Another post on morality

[Alueshen]

So morality is the yardstick (if you will) that we use to determine if an action is "good" or "bad". The misunderstanding is, IMO, that morality is itself standard of good or bad.

Kind of like the length of a ruler doesn't determine what a foot is, it is the measurement that determines what the length of the ruler will be. We chose the measurement and while one might argue that choosing the dashed lines that go on a ruler night be entirely arbitrary, I'd argue that the length of any form of measurement is indeed very specific based on what you are trying to accomplish, that is, no one would would measure the distance from the earth to the sun using a ruler any more than they would use light years to measure their height.

Morality does not make a statement about the good and bad until a set of values is established. The idea that there is such a thing as "objective morality" is a non-nonsensical notion as there are no such thing as values independent of subjects.

To say that life is valuable is to assume that there is a thing called life and there are those that value it, once you have established this subjective notion you can make objective statements about how life is best valued.

To say that god is the source of morality is really just saying that god is the source of all values, but he is still the subject of the subject object relationship....That is unless you're willing to argue that values are independent of god in which case he's just the messenger and seemingly unnecessary.

Thoughts?

[Divine Insight]

I just don't see how you can square these two positions:

The claim I'm making is, that once values have been agreed upon, there are objectively right and objectively wrong ways to achieve them.

and

The idea that there is such a thing as "objective morality" is a non-nonsensical notion ...

I don't see a conflict here.

All Alueshen is saying is that we first subjectively decide what moral values we wish to embrace, and once we've done that, then we can determine objectively what is required to achieve those subjective moral values.

This still recognizes that there is no such thing as "objective morally" if you don't first have "subjective values". Only then can you more forward to putting objectivity onto chosen subjective values.

[Alueshen]

I just don't see how you can square these two positions:

The claim I'm making is, that once values have been agreed upon, there are objectively right and objectively wrong ways to achieve them.

and

The idea that there is such a thing as "objective morality" is a non-nonsensical notion ...

I agree with the above post, but here is another way to think about it....

Again, think of it like this, before human kind invented measurement as a way to quantify things, there wouldn't have been such a thing "objective measurement".

Choosing the name and distance for a foot or a meter was chosen subjectively, but once chosen there are objective facts about the distance between two points with respect to the measurements that have been adopted.

Tying it back in....

Values are defining what the measurement is, morality is the ruler we use once the values have been defined.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 12 by Alueshen]

I think your analogy here can be confusing to some people because it has an inherent point of confusion.

The point of confusion is that "distance" seems to be objective no matter what units you use to measure it. Therefore "distance" is objective. The only thing that is subjective is your choice of units.

Taking this same analogy over to a concept like morality one might be inclined then to believe the analogy fits. In other words, "morality" must then also be objective (like distance) and therefore independent upon how you measure it.

I understand how you are intending this analogy. You are actually comparing morality to the rulers not to the distance. But it still can be a confusing analogy because people will complain that it doesn't matter what rulers you use, distance is still objective. In other words, they will try to say that no matter how you try to "measure" morality, morality is still objective.

In fact, they will most likely claim that if your moral values don't coincide with theirs, then you are "measuring morality wrong"

So I think your analogy with measuring distances can actually backfire and be the cause of more confusion than needed.

Because after all, the distance between the Earth and Sun, for example, is objectively the same no matter what rulers you use to measure it.

So comparing morality with distance actually makes it appear that you are suggesting that morality is as objective as distance.

I realize that's not your intent. But your analogy can easily be misunderstood to imply that. And this is even true if you are claiming that morality is the arbitrary units you use to mark your ruler. Because of your analogy with measuring "objective" distances, then people will still get the idea that in order for your ruler to be accurate, then you must be using units that are compatible with "objective morality".

I would just stay away from this analogy entirely. I think it's a really bad analogy in a debate where you are trying to claim that morality is not objective. Because distance is objective, no matter how you measure it.

You are actually equating "Subjective Values" with "Distance" in this analogy. But most people aren't going to make that connection. Moreover, Subjective Values are not objective like Distance is. So it's a bad analogy all the way around.

It's an analogy that's going to backfire on you to be sure.

[Alueshen]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

Didn't think of it that way, but I see your point.

[Alueshen]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

So after giving it some thought, there is a point of distinction, which is that I'm talking about measurement, not distance in my example and that the measurement once applied to a fixed distance is in fact objective, but I understand that the point is best made on those that want to understand and that the point you make will still become a point of contention for those that are easily confused or simply don't want to understand.

[Artie]

To say that life is valuable is to assume that there is a thing called life and there are those that value it, once you have established this subjective notion you can make objective statements about how life is best valued ... Thoughts?

Thanks to evolution and natural selection we have a brain with a survival instinct. We instinctively value our lives and instinctively run out of the way of an oncoming vehicle to save our life.

We help others others help us. This increases our chances of survival.
We hurt others others hurt us. This decreases our chances of survival.

This is the basis for the Golden Rule and where all morals start.

[wiploc]

I just don't see how you can square these two positions:

The claim I'm making is, that once values have been agreed upon, there are objectively right and objectively wrong ways to achieve them.

and

The idea that there is such a thing as "objective morality" is a non-nonsensical notion ...

I don't see a conflict here.

All Alueshen is saying is that we first subjectively decide what moral values we wish to embrace,

No, in the OP he specifically says that morality doesn't come into it until after you've chosen your values. So, according to him, "moral values" would be a gibberish phrase.

After you settle on your values, then you can have objective rules for achieving what you value. That's morality, those rules, not the selecting of values. (Again, I'm just going along with his scheme here, not endorsing it.)

And yet he says you can't have objective morality.

That doesn't make sense. According to him, morality exists only in the realm where objectivity is possible.

...

This still recognizes that there is no such thing as "objective morally" if you don't first have "subjective values".

Sure, but we do have subjective values, so that objection comes to nothing.

Only then can you more forward to putting objectivity onto chosen subjective values.

That moving forward is where you make (according to the OP) your morality. You're saying it can be objective, but the OP says objective morality is impossible.

That's a contradiction.

[wiploc]

I just don't see how you can square these two positions:

The claim I'm making is, that once values have been agreed upon, there are objectively right and objectively wrong ways to achieve them.

and

The idea that there is such a thing as "objective morality" is a non-nonsensical notion ...

I agree with the above post, but here is another way to think about it....

Again, think of it like this, before human kind invented measurement as a way to quantify things, there wouldn't have been such a thing "objective measurement".

Choosing the name and distance for a foot or a meter was chosen subjectively, but once chosen there are objective facts about the distance between two points with respect to the measurements that have been adopted.

Tying it back in....

Values are defining what the measurement is, morality is the ruler we use once the values have been defined.

So there's no reason morality can't be objective, right?

[Divine Insight]

That moving forward is where you make (according to the OP) your morality. You're saying it can be objective, but the OP says objective morality is impossible.

That's a contradiction.

It's not a contradiction in light of the fact that it was made crystal clear that the values that are now being considered to be the basis for "morality" were already acknowledge to be subjective.

In other words, what the OP is saying is that there can indeed be such a thing as "Relative objective morality". Morality that is relative to subjective values.

But there can be no such thing as "Absolute objective morality". Moral values that supposed have some sort of absolute objective foundation.

IMHO, your arguments against the OP only reveal a misunderstanding of the points the OP is making.

When theists make a claim for "Objective Morality" they are laying claim to an "Absolute Objective Morality" that is independent of human subjective options.

In other words, they claim that morality comes first, and values must then fall in line with this absolute objective morality.

What the OP is saying is no, it's the other way around. You need to start with values first, and the only way to do that is to have a subjective entity to subjectively value something.

Only then can you move forward to making those subjectively chosen values more concrete by using them as a basis for objective considerations.

So really the term "objective morality" itself is an ill-defined term. What really needs to be addressed is the difference between "Absolute Morality" and "Relative Morality"

Human morality is relative to human subjective values. So it's ultimately a "Relative Morality". Can it then be made "objective". Sure. It can be made relative objective with a recognition that it is entirely based upon subjective values. The values themselves are what cannot be considered to be objective.

But there can be no such thing as "Absolute Morality" unless there first exists an absolute entity who has subjective values to begin with. And the OP also addressed how absurd that notion is. The only way to continue with that argument is to argue that there are even higher Absolutely Objective Morals that even the God itself must conform to, and that removes the necessity of the God entirely. So it becomes a futile theistic argument.

Only subjective values can exist, and therefore all morality must be based upon subjective values. The term "objective' is actually an needed term. The real question is whether or not moral values can be Absolute or are they all Relative.

The problem seems to be the people often use the term "Objective" to mean "Absolute".

There can be "Objective Morality" in the sense that it is "Objectively Dependent" upon previous subjective values. But that doesn't make it "Absolute".

I think the real problem in this thread is going to be making the distinction between "Absolute" and "Objective".

Sam Harris makes a case for a type of Scientific or logical morality. And one could argue that Sam Harris is arguing for an "Objective Morality" based on logic, reason AND "subjective human values" which is clearly included in Sam Harris' thesis.

But that's not an absolute morality. It's an attempt to make morality as objective as possible in light of the fact that human values are necessarily subjective.

It still ends up being a Subjective Morality in the end.

[wiploc]

I think the real problem in this thread is going to be making the distinction between "Absolute" and "Objective".

Tell me what you think the difference is, so I can read your post again with that in mind.