Evidence for God from Science

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Kenny wrote:Subjective morality is based upon opinion and extenuating circumstances

No. Morality is established by cultural consensus. Therefore, what is moral or immoral may change as the consensus within a given society changes.

Perhaps; but subjective morality is also based upon opinion and extenuating circumstances.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:Kenny,

Firstly, for clarity, let's define "objective morality" as meaning some actions are morally wrong regardless of what anyone thinks.

To use, for my lack of imagination, the holocaust (since it is always used as a base example in morality talk)... even if we all thought that it was alright to exterminate Jewish people for no real reason, then well, whether we let them live or not has no real moral significance. Someone might choose to kill them, another might not. It doesn't really matter. Some might find it distasteful, try to change opinion to make people prefer their tastes, but in what sense can such be called wrong?

Wrong is just a label we attach to behaviors we find objective.

Kurieuo wrote:Without some objective moral standard that exists separate from humanity, then what we have is just social agreement by and large -- not moral right or wrong. "Social morality" is perhaps kind of oxymoronic, in that it is really like saying "subjective objectivism". If morality exists, then some things really are wrong. If, on the other hand morality doesn't really exist, then let's not try to be confusing. Let's lose terms like "right" and "wrong" and just call it social consensus regarding socially acceptable actions.

Having said all that let me ask you, whether you actually see a difference between social agreement and cooperation vs. social morality? If there's none, then using the former is less confusing.

I don’t see a difference between the two, but I find neither of the terms confusing.


Ken

Mrs K wrote: What makes you think "everyone cares" about your own personal opinion?
Your belief is simply an expression of your opinion, right?

People might care more if you actually acted out on those beliefs though... coz they don't want their kids, or others kids being targeted by you.

That’s my point! If I see nothing wrong with such behavior, I am more likely to act on it if I feel I could get away with it.

Mrs K wrote:Killer: "Society is another word for statistical average."

Killer is wrong; society is another word for “a group of people living together” Big difference.

Mrs K wrote:So it really depends on society being made up of more of the genetically predisposed to empathy than agression say???

Do you find it interesting that the "basics" tend to be the same for most human cultures?

I’m not surprised at all

Mrs K wrote:But when it comes to specific cases, such as abortion say... Is it moral to have an abortion in the US but immoral to have one in Ireland? Or even between states of the US, where the gestational limit changes.
I guess that's how subjective morality works, huh?

Yes.

Mrs K wrote:Lecturer: "You're a Sick Man. Your Mind is diseased."

Lecturer is right

Mrs K wrote:Killer: "Correction, I'm a genetically determined man with a predisposition toward aggression: Killing is in my genes."

Just because killing is in your genes doesn’t justify doing it! That’s what animals do; us humans are better than that… unless we are mentally sick.

Mrs K wrote:So, is he "sick"? Or is he just genetically predisposed toward aggression? Is that a sickness? A disease?

Not a disease, just a sickness.

Mrs K wrote:Are other people with genetic predisposions that we find distasteful actually "sick" too?

Not if they refrain from acting on their genetic predispositions.

Mrs K wrote:And what is "sick" here? His physical body? His brain? His mind?

His mind

Mrs K wrote:Perhaps, but as an onlooker... is what the killer doing right or wrong?

I would label his actions wrong.

Mrs K wrote:With "subjective morality" then it really could be either, or even neither... as in "I don't care either way"

Subjective morality is about the opinion of the individual. And yes; an individual could not care either way.

Mrs K wrote:Why do you choose "harm to a neighbour" as a morality criteria?
(interesting language BTW, sounds kind of like "Love thy neighbour...")

My POV’s are the result of the society in which I was raised, empathy, and the fact that I am a social person. And YES! It is kinda like Love thy neighbor.

Ken

I told myself I was going to stay out of this, but I couldn't let this go without an explanation.

Ken,

If you're consistent with anything, you're consistent in saying that you don't believe in objective morality. In other words, nothing is objectively right or wrong.

But then you went on to say:

kenny wrote:
Wrong is just a label we attach to behaviors we find objective.

So, now you seem to be saying that if we( including yourself) call something wrong, it's because it is objectively wrong.

So, if you label something as wrong, then you believe it's objectively wrong.

You once said:

kenny wrote:
Yes I believe rape is always wrong, there are also other things I believe are always wrong that according to the Bible, may be considered right!

Are you now admitting that some things (rape, and other things you believe are always wrong) are in fact, objectively wrong?

Seems that none of us can resist Kenny's charm when it comes to discussing morality.
He even got Mrs K to make an appearance.

Our prodigal son has returned
Great to see you back Kenny

This thing with objective and subjective morality always brings into play subjective reasoning, understanding, and interpretation. Regardless of whether there is objective morality people will always twist, manipulate and reason their way through it to suit themselves. Whether this is done individually or collectively.
Just because Frank thinks it's okay to beat his children or a particular society thinks it's okay to eat them doesn't change the fact of right or wrong, regardless of flawed perception, understanding or cultural norm.
What is continually brought up is issues like when is okay to kill, to steal, to lie.
People using their own values and belief systems make assumptions around such and therefore right and wrong gets very clouded.
So the reasoning is because people disagree and strongly feel, even ethically feel that one course of action is preferable over another but the person next to them has a completely different set of values means morality is subjective.
I don't think that is the case.
They key questions remain, have always remained but the tide changes how individuals and culture defines or evaluates them.
It doesn't matter when killing is okay.
Or when it's okay to lie.
Or when theft can be excused.
In relation to objective morality because what remains is the same questions.
Yes people use personal opinion to ascertain how these questions relate to their own belief system but the same questions regurgitate throughout history, and personal and religious experience.
What I mean by that is the argument that x culture promoted cannalbism, or y society accepted genocide or z family believes in corporal punishment is not an argument for subjective morality.
Yes, people do what they like, and justify it.
They can believe it so much that it encapsulates their entire worldview but this is not subjective morality.
What always remains is the same questions.....
Just differing applications.
Kenny you and I could no more come up with a new primary colour than a new objective morality.
We could argue till the cows come home how we interpret it but the basics are steadfast.
Human life is precious.... When does it become justified to ignore such.
Not okay to lie...... When does lying become not only justified but necessary.
Stealing is wrong..... But when is it honourable and not negative.
What we have is a lot of variables that people mistake for subjectivity but have you ever noticed that it is the same principles mulled over again and again.
When is it okay to do such.....
When is justifiable......
But the basic fundamental questions remain the same. What is regurgitated is how we understand and apply it.

melanie wrote:This thing with objective and subjective morality always brings into play subjective reasoning, understanding, and interpretation. Regardless of whether there is objective morality people will always twist, manipulate and reason their way through it to suit themselves. Whether this is done individually or collectively.
Just because Frank thinks it's okay to beat his children or a particular society thinks it's okay to eat them doesn't change the fact of right or wrong, regardless of flawed perception, understanding or cultural norm.
What is continually brought up is issues like when is okay to kill, to steal, to lie.
People using their own values and belief systems make assumptions around such and therefore right and wrong gets very clouded.
So the reasoning is because people disagree and strongly feel, even ethically feel that one course of action is preferable over another but the person next to them has a completely different set of values means morality is subjective.
I don't think that is the case.
They key questions remain, have always remained but the tide changes how individuals and culture defines or evaluates them.
It doesn't matter when killing is okay.
Or when it's okay to lie.
Or when theft can be excused.
In relation to objective morality because what remains is the same questions.
Yes people use personal opinion to ascertain how these questions relate to their own belief system but the same questions regurgitate throughout history, and personal and religious experience.
What I mean by that is the argument that x culture promoted cannalbism, or y society accepted genocide or z family believes in corporal punishment is not an argument for subjective morality.
Yes, people do what they like, and justify it.
They can believe it so much that it encapsulates their entire worldview but this is not subjective morality.
What always remains is the same questions.....
Just differing applications.
Kenny you and I could no more come up with a new primary colour than a new objective morality.
We could argue till the cows come home how we interpret it but the basics are steadfast.
Human life is precious.... When does it become justified to ignore such.
Not okay to lie...... When does lying become not only justified but necessary.
Stealing is wrong..... But when is it honourable and not negative.
What we have is a lot of variables that people mistake for subjectivity but have you ever noticed that it is the same principles mulled over again and again.
When is it okay to do such.....
When is justifiable......
But the basic fundamental questions remain the same. What is regurgitated is how we understand and apply it.

I think you've made some excellent points. And thanx for the welcome back.

Ken

Kenny wrote:... subjective morality is also based upon opinion and extenuating circumstances.

No. I've read through your posts on this topic and have come to the conclusion that you are not talking about morality at all. Rather, you are discussing character:

Kenny wrote:That’s my point! If I see nothing wrong with such behavior, I am more likely to act on it if I feel I could get away with it.

In the above example, you rightly say that you see nothing wrong with a particular action but would do it if you thought you could get away with it. An example might be helpful: «stealing a pen from your employer». Implicitly, you understand that this is considered «wrong» but since no one will notice, you just take the pen home and put it in your drawer.

So, you understand that the social consensus says «Do not steal» but you take the pen anyway. This has nothing to do with morality! It has to do with your character, and nothing else. People with misadapted character transgress social norms...duh!

I work with criminals. All of them know the social consensus about morality. But they still violate that consensus.

Character is what is being discussed by you, not morality, «subjective» or otherwise.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Kenny wrote:... subjective morality is also based upon opinion and extenuating circumstances.

No. I've read through your posts on this topic and have come to the conclusion that you are not talking about morality at all. Rather, you are discussing character:

We are discussing morality. I see character as a reference to a person’s nature; and morality as in reference to what a person does. Perhaps some of the examples I gave overlapped into character as well as morality, this may have caused the confusion.

Kenny wrote:That’s my point! If I see nothing wrong with such behavior, I am more likely to act on it if I feel I could get away with it.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:In the above example, you rightly say that you see nothing wrong with a particular action but would do it if you thought you could get away with it. An example might be helpful: «stealing a pen from your employer»

.
The scenario you are referring to here is about a person who sees nothing wrong with torturing children.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Implicitly, you understand that this is considered «wrong» but since no one will notice, you just take the pen home and put it in your drawer.

So, you understand that the social consensus says «Do not steal» but you take the pen anyway. This has nothing to do with morality! It has to do with your character, and nothing else. People with misadapted character transgress social norms...duh!

The scenario was not about the person who commits the action, it was about society’s reaction to the person who commits the action.
Hope that helps.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Mrs K wrote:Killer: "Correction, I'm a genetically determined man with a predisposition toward aggression: Killing is in my genes."

Just because killing is in your genes doesn’t justify doing it! That’s what animals do; us humans are better than that… unless we are mentally sick.
Ken

What makes 'not killing' better than 'killing'? You might base it on what's helpful and not hurtful to your neighbour, but other people might have different opinions.

Nicki wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Mrs K wrote:Killer: "Correction, I'm a genetically determined man with a predisposition toward aggression: Killing is in my genes."

Just because killing is in your genes doesn’t justify doing it! That’s what animals do; us humans are better than that… unless we are mentally sick.
Ken

What makes 'not killing' better than 'killing'? You might base it on what's helpful and not hurtful to your neighbour, but other people might have different opinions.

Exactly. That is the crux of the disagreement I’ve been having with everybody with the objective vs subjective morality debate.

Everybody here (objective moralists) maintains that there is something beyond human opinion that determines right or wrong.

I (the subjective moralist) maintain that there is nothing beyond human opinion that determines right or wrong; whether it be rape, generosity, genocide, empathy, or torture; it’s all based upon human opinion, nothing more.

I have also maintained that the idea that morality is objective is a theistic position because objective morality requires a single moral base, and all I see are various theists claiming their deity of choice as this single moral base; Jack will clam his Deity as the single moral base, Jill will claim her Deity as the single moral base, John and Joanne each piping in claiming their Deities of choice as the single moral base, so you have 4 different theists each claiming a different single moral base.

I’ve maintained this is basically “kickin the can one step further down the road” because instead of one person claiming behavior “X” is right and the other person saying “X” is wrong, and the two people going around and around debating the issue, you have one person saying his Deity says “X” is right and the other claiming his Deity saying it is wrong, and the two people going around and around debating the issue with each other.

I have also maintained the unfortunate consequence of believing morality is objective, as the believer is less likely to be swayed that his moral position is wrong if he feels his morals are backed up by a beyond human single moral base. In other words, if he says behavior “X” is right according to his single moral base, and you disagree with behavior “X”, he is less likely to consider the possibility that he might be wrong considering this issue, that the issue is not up for discussion; after all he and you are just human; but his single moral base is beyond human.
Where as if he believe morality were subjective, that right and wrong originates from human thought, because both you and he as humans are both equal, you can have a discussion in an attempt to sway one another on the issue.

Anyway, that is the crux of the argument I’ve been having with everybody here concerning the objective vs subjective morality debate.
Excuse my long wind, and thanx for listening

Ken

Kenny wrote: Just because killing is in your genes doesn’t justify doing it! That’s what animals do; us humans are better than that… unless we are mentally sick.
Ken

Do you see human value as subjective?

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote: Just because killing is in your genes doesn’t justify doing it! That’s what animals do; us humans are better than that… unless we are mentally sick.
Ken

Do you see human value as subjective?

Subjective morality justifies doing it. Morality is not beyond human opinion. Humans are not better than that. Subjective morality is the best we've got. And subjective morality says it's right to do whatever we think is right.
Kenny, you just contradicted your own worldview of morality.

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote: Just because killing is in your genes doesn’t justify doing it! That’s what animals do; us humans are better than that… unless we are mentally sick.
Ken

Do you see human value as subjective?

Yes. Let me give an example; If you ask me, I will tell you all human lives are equal. But if you look at my reaction of watching a stranger whom I've never met die, vs watching my brother whom I've spent my entire life building an emotional relationship with; die, it will be obvious from my reaction that I value my brothers life more than I do of a stranger even though they are both human and equal according to my lip service.

Ken