force to either persuade or coerce minority valuers into valuing as 'we' the majority do. (Are you, BTW, a follower of Ayn Rand? Just curious.)

You have the basic idea down pretty well, which I find amazing. Seer hasn't grasped it now for hundreds of posts. And no, I am not a "follower" of anyone in particular. Some of Rand's philosophy I find to be accurate - some not so much.

Whether the current conception of morality was developed under the influence of religion is immaterial, and to think otherwise would be to commit the genetic fallacy. And just for your information, again, most moral realists are atheists, and moral objectivism might not be what you think it is.

The genetic fallacy, Jim, would be if I said it were wrong BECAUSE it was developed by religions, which I did not say. Understanding how a thing came to be as it currently is is not the genetic fallacy.

When you try to sway a 'dissident,' you say you use 'logical argument.' What kind of argument? Do you just appeal to that person's long-term self-interest?

Most of our moral positions flow fairly logically from what we value. If we value similarly, but have differing moral positions, I find it is usually because there is an error in reasoning somewhere. Find it, and you can potentially convince the person to shift their moral position. Things become less likely when we value differently.

If not, that suggests that there are reasons that can be appealed to that lie beyond the interests of the person you're trying to persuade. How can that make sense? If I am the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong, why should I listen to you in the majority trying to persuade me? I may go along just out of fear as in Stalinist Russia.

There is no guarantee that anyone is going to "listen" or be convinced of any given moral position, Jim B. We see that around us every day. And sometimes, people absolutely "follow the herd," for one reason or another. From my perspective, that is the entire basis for Christian morality.

What is it that changes a repressive regime where the majority was absolutely certain that they were in the right, to being less repressive? And where the dissidents were being 'persuaded' in reeducation centres? What happens in that process? Is it just a change of fashion? Or is it something like a discovery?

I have no way to answer such vague questions.

If the US were to go back to chattel slavery, you really think that that would simply be a change in public opinion, albeit a major change, and not a regression, or if forcible Suttee were reintroduced into India?

It depends on the point of view of the observer. Personally, I would see it as a major regression away from what I find to be moral. A white supremacist would probably see it as advancement.

Again, who cares how many centuries it's been taught. Or if it was invented yesterday? Actually, my version is not the version that's been taught for centuries. The ancient version is the absolutist, apocalyptic, partriarchal version. Mine is actually quite new. Yours is probably older, from the 18th century. But who's counting? ;)

Again - knowing where a thing comes from and how it came to be is important to understanding how/why things are as they are. I cannot comment on "yours" because I have not seen you express it. The absolutist, apocalyptic, patriarchal version is pretty much the only one I see (with some variations) expressed around here.

Why would anyone value others under your conception?

They would only value others if they found reason to see it as better than their own, at which point they would immediately adopt it. If they don't, then resolution will not likely happen, leaving ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend.

Yours is an atomistic conception in which the self is the generative source of value and morality.

I'm not sure what "atomistic conception" means in that context, but the latter part is correct (though the individual is greatly influenced by their context).

As I said, morality is about conflict resolution and about sociality.

No - it is about protecting what one values. In the context of a society, that means the moral framework will include the rest of society simply because of the dynamic of the "golden rule" - the assumption that how I treat others is likely how I will be treated in return.

Atomism and ethical egoism is the contrary. It's actually a misnomer; it's not an ethical theory at all but a psychological theory and not a very interesting one at that.

To that I have no response. I didn't claim it would be interesting.

It can't be subjective because of the definition and function of morality. It's taste, and taste cannot function intersubjectively to resolve conflict or to fortify group solidarity.

Of course it can, Jim. Because we all value similarly, and share much in common, we have a vast base of commonality to appeal to in discussing and arguing moral principles and concepts. Language is also completely subjective - and highly intersubjective - and serves its purpose quite well (most of the time... ).

You've said as much yourself in this very post. Please tell me what morality is for if not for these things and how a purely subjecitive enterprise would go about accomplishing them.

See above.

Begging the question again. "How it works" is what we're debating, remember?

I do. And reporting on an observed reality is not "begging the question."

We "value life" not just because each individual's life is valuable to her. That's what you're suggesting by your egoistic atomism. If that were the sole rationale for valuing life, sacrificing one's life would be absurd, as would the whole idea of writing wills and life insurance.

Jim...I didn't say we value just our OWN life. We can also value the lives of those around us. I value the lives of my family for the richness they bring to me. I value the lives of my community for similar reasons. Heck - I value the lives of people in general, for the rich tapestry of life they create and the endless variation I can experience together with them, even if I do not personally meet them.

What you can't quite get, though, is that the law and the majority have to have something more meaningful than simply power and convention to legitimize themselves; otherwise the whole notions of civil disobedience and moral reform would be meaningless and right and wrong would be matters of convention and power.

At no point did I say that power and convention legitimize anything, Jim. I'm not sure where you got that. Indeed, I do not subscribe to "might makes right" in my own moral framework, though I recognize that some people do.

For example, Wilberforce, an early abolitionist, was in an extremely tiny minority, less than a few hundred people against millions. What was he trying to convince the majority of?

Presumably that slavery should be seen as immoral.

What was his argument trying to do?

Presumably eliminate slavery.

It couldn't be in terms of self-interest, because nearly all of the well-to-do white people he was trying to persuade would be personally harmed by abolition. He had to argue that there was some fact of the matter about human nature, about the worth and dignity of persons that people needed to discover, a fact that heretofore had been undiscovered or ignored.

Indeed. Exactly. But he was likely speaking to a vast audience, many of whom valued money above life and liberty - and he had little chance with them. Others valued "state's rights" above life and liberty - and he likewise had little chance with them. For both of those he would have had to strive to change their valuing to achieve a change in their moral framework. But for those who valued life (not just one's own, but the lives of others as well), all he needed to do was to get them to see the black man as equally human, and appeal to that valuing.

It doesn't matter if it's likely to or not. That's not the point. And there can be "Mafia States." Look at Russia. The point is that if it's all a matter of power, it doesn't matter if things are going well for us now or not.

Of course there can be "mafioso states." There is always the possibility that a position we collectively tend to see as wrong will reverse itself in the future for some period of time in some segment of society. We've seen it in many countries. Some of us believe we are seeing it happen today in the U.S. But history seems to suggest that such things are transient. You can only crush people for so long before they rise up to resist. All it takes is a few charismatic leaders, and they eventually arise. But even what they bring to bear is not permanent. Change is constant.

Begging the question again. Whether or not they're relative is what we're debating, remember?

You do seem to like that phrase. Again, you cannot "beg the question" by simply reporting on an observed reality.

And you missed the point of the math analogy.

That is possible. Seer uses mathematical principles as analogous to moral principles to assert that both are "absolute" and "objective." I don't think he understands the concept of an analogy. If that was not your point - then you are right, I missed it. Feel free to clarify it for me.

I have been posting arguments. Do you know what an argument is? It doesn't have to be written out formally to be an argument. You're saying "I am describing what is evident all around us everyday." Now that's an argument!

Sorry, Jim, but I am not seeing any arguments here affirming your own position, or even stating it. Your arguments seem to be primarily about why morality can't be as I've described, but most of it simply flies past the mark of what I have expressed (i.e., assuming that "valuing life" means "valuing my own life," and so forth).

And please try to learn the difference between "absolute" and "objective".

I am not sure why you think I do not understand the distinction between "absolute" and "objective." The former refers to something that is unchanging, and the latter to something that exists independent of an individual's opinions or ideas. Moral frameworks clearly change, so they are not absolute. Morality is a value judgement about action, so it requires a valuer which makes it subjective. This seems fairly self-evident to me.

You don't have a clue what I think, so please try to refrain from describing what you think my moral process is. I'm not doing it with you.

You are correct, I have little idea what you think, which is why I said, "I think" rather than "you do." If I am wrong, feel free to point out where I am wrong. At the end of the day, this is how most who subscribe to a religiously-based moral framework tend to function, in my experience.

I'm going solely by the often incoherent things you've been actually writing, not assumptions I'm pulling out of my (bleep). But hey, nothin' personal!

I have the distinct impression you're getting irritated. I'm not sure why. I thought the discussion was simply an exchange of views on morality. You apparently find mine wanting. I find your arguments, thus far, uncompelling. But it's just an exchange of views. If the exchange is unsettling or irritating, we can just drop it.

ETA: These posts are getting rather long and meandering. It might be better if we focus on a specific thing rather than wandering all over the moral map. Where do you think we should begin (if at all)? I'm somewhat encouraged by the fact that you have correctly reflected back at least some part of what I gave said, which few here have accomplished. I'm hoping we might actually make some progress!

[Tassman]

And you know this how?

Prove me wrong.

[JimL]

Jim, we have been through this, God's law is grounded in His immutable character so it is far from arbitrary.

So, by immutable character do you mean to say that god is determined, that he's not free to choose evil over good?