Morality

[Kenny]

RickD

For the sake of discussion, if we assume morality is objective, what difference would it make? If we recognize what mad men like Stalin, Pot, Mo and others like them did while morality is objective, how do you think things would be different if morality were subjective?

I'm not Rick, but given the open nature of the discussion.... what difference does assuming an objective morality make? Perhaps not a whole lot.

I agree. Whether morality is labeled under the category of subjective, or objective, it doesn’t make any difference, people are going to do whatever they are going to do anyway.

IMO, If morality were labeled Objective, Theists would claim their Deity of choice as the source of morality and the atheist would label something other than a Deity as the source of morality; everybody agreeing that there is a source, but nobody agreeing on what that source is.

[Kenny]

RickD wrote:
Sorry for the confusion.

I didn't mean, "If morality was subjective".

I mean that their belief in purely subjective morality, or in other words, a subjective morality worldview, leads to atrocities like those people committed, because in that worldview, there is no objective right and wrong. Or, in that worldview, right has no meaning beyond subjective opinion, just like preference for ice cream.

kenny wrote:
You aren't suggesting if those men believed morality was objective, they wouldn't have done those things are you?

Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That wasn't what I was suggesting. That would be equal to me saying that Theists cannot commit mass murders. That's just not logical.

RickD wrote:
Basically, in a subjective morality worldview, truth, and right, are meaningless, precisely because they are subjective.

Ken wrote:
Actually in subjective morality, truth, and right are opinions. Opinions are always important to those who have them.

Kenny, what I mean is that the words "truth" and "right", in this context, lose their meaning, or they become meaningless. Truth, by definition, is based on facts and reality, not on opinion.[
So, no objective morality means all things would be subjective, which means everything is based on opinion. Which means there would be no "truth", and no "right".

Here is where we disagree. I believe usually what is called “truth” in this context is actually just opinion.

That's what we mean when we keep saying that we cannot have opinions about what is right and wrong, true and untrue, without something objective to base those opinions on.

For the sake of discussion, if we assume morality is objective, what difference would it make? If we recognize what mad men like Stalin, Pot, Mo and others like them did while morality is objective, how do you think things would be different if morality were subjective?

Kenny,

I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking here, so forgive me if I don't answer what you're getting at.

I think you're saying that if we assume objective morality, then these atrocities were committed with there being objective morality. So, you want to know how things would've been different, with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. if objective morality didn't exist, and there was only subjective morality? Is that what you're asking?

That would be like asking me how it would've been different if God didn't exist. No objective morality is saying no God.

My answer would be that if there were no God, then nobody would exist. So, there would be no discussion.

Okay; let me clarify. A person who believes morality is Objective (not subjective) suggested subjective morality lead to the atrocities of Pot, Mao, and Stalin. I’m just trying to understand the logic behind this, since those things DID happen; perhaps you could point something out to me that I am missing.

[Kenny]

Ken, sorry I almost missed you post.

To me morality is definitely not objective but not totally subjective either.

In what ways is morality not subjective?

If we knew
1. the circumstances we live in, i.e. if the society a hunter gather or a modern industrialised society, which technology we have etc. and
2 what genetic properties do we humans have and
3.if there were a common goal or a common opinion of what was the best for the individual and the society,
then it would in principle be possible to figure out which moral is the best moral. That calculation would be objective in some sense but because that is impossible but on a very coarse level there will be lot of subjectivity in morality.

I can agree with you here that if we had those 3 things in place, a case could be made of objective morality. BUT we don’t have those 3 things in place, we have never had those 3 things in place. I could come up with a hundred scenarios where if specific things were in place, morality would be objective; but they would just be scenarios, nothing based in reality.

Ken

[Kurieuo]

For example, if we take China's one child policy (now two), then it is good and honourable for a woman who gives birth to a child beyond their "child quota" to dash their baby against rocks. Or, should a society need to increase in number, then it is good and honourable for women to dedicate themselves to birthing lots of babies. If these examples, which I came up with quickly off the top of my head, aren't satisfactory to demonstrate that what is good and honourable isn't necessarily that which is beneficial to society, then I'm sure many examples can be produced from history where Marxist beliefs once reigned.

"Honourable" is perhaps not the best word when describing morality. Honour cultures emphasises honour perhaps too much which causes murder of daughters that socialise with wrong men. (We have had a few cases in Sweden among immigrants from The Middle East).
But honour culture apparently serves some purpose in the original environment.

Regarding the Chines woman it is too much to ask a mother to kill her own child to implement a nation-wide birth control program. There are better methods. But the question is not only theoretical. Jared Diamond in his book Collaps (highly recommended if you are interested in anthropology) describes the society on the small isolated island Tikopia in south east Pacific (relatively close to you). On about five square kilometres a population of about 1200 persons have lived for 3000 years without any possibility to get support from outside. To them it was critical to limit the population size and one method among others was killing babies if there were too many. Can we blame them? Was that wrong?

Wikipedia says people migrated there around 10th-13th century (which is 700-1000 years ago). Further, Spanish made contact with them in 1600s. So, no I haven't read him, but I'm not sure how accurate this Jared Diamond guy is in setting up whatever examples he is trying to build his points upon. Just saying.

I have nothing against contraceptions, but disagree with any rational that says it is alright to kill humans due to overpopulation. Overpopulation is to me not the issue to solve. Rather it is and always has been selfishness, greed, hate and the like. Given you live in Europe, and received a European education wherein UNESCO would have major influence, then I expect you'd largely disagree with my views on overpopulation -- since overpopulation is something they really love to push as being the cause of poverty, lack of food and the like. I disagree.

In response to your question, why can't we blame them? You'll need to explain, because the logic doesn't register why they needed to kill other humans. They are morally wrong if they did such.

[Kurieuo]

• Third, it remains to be seen how you are not transcending the natural order when you label behaviour, which is otherwise quite natural in terms of any other animal species, as not "good" or not "honourable" when it comes to human species.

I am sorry, I am not certain about what you mean. Please give an example.

I have noticed that you think that C. S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity is of interest. I have now started to read the first chapters again. (The Doodle Youtubes are amusing but I prefer reading the book. It's easier to follow the arguments in a book).

One important point is in chapter three (page 19 in my edition) where he tries to prove that a position like mine is false:

"Now, of course, it is perfectly true that safety and happiness can only come from individuals, classes, and nations being honest and fair and kind to each other. It is one of the most important truths in the world. But as an explanation of why we feel as we do about Right and Wrong it just misses the point. If we ask: "Why ought I to be unselfish?" and you reply "Because it is good for society," we may then ask, "Why should I care what's good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?" and then you will have to say, "Because you ought to be unselfish"—which simply brings us back to where we started."

But there are better answers then the final "Because you ought to be unselfish":
[1] - You will probably feel better if you are not selfish because evolution has made us such.
[2] - If you are acting selfish other persons may notice that and dislike you.
[3] - In cases where you need help other persons may refuse helping you or your near.
[4]- You may miss the opportunity to be able to say that you contributed to a better society, which in the long run is very nice to you.

I've numbered your points above.

[1] You will feel better not being selfish because evolution has made us such? To be an adequate answer requires there being some hidden accepted premise I think that could make this a satisfactory answer. That is, saying "evolution has made us such" suggests that there is an end goal trying to be acheived by evolutionary processes. There is a telos that evolution is directing all life towards, which results in intelligent, moral beings like us.

This then raises the question as to whether the reason the evolutionary process made us such is due to some reason higher than the natural evolutionary processes themselves. Are evolutionary process, for example, obeying a higher purpose established in the natural laws? Or, did we just happen to strike it lucky that we were "blessed" (or "cursed" depending upon how you look on it) with a moral conscience that can make us feel guilty when we are selfish and try to just look after #1 in life?

If the process all happened by chance and we are the result of such, then it also seems out of place that evolution, which is kind of inherently selfish with respect to survival of genes and particular species, suddenly "decides" to impose something called morality upon us which makes us feel responsible to others, even to the point of giving up our very lives. There seems a better fit with other explanations, such as a super-intelligent being who has particular values and desires the creatures He created to choose to be good and loving. This super being installs certain "bumper bars" if you will, to encourage us to live according to its own values. And so natural laws are setup accordingly, and we have a moral conscience pre-programmed into us such that we will feel guilt, a sense of responsibility to others, understand concepts like fairness and justice and the like. This seems like a more fulfilling and satisfactory explanation to me.

The fact of the matter is also that we can become desensatised to what is right and wrong. Should we not shake it if such simply happened due to chance? We could equally live in a harsh cruel dog-eat-dog world where the survival of the fittest truly reigns supreme. You know, I think I'd feel good if I sold my house and gave away everything I own, but then such would be stupid because it'd mean I'm now out on the street and unable to support myself. It seems to me not being selfish isn't to be found in unintellent natural processes, but is rather something which transcends natural order. And then, if I'm only unselfish to the point that it doesn't pain me, then such seems kind of superficial really.

In any case, I see this answer of yours fulfills Lewis' "except when it happens to pay me personally." If you are doing something "unselfish" because you wish to feel good, then you are ultimately doing it for selfish reasons.

[2] If I'm acting selfish others may not like me. Seriously? I know many selfish people, in fact, it seems to be the most selfish people who rise to be very wealthy and gain a whole lot of fame. Nonetheless, again I think this fulfills Lewis' "except when it happens to pay me personally."

[3] Again, because we know so many people have a moral conscience, we can actually prey upon such. There is still help available to me if I'm a complete **** to others, I just need to claim depression or put on some tears perhaps, look pathetic so others take pity. We can manipulate other people and very selfish people are often experts at this. There are ways people can connive to get what they want from others. Nonetheless, the reason you present once again fulfills, "except when it happens to pay me personally."

[4] I might be able to contribute to a better society if I'm selfish and able to gain much wealth and power. In addition, I can at the same time enjoy life more fully if I'm living life my way, have a mansion, having boat parties on a million dollar boat and the like? People would love me for such things, like they love others who do such. You seem to think being selfish and bettering society is exclusive to each other, but I don't see how. Nonetheless, on this last point of yours it still fulfills Lewis' "except when it happens to pay me personally."

So there is no circularity.

Indeed, to the contrary, it still seems there is circularity.

Given all your reasons for being "unselfish" are ultimately built upon there being some sort of personal gain ("selfish" reason), then they fail to be reasons for why we should be unselfish. Indeed it seems CS Lewis stands correct, there is no reason for us to be unselfish than that we ought to be unselfish. But why ought we? The reason for such seems to supercede our physical lives.

I here refer you to true unselfishness found in Jesus' own teachings, such levels go beyond how many understand the golden rule, which can be summed up as, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Note, the golden rule actually seems built upon selfishness IF the reason you are doing to others is because you want something in return.

None of your examples could explain TRUE unselfishness, the type found in Christ's teachings which involves loving others to the point of sacrificing your life for them, or loving your enemies even if they hate and will continue persecuting you:

• "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends. (John 15:13)"
• "You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." (Matthew 5:43-48)

I sometimes wonder why people are so repulsed by Christ's teachings. Maybe it's more a matter of people liking Christ, but not liking Christians they know or liking how many Christian appear to be dumb and stupid. BUT, I wonder how much of that is really just unjustified stigmas and labels, particularly since much of modern thought and science is built upon the shoulders of bright individuals who were Christian.

[Nicki]

Okay; let me clarify. A person who believes morality is Objective (not subjective) suggested subjective morality lead to the atrocities of Pot, Mao, and Stalin. I’m just trying to understand the logic behind this, since those things DID happen; perhaps you could point something out to me that I am missing.

Didn't Rick basically explain that earlier when he said it was belief in subjective morality that can lead to atrocities?

[Kenny]

Okay; let me clarify. A person who believes morality is Objective (not subjective) suggested subjective morality lead to the atrocities of Pot, Mao, and Stalin. I’m just trying to understand the logic behind this, since those things DID happen; perhaps you could point something out to me that I am missing.

Didn't Rick basically explain that earlier when he said it was belief in subjective morality that can lead to atrocities?

On 11/18/17 at 6:19am RickD said:

“Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That wasn't what I was suggesting. That would be equal to me saying that Theists cannot commit mass murders. That's just not logical.”

This tells me he finds the claim; that the belief in subjective morality will lead to atrocities, as an illogical claim

[Kurieuo]

Okay; let me clarify. A person who believes morality is Objective (not subjective) suggested subjective morality lead to the atrocities of Pot, Mao, and Stalin. I’m just trying to understand the logic behind this, since those things DID happen; perhaps you could point something out to me that I am missing.

Didn't Rick basically explain that earlier when he said it was belief in subjective morality that can lead to atrocities?

On 11/18/17 at 6:19am RickD said:

“Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That wasn't what I was suggesting. That would be equal to me saying that Theists cannot commit mass murders. That's just not logical.”

This tells me he finds the claim; that the belief in subjective morality will lead to atrocities, as an illogical claim

No, many might assume morality is subjective. But, when the penny drops that the way one acts is ultimately meaningless, that the social structures in place exist to subjugate and make us fall into line, then one is motivated to rise up and free themselves up. In doing so, they will set themselves up as the Übermensch or "God" of their own world. I don't trust human nature, and the person who truly believes all is meaningless is a scary person with nothing to gain or lose and capable of anything.

[Kenny]

Okay; let me clarify. A person who believes morality is Objective (not subjective) suggested subjective morality lead to the atrocities of Pot, Mao, and Stalin. I’m just trying to understand the logic behind this, since those things DID happen; perhaps you could point something out to me that I am missing.

Didn't Rick basically explain that earlier when he said it was belief in subjective morality that can lead to atrocities?

On 11/18/17 at 6:19am RickD said:

“Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That wasn't what I was suggesting. That would be equal to me saying that Theists cannot commit mass murders. That's just not logical.”

This tells me he finds the claim; that the belief in subjective morality will lead to atrocities, as an illogical claim

No, many might assume morality is subjective. But, when the penny drops that the way one acts is ultimately meaningless, that the social structures in place exist to subjugate and make us fall into line, then one is motivated to rise up and free themselves up. In doing so, they will set themselves up as the Übermensch or "God" of their own world. I don't trust human nature, and the person who truly believes all is meaningless is a scary person with nothing to gain or lose and capable of anything.

Are you saying those who don't want to follow the laws put in place by society are setting themselves up as God? Or am I misunderstanding you.

[Kurieuo]

Okay; let me clarify. A person who believes morality is Objective (not subjective) suggested subjective morality lead to the atrocities of Pot, Mao, and Stalin. I’m just trying to understand the logic behind this, since those things DID happen; perhaps you could point something out to me that I am missing.

Didn't Rick basically explain that earlier when he said it was belief in subjective morality that can lead to atrocities?

On 11/18/17 at 6:19am RickD said:

“Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That wasn't what I was suggesting. That would be equal to me saying that Theists cannot commit mass murders. That's just not logical.”

This tells me he finds the claim; that the belief in subjective morality will lead to atrocities, as an illogical claim

No, many might assume morality is subjective. But, when the penny drops that the way one acts is ultimately meaningless, that the social structures in place exist to subjugate and make us fall into line, then one is motivated to rise up and free themselves up. In doing so, they will set themselves up as the Übermensch or "God" of their own world. I don't trust human nature, and the person who truly believes all is meaningless is a scary person with nothing to gain or lose and capable of anything.

Are you saying those who don't want to follow the laws put in place by society are setting themselves up as God? Or am I misunderstanding you.

Anyone who seriously believes there is no grounding to morality is utimately a law unto themselves. The buck stops with them as to what is or isn't good, which generally comes back how a particular moral action will benefit them/what will maximise their own happiness. Now when one sees no meaning to life, and by that I mean there is no meaning to whether one takes this action or that, then they're stepping into an anything goes world regardless of whether or not an action is deemed socially acceptable.

[Kenny]

Didn't Rick basically explain that earlier when he said it was belief in subjective morality that can lead to atrocities?

On 11/18/17 at 6:19am RickD said:

“Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That wasn't what I was suggesting. That would be equal to me saying that Theists cannot commit mass murders. That's just not logical.”

This tells me he finds the claim; that the belief in subjective morality will lead to atrocities, as an illogical claim

No, many might assume morality is subjective. But, when the penny drops that the way one acts is ultimately meaningless, that the social structures in place exist to subjugate and make us fall into line, then one is motivated to rise up and free themselves up. In doing so, they will set themselves up as the Übermensch or "God" of their own world. I don't trust human nature, and the person who truly believes all is meaningless is a scary person with nothing to gain or lose and capable of anything.

Are you saying those who don't want to follow the laws put in place by society are setting themselves up as God? Or am I misunderstanding you.

Anyone who seriously believes there is no grounding to morality is utimately a law unto themselves.

There is a big difference between what is moral vs what is legal. I decide what I believe is moral, I do not decide what I believe to be legal.

The buck stops with them as to what is or isn't good, which generally comes back how a particular moral action will benefit them/what will maximise their own happiness.

I agree.

Now when one sees no meaning to life, and by that I mean there is no meaning to whether one takes this action or that, then they're stepping into an anything goes world regardless of whether or not an action is deemed socially acceptable.

Okay you lost me here bro. What does a person being the source of their own morality have to do with “no meaning to life” or an “anything goes” world? The two have nothing to do with each other. Am I missing something here? Or did you leave something out.

Ken

[RickD]

Okay; let me clarify. A person who believes morality is Objective (not subjective) suggested subjective morality lead to the atrocities of Pot, Mao, and Stalin. I’m just trying to understand the logic behind this, since those things DID happen; perhaps you could point something out to me that I am missing.

Didn't Rick basically explain that earlier when he said it was belief in subjective morality that can lead to atrocities?

On 11/18/17 at 6:19am RickD said:

“Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That wasn't what I was suggesting. That would be equal to me saying that Theists cannot commit mass murders. That's just not logical.”

This tells me he finds the claim; that the belief in subjective morality will lead to atrocities, as an illogical claim

No Kenny. PaulS was saying that belief in subjective morality lead to those atrocities. That's not the same as saying that belief in subjective morality will necessarily lead to those kinds of atrocities. But given human nature, it's a good likelihood that it could happen.

[Kenny]

Okay; let me clarify. A person who believes morality is Objective (not subjective) suggested subjective morality lead to the atrocities of Pot, Mao, and Stalin. I’m just trying to understand the logic behind this, since those things DID happen; perhaps you could point something out to me that I am missing.

Didn't Rick basically explain that earlier when he said it was belief in subjective morality that can lead to atrocities?

On 11/18/17 at 6:19am RickD said:

“Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That wasn't what I was suggesting. That would be equal to me saying that Theists cannot commit mass murders. That's just not logical.”

This tells me he finds the claim; that the belief in subjective morality will lead to atrocities, as an illogical claim

No Kenny. PaulS was saying that belief in subjective morality lead to those atrocities. That's not the same as saying that belief in subjective morality will necessarily lead to those kinds of atrocities. But given human nature, it's a good likelihood that it could happen.

And this is a position that PaulS holds, but you do not; is that correct?
K

[RickD]

Okay; let me clarify. A person who believes morality is Objective (not subjective) suggested subjective morality lead to the atrocities of Pot, Mao, and Stalin. I’m just trying to understand the logic behind this, since those things DID happen; perhaps you could point something out to me that I am missing.

Didn't Rick basically explain that earlier when he said it was belief in subjective morality that can lead to atrocities?

On 11/18/17 at 6:19am RickD said:

“Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That wasn't what I was suggesting. That would be equal to me saying that Theists cannot commit mass murders. That's just not logical.”

This tells me he finds the claim; that the belief in subjective morality will lead to atrocities, as an illogical claim

No Kenny. PaulS was saying that belief in subjective morality lead to those atrocities. That's not the same as saying that belief in subjective morality will necessarily lead to those kinds of atrocities. But given human nature, it's a good likelihood that it could happen.

And this is a position that PaulS holds, but you do not; is that correct?
K

I'm not sure which "position" you are referring to.

I believe that when taking a belief in subjective morality to its logical conclusion, atrocities like those referred to, not only fit the subjective morality worldview, they are also justified by the subjective morality worldview.

[Kenny]

Didn't Rick basically explain that earlier when he said it was belief in subjective morality that can lead to atrocities?

On 11/18/17 at 6:19am RickD said:

“Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That wasn't what I was suggesting. That would be equal to me saying that Theists cannot commit mass murders. That's just not logical.”

This tells me he finds the claim; that the belief in subjective morality will lead to atrocities, as an illogical claim

No Kenny. PaulS was saying that belief in subjective morality lead to those atrocities. That's not the same as saying that belief in subjective morality will necessarily lead to those kinds of atrocities. But given human nature, it's a good likelihood that it could happen.

And this is a position that PaulS holds, but you do not; is that correct?
K

I'm not sure which "position" you are referring to.

I believe that when taking a belief in subjective morality to its logical conclusion, atrocities like those referred to, not only fit the subjective morality worldview, they are also justified by the subjective morality worldview.

Here is my position. If morality is objective, it is objective regardless of whether I believe or want it to be subjective, or not.

If morality is Subjective, it is subjective regardless of whether you and others believe or want it to be objective or not.

If only subjective morality leads to the listed atrocities, and those atrocities exist, that would indicate morality is subjective, because if it were objective, said atrocities would not have taken place. Do you agree?