Subjective Morality

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Subjective Morality

Post #1

Post by The Tanager »

I started this post out of another discussion with Divine Insight. DI has made some arguments for morality being subjective. I'm still trying to get the terminology straight.
Divine Insight wrote:If morality is not absolute, then it can only be subjective. A matter of opinion.
We need to get our terms straight when talking about our human morality. I agree with you concerning 'subjective' being a matter of opinion. Objective, then, would mean not being a matter of opinion. Just like the shape of the earth is not a matter of opinion. X is good or bad for everyone.

Absolute vs. situational is a sub-issue concerning objectivism. The absolutist would say X is good or bad for everyone (and thus objectivism) no matter the situation. The situationalist would say X is good or bad for everyone but qualified by the situation.

In this phrasing, morality can be objectivist without being absolute. Now, I don't care if these are the terms we agree upon or not, but there must be some term for each concept I've presented. If you want to use "absolute" for "objective" above, that's fine. But you've got to tell me what two terms you want to use for what I termed the "absolute vs. situational" sub-issue.

User avatar
wiploc
Guru
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #51

Post by wiploc »

Divine Insight wrote:
wiploc wrote: For one thing, if we didn't have the concept, then you couldn't argue that morality is subjective.
Just because we can conceptualize something doesn't make it objective.
I agree; we can conceptualize subjective things. But that's not evidence that objective things don't exist too.



I would personally argue that we don't even need a concept of morality at all. Not even a subjective morality. What good is morality? All morality is useful for is for passing judgements on people.
Jonathan Haidt, in The Righteous Mind, says that, in the absence of moral beliefs, we couldn't have societies of more than about 300 people.

(That's not how Haidt said it, but I think it's a fair restatement of his claim.)



We have laws. And laws are what keep people from doing things we don't want them to do. At least it keeps most people from doing things we don't want them to do.

And laws really have nothing to do with morality, nor should they.
That seems to me an outrageous claim.



I have to pay property taxes lest I get in trouble with the law. What in the world does paying property tax have to do with morality or concepts of right or wrong?
If you want me to play devil's advocate, I'll point out that some people think tax evaders don't pay their fair share, and that not paying your fair share is wrong.

We can't go around beating fair shares out of everybody. A society that prospers will be one in which people pay their fair share voluntarily, because they think that is morally right.



I personally think that property tax is wrong in the first place.
To quote Detective Sargent Arthur Dietrich (played by Steve Landesburg in Barney Miller), "It's a point of view."



I have to get my car inspected, licensed, and insured. What in the world does any of that have to do with morality? Most of our laws have nothing at all to do with morality.
To quote or paraphrase Audrey (Little Shop of Horrors), "You're talkin' peculiar again, Seymour."



Even laws that might seem to be about morality really have nothing to do with morality. Like stealing and shoplifting. There would be laws against doing those things just as a matter of commercial practicality. Who cares whether we judge a thief to be a "Good or Bad" person? That's not the point of the law. The law isn't out to brand people as being good or bad. It's just out to insure that people don't do things we don't want to be done. That's all.
I agree that the law judges whether someone did a particular bad thing. It does not judge whether she is a bad person.

I can't agree that supporting a moral code with criminal penalties has nothing to do with morality.



None of our laws should be based on moral judgements anyway. We don't have laws against murder because we think it's morally wrong. We have laws against murder because we don't want people going around killing each other just because they feel like it. It simply isn't compatible with trying to create a safe and strong society.

A society doesn't even need to have any concept of morality at all. All they need to do is make practical laws and enforce them. What purpose does it serve to judge the criminals to be "bad people"? It serves no purpose at all other than potentially publicly shamming them.

So we don't even need a concept of morality. What does morality have to do with setting a speed limit of 55 MPH on the highway? Absolutely nothing. We make all manner of laws that have absolutely nothing at all to do with morality.
If we didn't have speed limits, more people would die. Lives would be messed up. We would suffer more without speed limits.

I read Machiavelli's The Prince in Junior High, and concluded that we are responsible for the predictable effects of our actions. If you'll grant me that point, then it follows that failing to set speed limits would make us responsible for the resulting deaths, injuries, and the resulting suffering.

It would be wrong of us not to set speed limits.

Setting speed limits is a moral act.



Morality is a concept that has one use only. To judge others. That's it. Even the law doesn't use it. They don't judge whether a criminal is a good or bad person. All they do is judge whether or not he broke a law.

Societies have no need for morality anyway. It's a concept that we don't even need.
For societies of fewer than 300 people, that could be true. But I'm skeptical.



Just make laws based on how a society expects their citizens to act, and that's all that's necessary. No moral judgements required. In fact, it's quite dangerous when they start making laws based on what they think is moral or immoral.

So morality is not only ill-defined. But it's virtually useless anyway.
Morality is how we work together with people we don't know. It is how we strive as a group for things that don't benefit us personally. It's how we fit more than eight million people on the planet. It is how we appeal to people's better nature.



Even subjective morality is a useless construct. It amounts to nothing more than passing moral judgements on others. That's all it's any good for.

And if we judge a person to be immoral, or have committed an immoral act and the law can't convict them. Then they get off Scott free anyway. Judging them to have been immoral is a total waste of time.
You think that, if Bill Cosby had been aquitted, he'd have gotten off scott free?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #52

Post by Divine Insight »

wiploc wrote: Why should we pursue your god's goal instead of some other goal?
If there really does exist a God who created all of reality as we know it and he has a goal and will punish us severely if we don't cooperate with it, then perhaps this might be incentive to climb onboard with the goal God has in mind.

I can certainly understand this, but I also see three major problems with it.

1. We have no evidence that any such God exists.

2. Even if it does exists we clearly have no unambiguous means of knowing what its goal might be, or how it intends to achieve it, or what it even expects from us in terms of behaviors.

Religious people point to their Holy Books, but that's ridiculous because even they can't agree among themselves precisely what their God expects from humans. So there's no unambitious means of knowing any clear morality or goals to be had there.

3. Finally, let's go way out on a limb here and imagine that we can prove that a God exists and that we even have access to crystal clear and unambiguous directives the God expects us to follow:

Then what? :-k

Should we just blindly agree to follow these rules whether we agree with them or not?

And if so, why? Just to avoid the wrath of the God?

Would religious people bow down and worship Satan if Satan was this God?

Even if we were compelled to avoid the wrath of God would the goal of living under the rule of a God that we can't even agree with be all that inviting?

If Satan was this God, then how many Christian theists would refuse to obey him and be willing to suffer the wrath of his eternal everlasting wrath just as a matter of principle, rather than surrendering to comply to his evil goals?

There are countless issues here.

Of course, case #3 assumes that we have already demonstrated that a God does exist for certain, and that we know precisely what he expects from us. Neither of which has been demonstrated.

Finally I'd like to offer even one more point:

4. If this God exists and is truly benevolent, loving, and trustworthy, then why are decent people like myself being left in the dark concerning both his existence, and a crystal clear an unambiguous set of moral rules to follow?

Surely if the God is benevolent, loving and trustworthy, I shouldn't have any difficulty with his rules. After all I'm all for benevolence, love and trust. So why not make the rules crystal clear to me so I can agree with them and support them?

I can't even imagine where I could find such rules. They certainly don't exist in the Christian Bible.

They might possibly exist in Buddhism, but then again, Buddhism doesn't contain absolute rules and threats of what might happen if they are broken. In fact, it doesn't even claim that God demands to be believed in or obeyed. And it certainly doesn't have a God proclaiming that we are all sinners in dire need of repentance to the point where God had to come to earth and have humans brutally crucify him on our behalf.

So Buddhism actually has a God that I can agree with, but the God of Buddhism isn't making any extreme moral demand on me either. So in Buddhism all I need to do is follow my own heart and that should lead me to God naturally. At least in my case because I know that my heart is innocent and wants no parts of evil. There would be no reason for a decent God to be upset with me.

But Christianity demands that I'm in the doghouse with God.

They have no proof their God exists. No clear moral codes to follow. And yet they demand that I'm in the doghouse with their God and that only Jesus can free me from this horrible predicament.

And all I need to do is believe. With no compelling evidence. And with no clear moral codes either. Just believe on pure faith and I'll be saved from being in the doghouse with God.

That's just not a compelling theology. Buddhism make more sense then this.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #53

Post by Divine Insight »

wiploc wrote: Jonathan Haidt, in The Righteous Mind, says that, in the absence of moral beliefs, we couldn't have societies of more than about 300 people.

(That's not how Haidt said it, but I think it's a fair restatement of his claim.)
Can it be shown that his claim is anything more than a subjective opinion?

Also, does it really need to be "moral beliefs" or would secular social ethics suffice?

Ethics don't require judging anyone to be a bad person. Ethics are simply a set of rules that a society or organization agrees to. And they can indeed be quite subjective and even open to democratic votes.

wiploc wrote:
We have laws. And laws are what keep people from doing things we don't want them to do. At least it keeps most people from doing things we don't want them to do.

And laws really have nothing to do with morality, nor should they.
That seems to me an outrageous claim.


How can you say this? You know it's true. What does a law that says that we have to get our car inspected for safety have to do with morality?

Also there was a time when some states didn't even require auto inspections. Not sure if that's still true today, but who would say that those states were immoral because they didn't' require safety inspections on their cars?

The law that says you have to pay the county property tax? Morality?

How about income tax? What's the got to do with morality?

There are tons of laws that clearly have nothing at all to do with morality.

And I suggest that even those that can be argued to coincidentally line up with the moral values preached by some, they'd probably exist anyway even if there never was such a concept of morality.

Like murder for example. We don't make that against the law because we think that people who commit murder should be punished. Instead, we make the law because we don't want citizens to think that it's ok to just go around killing each other for no good reason.

wiploc wrote:
I have to pay property taxes lest I get in trouble with the law. What in the world does paying property tax have to do with morality or concepts of right or wrong?
If you want me to play devil's advocate, I'll point out that some people think tax evaders don't pay their fair share, and that not paying your fair share is wrong.
So? That's their subjective opinion.
wiploc wrote: We can't go around beating fair shares out of everybody. A society that prospers will be one in which people pay their fair share voluntarily, because they think that is morally right.
It has nothing to do with morality. What about someone who lost their job and can't find work. Now you're demanding that they pay their "Fair Share". Well, in this case their "Fair Share" should be zero because they have no source of income. Yet come property tax time not being employed doesn't count for much.

So I question the concept of "Fair Share" and suggest that this is also nothing more than a subjective opinion.

Besides, I think that NO ONE should have to pay property taxes. That's certainly fair.

And why should people who have no children be forced to pay school tax? Why not let the people who have children pay for their own kid's education?

How is it fair to force people who don't have kids to pay for the education of other people's children?

wiploc wrote:
I personally think that property tax is wrong in the first place.
To quote Detective Sargent Arthur Dietrich (played by Steve Landesburg in Barney Miller), "It's a point of view."
Exactly. Nothing more than a subjective opinion. It certainly has nothing to do with any objective morality.
wiploc wrote:
I have to get my car inspected, licensed, and insured. What in the world does any of that have to do with morality? Most of our laws have nothing at all to do with morality.
To quote or paraphrase Audrey (Little Shop of Horrors), "You're talkin' peculiar again, Seymour."
When you respond with comments like this I know the points I'm making are rock solid. :D


wiploc wrote:
Even laws that might seem to be about morality really have nothing to do with morality. Like stealing and shoplifting. There would be laws against doing those things just as a matter of commercial practicality. Who cares whether we judge a thief to be a "Good or Bad" person? That's not the point of the law. The law isn't out to brand people as being good or bad. It's just out to insure that people don't do things we don't want to be done. That's all.
I agree that the law judges whether someone did a particular bad thing. It does not judge whether she is a bad person.

I can't agree that supporting a moral code with criminal penalties has nothing to do with morality.
Why even judge that it to have been a "bad thing"? Just becasue it was illegal doesn't mean it was a bad thing. I got busted a while back for having an expired license plate on my car. Caught me totally by surprise. I had no clue the plate had run out. I got the car inspected and thought I had renewed the license at the same time but apparently forgot to actually do it. So I got fined for having simply made an honest mistake.

The law doesn't give a hoot whether anything "bad" was done or not. All they care about is whether a law is broken.

It has absolutely nothing to do with morality at all.
wiploc wrote:
None of our laws should be based on moral judgements anyway. We don't have laws against murder because we think it's morally wrong. We have laws against murder because we don't want people going around killing each other just because they feel like it. It simply isn't compatible with trying to create a safe and strong society.

A society doesn't even need to have any concept of morality at all. All they need to do is make practical laws and enforce them. What purpose does it serve to judge the criminals to be "bad people"? It serves no purpose at all other than potentially publicly shamming them.

So we don't even need a concept of morality. What does morality have to do with setting a speed limit of 55 MPH on the highway? Absolutely nothing. We make all manner of laws that have absolutely nothing at all to do with morality.
If we didn't have speed limits, more people would die. Lives would be messed up. We would suffer more without speed limits.
That's not even why they cut the speed limit back to 55 MPH. Look it up.
wiploc wrote: I read Machiavelli's The Prince in Junior High, and concluded that we are responsible for the predictable effects of our actions. If you'll grant me that point, then it follows that failing to set speed limits would make us responsible for the resulting deaths, injuries, and the resulting suffering.

It would be wrong of us not to set speed limits.

Setting speed limits is a moral act.
And that, my friend is your personal subjective opinion. One that I don't personally agree with.
wiploc wrote:
Morality is a concept that has one use only. To judge others. That's it. Even the law doesn't use it. They don't judge whether a criminal is a good or bad person. All they do is judge whether or not he broke a law.

Societies have no need for morality anyway. It's a concept that we don't even need.
For societies of fewer than 300 people, that could be true. But I'm skeptical.
Your taking Jonathan Haidt's subjective opinion as Gospel truth. Why?
wiploc wrote:
Just make laws based on how a society expects their citizens to act, and that's all that's necessary. No moral judgements required. In fact, it's quite dangerous when they start making laws based on what they think is moral or immoral.

So morality is not only ill-defined. But it's virtually useless anyway.
Morality is how we work together with people we don't know. It is how we strive as a group for things that don't benefit us personally. It's how we fit more than eight million people on the planet. It is how we appeal to people's better nature.
Why call it morality? What's wrong with secular ethics? :-k

Ethics works well for companies and commercial industries. And even for our legal system. There's no need to judge people to have done "bad" things. If they aren't in harmony with our ethics, we don't say that they are "bad" people. We simply say that they aren't respecting our ethics.

We can have rules of conduct without bringing a concept of morality into the picture at all. Like I say, driving with an expired license is illegal, but who's to say that it's immoral? :-k
wiploc wrote:
Even subjective morality is a useless construct. It amounts to nothing more than passing moral judgements on others. That's all it's any good for.

And if we judge a person to be immoral, or have committed an immoral act and the law can't convict them. Then they get off Scott free anyway. Judging them to have been immoral is a total waste of time.
You think that, if Bill Cosby had been aquitted, he'd have gotten off scott free?

Well, he certainly would have gotten off scott free from a legal perspective.

And who's going to punish him? Some invisible imaginary God?

You'd need to demonstrate that such a God exists to make that argument.

And if you're going to argue for the God of Christianity you need to take into considering that Jesus may simply forgive Bill Cosby and give him undeserved free amnesty to obtain eternal life in paradise.

So where did morality go after that? :-k

Jesus promises to let everyone off the moral hook. All they need to do is ask.

So even Jesus doesn't give a hoot about morality apparently. Just ask Jesus to forgive you and you'll get a free undeserved pardon. It's that easy.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Artie
Prodigy
Posts: 3306
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:26 pm

Post #54

Post by Artie »

Divine Insight wrote:I haven't seen any arguments for the existence of any objective morality.
Would you go around murdering people? If not, why not? Answer in five sentences or less.

User avatar
wiploc
Guru
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #55

Post by wiploc »

Divine Insight wrote: So Buddhism actually has a God that I can agree with,
Most Buddhists are atheists. It is possible to believe in gods and still be Buddhist, but Buddhism is often called and atheist religion.

User avatar
wiploc
Guru
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #56

Post by wiploc »

Divine Insight wrote:
And laws really have nothing to do with morality, nor should they.
That seems to me an outrageous claim.


How can you say this? You know it's true.
You give offense.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #57

Post by The Tanager »

Artie wrote:Once again, I have never claimed that evolution and natural selection had as a goal to create strong and healthy societies. They are just natural processes. Some actions are objectively beneficial and some are objectively detrimental to the well-being and survival of societies that is just a fact.
Neither am I claiming that evolution and natural selection had that as a goal. I even said there might be a better word than "goal," so don't get caught up on that. And I've already said I agree with you about certain actions being objectively beneficial or detrimental to the well-being and survival of societies. I'm not questioning the reasons for objectively judging X or Y to be better at helping society survive and flourish.

I'm questioning the reasons for objectively judging whether it is better to help society survive and flourish or not. Now, I don't disagree that we should help society survive and flourish. I'm just saying that I don't think you have provided an objective reason for that.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #58

Post by The Tanager »

Divine Insight wrote:I'm not arguing that morality is a subjective human construct because I want it to be true, or even because I have some personal reason to support this idea.
I never said you were.
Divine Insight wrote:So my actual "claim" is that since there is no evidence to the contrary, AND since morality as a subjective human construct fits with everything that can be shown to exist concerning this idea, then where is there any argument that we should even consider a proposal of some objective morality.
That has not been your only claim. I've brought out seven possible arguments from your posts. I then critiqued those arguments. In your latest post you have abandoned those arguments (some of which I allow were misunderstandings and, therefore, not your arguments, but not all of them). So, what is left of the positive support for morality being a human social construct? There is nothing. You claim you have presented tons of evidence, but unless you deal with the critiques, your posts fail in connecting the evidences you speak of to morality being a human social construct. Without any positive support your case is reduced to:

(1) There is no positive support for morality being a human social construct.
(2) Morality being a human social construct is logically consistent.
(3) There is no positive support for morality coming from outside of humans.

To that I would add

(4) Morality not being a human social construct is logically consistent.

If (3) is true, then wouldn't the rational view be agnosticism? The way it wouldn't be is if you could show (4) to be false. I don't think you can do that, but feel free to offer reasons if you feel you can.

If not, then we can turn to my beliefs and support for those beliefs. Here I think you may have assumed some incorrect things about what I would claim. So far, I have only been responding against the notion that there is strong positive support for morality being a human social construct. As such, I have not actually made a positive claim. But now I will make three positive claims.

(A) If theism is true, then morality is not a human social construct.

I realize this depends on how one defines theism; I mean it in the most traditional sense.

(B) If atheism is true, then morality is probably a human social construct.

I think (B) would be your strongest support to counter (1) above. Although I do not think a strong rational case can be made for atheism, I think those that believe atheism is true (even if "just" more plausible than theism) are rational to believe morality is a human social construct. The reason I say "probably" is because a case would need to be made against Moral Platonism and physical reductionism (or possibly other suggestions I am unaware of). I think a good case can be made against those (at least those views I am aware of), so that I think, given your atheism, you should believe morality is a human social construct.

I do not want to turn this into a theism v. atheism debate, though, so what are left with if we treat that question as unsettled? That brings me to a third positive claim.

(C) Given agnosticism concerning the theism question, it is more plausible to believe morality is not a human social construct.

To me, we would be left in agnosticism in our question if it weren't for our common human intuitions about morality. As I observe humankind I think it is natural for humans to think and act as though morality is not a human social construct. We act differently towards child torturers than we do those countries that drive on the other side of the road from us. People have to overcome those natural intuitions to become a consistent subjectivist.

I think the simplest answer is that we have these intuitions because they are true. I think that is the most rational belief until a defeater comes along. In the same way we can trust our vision until evidence comes along to defeat that and show that we are seeing a mirage, for instance. Atheism, if true, would probably be the defeater (unless cases can be made for Moral Platonism, physical reductionism, or some view unknown to me).

But let's say that one doesn't buy this. I don't see how anyone can make the case to automatically distrust our universal human intuition and sway the balances towards morality being a social human construct. That would leave us back with agnosticism. Now, at that point another consideration (risk v. reward) might come into play, but we have enough to discuss so far, so that question can be saved.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #59

Post by The Tanager »

wiploc wrote:I don't know what to say to that. Are you saying it can't be objective if it involves society?
I'm saying that just because it involves society, that doesn't make it objective. Using utilitarianism (alone) to support moral realism, seems to me, to make that mistake.
wiploc wrote:Why should we pursue your god's goal instead of some other goal?
I don't have anything new to say there from when we discussed this awhile ago. We talked of distinct issues being important here. Does a creator have the authority to impose specific goals on their creation? Even if that authority is there, why should free creatures follow those wishes?

I think creators have complete freedom to give their creations one goal or another, to set up reality in that way. As to why creatures should follow, if they should, that depends on how the creator sets everything up. Ultimately, I think the Christian picture paints the idea that God imposes specific goals on humans that match up with what makes them as naturally happy as possible. Looking out for the interests of others is part of what brings us individual happiness.
wiploc wrote:Are you saying that god-made moralities are subjective unless we all agree with them?
No, I would say those are two different issues.

Artie
Prodigy
Posts: 3306
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:26 pm

Post #60

Post by Artie »

The Tanager wrote:Neither am I claiming that evolution and natural selection had that as a goal. I even said there might be a better word than "goal," so don't get caught up on that. And I've already said I agree with you about certain actions being objectively beneficial or detrimental to the well-being and survival of societies. I'm not questioning the reasons for objectively judging X or Y to be better at helping society survive and flourish.

I'm questioning the reasons for objectively judging whether it is better to help society survive and flourish or not. Now, I don't disagree that we should help society survive and flourish. I'm just saying that I don't think you have provided an objective reason for that.
I've never claimed there's an objective reason why we should help society survive and flourish so I have no idea why you keep pestering me to provide one.

Post Reply