What matters more, our goal or how we get there?

[bluegreenearth]

I was recently engaged in a lengthy conversation about human morality and whether it is objective or subjective when a pragmatic realization precipitated in my mind. If we both care about maximizing well-being and minimizing harm for the most people, why do our motivations for achieving that shared goal have to be aligned as well? Will everyone need to believe morality is objective before we can agree to maximize well-being and minimize harm for the most people? How does my belief that human morality evolves with our species through the process of natural selection prohibit a theist from sharing my desire to cooperate in such a way as to maximize the well-being of us both? Where are theists and non-theists willing to compromise in determining which moral actions and behaviors serve the best interests of everyone regardless of whether morality is objective or subjective?

[WeSee]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

If we both care about maximizing well-being and minimizing harm for the most people, why do our motivations for achieving that shared goal have to be aligned as well? Will everyone need to believe morality is objective before we can agree to maximize well-being and minimize harm for the most people? How does my belief that human morality evolves with our species through the process of natural selection prohibit a theist from sharing my desire to cooperate in such a way as to maximize the well-being of us both?

Whenever I've seen the question of whether morality was objective or subjective it has always been put forward by a Christian as a prelude to the argument from morality for the existence of God. So such questions would be irrelevant.

Under what circumstances have you seen it put forward?

[bluegreenearth]

Whenever I've seen the question of whether morality was objective or subjective it has always been put forward by a Christian as a prelude to the argument from morality for the existence of God. So such questions would be irrelevant.

Under what circumstances have you seen it put forward?

Yes, the issue of objective morality is typically brought up in context of the argument for the existence of God. However, outside of that one apologetic argument, what does it matter if morality is objective or subjective? I propose that debating whether morality is objective or subject is a distraction from the more important issue of determining how we all might best achieve our shared goal of maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary harm for the most people.

[WeSee]

[Replying to post 3 by bluegreenearth]

I propose that debating whether morality is objective or subject is a distraction from the more important issue of determining how we all might best achieve our shared goal of maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary harm for the most people.
Granted maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary harm for the most people SHOULD be the goal of all. The reality seems to be that it isn't the goal of most. This might especially be true of Christians.

However, outside of that one apologetic argument, what does it matter if morality is objective or subjective?
Seems like having a ground for objectively determining what is and is not moral is important - which may not be the same thing. "Maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary harm for the most people" could serve as such a ground.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 3 by bluegreenearth]

I propose that debating whether morality is objective or subject is a distraction from the more important issue of determining how we all might best achieve our shared goal of maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary harm for the most people.
Granted maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary harm for the most people SHOULD be the goal of all. The reality seems to be that it isn't the goal of most. This might especially be true of Christians.

However, outside of that one apologetic argument, what does it matter if morality is objective or subjective?
Seems like having a ground for objectively determining what is and is not moral is important - which may not be the same thing. "Maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary harm for the most people" could serve as such a ground.

I contend that we really don't have a choice of where to ground morality because it seems to be tied to the evolutionary process of natural selection. In effect, morality is grounded in evolution by natural selection (i.e. maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary harm for the most people) whether we like it or not. For example, if Christian morality is objective in the way that they claim, it still competes with other religious and secular moral systems for selection and reproduction as though it were just another subjective morality. Whichever objective or subjective moral system survives the natural selection process will be the morality humanity demonstrates. However, I'm reluctant to discuss this further as it could distract from the main topic of this thread.

[Zzyzx]

.
My two cents

Morality is grounded in the culture in which one lives. Every culture and sub-culture develops its ‘mores’ – defined as: the traditional customs and ways of behaving that are typical of a particular (part of) society https://dictionary.cambridge.org

There is great variation from culture to culture and from time to time regarding what is acceptable (moral) behavior. Individuals adopt, to greater or lesser extent, the mores / morals of their culture or sub-culture to develop their personal morals (which they may follow to greater or lesser extent).

There are NO universal morals (true in all places at all times) and NO objective morals (free from influence of human minds). Even genocide, murder, rape, slavery, infanticide, etc are morally acceptable in some cultures at some times.

Lofty claims of superior morals are self-serving opinions. Claims that morals are pronounced by ‘gods’ are unfounded / unsupported / perhaps delusional.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 6 by Zzyzx]

So rape and genocide cannot be said to be absolutely and universally wrong no matter the circumstances? What about bashing babies heads against rocks, drowning them ? Or wiping out whole populations to move your own people in? absolutely and universally wrong or not?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 6 by Zzyzx]

So rape and genocide cannot be said to be absolutely and universally wrong no matter the circumstances? What about bashing babies heads against rocks, drowning them ? Or wiping out whole populations to move your own people in? absolutely and universally wrong or not?

Well, we have Moses, Solomon and the United States doing these things, in God's name.

Sorry, wouldn't want this to be a one-liner, or not provide proof.
The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21)
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
(Solomon) Psalms: 137:8 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

Manifest Destiny, not in the Bible, but in God's name.

What an awesome God he is!

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 6 by Zzyzx]
So rape and genocide cannot be said to be absolutely and universally wrong no matter the circumstances? What about bashing babies heads against rocks, drowning them ? Or wiping out whole populations to move your own people in? absolutely and universally wrong or not?

Well, there is an ancient book, revered by some, called Bible that claims that its 'god' condones such things. So, evidently such things are NOT wrong at all for worshipers of said 'god'.

It might be prudent to review the definitions of 'universal' and 'absolute'

[JehovahsWitness]

Well, there is an ancient book, revered by some, called Bible that claims that its 'god' condones such things. So, evidently such things are NOT wrong at all for worshipers of said 'god'.

So?! do you have a problem with that? If not, whats your gripe?



JW