Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

[Divine Insight]

In another thread The Tanager has requested a separate thread for his argument for the existence of a Non-Subjective morality.

You made the claim that subjective morality exists in that other thread and this one. I am responding to that claim. I'm also willing afterwards to offer my own reasons for believing in non-subjective morality. If and/or how would one come to know what the non-subjective morality is would be an additional question, but it does not settle this one that we are talking about because of the claims you have made. After this discussion, start a thread on that and I'll share my thoughts.

I would be very interested to hear these arguments.

If and/or how would one come to know what the non-subjective morality is would be an additional question

I agree. First we need to have reasons to even suspect that such a thing exists. I would like to hear those arguments first.

But yes, if those initial arguments are compelling (which I confess to being skeptic about already), a far more important question would be the question of how we could come to know what those moral rules are.

Without this additional knowledge the existence of a non-subjective morality would be useless. A system of morality whose content cannot be known would be meaningless.

So yes, we not only need to have arguments for the existence of a non-subjective morality, but we then need to know precisely what it contains without ambiguity.

Any ambiguity would bring us right back to having to subjectively guess what we think it might contain anyway. So that would hardly be useful and would instantly return us right back to a state of subjective morality.

So yes, we don't just need to know that an objective morality exists, but we also need to know precisely what it contains.

[Divine Insight]

(1) If atheism is true, then human morality is probably subjective.

(2) If theism is true, then human morality is objective.

Theism is just the belief in the existence of one or more gods and as such has nothing to do with morality. Maybe you should rephrase to something like "if belief in the Abrahamic god" is true... ?

Absolutely!

There are many theistic religions that do not claim that their God is giving anyone any absolute objective moral commandments to follow. Nor do they claim that the entire purpose of God is to ultimately pass judgement on the moral character of every single individual human and delve out rewards or punishments based on that character.

There's also a huge problem with the Abrahamic judgemental God. It appears that this God is stuck between only two choices. Total exoneration of an individual and acceptance of them into eternal life in heaven, or total condemnation of an individual sentencing them to everlasting punishment.

This could hardly be called a fair system of justice in any case. A truly fair system of justice would allow individuals to make amends for their acts of immorality. Petty offense would be easier to make amends for than more serious crimes.

Plus the whole idea of Jesus offering immoral people free amnesty flies in the face of any sense of justice at all.

Abrahamic theology isn't even consistent with sound concepts of morality or justice.

I mean, really, if we're going to look for a theism that is in harmony with human's ideas of morality and justice the Abrahamic theology would be the first theology we'd need to toss out. It doesn't even represent good moral values anyway. At least not in any sense that humans mean by the term.

Abrahamic theists are the last people on earth who should be talking about morality. Their religion represents the antithesis of morality.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

I'm not going to rehash my responses there for you here because you were there and had the opportunity to read them multiple times. I'll gladly respond to any new thing from you here, though. There was nothing new from you in that post.

[The Tanager]

For those reading this who were not a part of that other thread, DI and I perceive how that discussion went very differently. I will summarize my claims there for anyone interested here and will gladly clarify and defend those claims further.

(1) If atheism is true, then human morality is probably subjective.

(2) If theism is true, then human morality is objective.

Theism is just the belief in the existence of one or more gods and as such has nothing to do with morality. Maybe you should rephrase to something like "if belief in the Abrahamic god" is true... ?

The language could definitely be tightened up (much of the context of that thread was left unsaid in my summary, such as DI focusing on my theistic belief versus theism in general). I would say that it's true for more than just the Abrahamic theologies, though.

[Wootah]

I agree. I oppose the entire idea of objective morality entirely. I see no reason why we humans can't accept that our ideas of morality are entirely base on our own subjective opinions. That's the first thing we need to do.

Hi DI.

First I want to admit defeat. To be honest you defeated me several years ago. Normally I wouldn't, but here I must dive in to ask you ....

Can you please give me a simplistic, concise answer as to how this statement of yours makes sense?

How is a subjective view of morality real? If subjective morality is real why do we need to do anything?

As always your arguments seem so self-defeating, I try not to worry any more but here I stand to ask again how you think this way.

To be honest, due to the above apparent contradiction in subjective morality I think we have a firm basis for morality being objective.

[wiploc]

How is a subjective view of morality real? If subjective morality is real why do we need to do anything?

Why should we think the real/unreal issue has anything to do with the objective/subjective issue?

Which is better, an objective morality that encourages rape, or a subjective morality that forbids rape?

How would the objectivity of the former mean that we ought to comply with it?

[Wootah]

How is a subjective view of morality real? If subjective morality is real why do we need to do anything?

Why should we think the real/unreal issue has anything to do with the objective/subjective issue?

Which is better, an objective morality that encourages rape, or a subjective morality that forbids rape?

How would the objectivity of the former mean that we ought to comply with it?

Hi wiploc

- Why should we think the real/unreal issue has anything to do with the objective/subjective issue?

That is a question that I can't understand.

- Which is better, an objective morality that encourages rape, or a subjective morality that forbids rape?

There is no known universe where rape is moral. How about that?

[wiploc]

How is a subjective view of morality real? If subjective morality is real why do we need to do anything?

Why should we think the real/unreal issue has anything to do with the objective/subjective issue?

Which is better, an objective morality that encourages rape, or a subjective morality that forbids rape?

How would the objectivity of the former mean that we ought to comply with it?

Hi wiploc

- Why should we think the real/unreal issue has anything to do with the objective/subjective issue?

That is a question that I can't understand.

Moral realists believe that there are things we ought to do. They believe that some behaviors are better than others.

You seem to link realism with objectivism; you seem to say that objective morality is real but subjective morality is not.

I don't understand your claim. I don't see any justification for it. I invite you to expound and explain.

- Which is better, an objective morality that encourages rape, or a subjective morality that forbids rape?

There is no known universe where rape is moral. How about that?

It doesn't address the question.

Why do you think objective morality has a better claim on us than subjective morality? Why do you think it is the "objective" part rather than the "morality" part that gives objective morality oughtyness?

[Divine Insight]

How is a subjective view of morality real?

Because the evidence that this is the case is overwhelming. And there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there exists any concept of morality beyond the concept that humans themselves invented.

Even theists exhibit the overwhelming evidence that morality amounts to nothing other than human opinions. Even theists can't agree among themselves what should or should not constitute moral behavior, save for a few extreme cases where they can reach a subjective consensus.

If subjective morality is real why do we need to do anything?

I'm assuming the 'we' includes anyone who is interested in the truth of our reality.

If we are interested in the truth of our reality then recognizing the our moral values are indeed our own personal subjective opinions would go a long way to helping us understand the reality in which we live.

It would certainly cause us to stop judging each other based on what some ancient jealous God had supposedly commanded men to do or not do.

The Biblical God is disgusting, The sooner humanity can get past these ancient immoral fables as supposedly being the directives of a God the better off we'll all be.

So that's why it's important for us to recognize the fallacy of these ancient God fables and start accepting the truth that human moral values are entirely based upon human subjective opinions.

The sooner we face the truth the sooner we can live in harmony with truth.

Doesn't anyone care about truth? Or is all they care about defending ancient barbaric immoral God fables? A jealous God who hates anyone who doesn't love him.

Just let that last sentence sink in for a while if you want to ponder the contradictions of these ancient jealous-God fables. A loving God who hates anyone who doesn't love him?

If that's not a contradiction I don't know what is.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 17 by wiploc]

You seem to link realism with objectivism; you seem to say that objective morality is real but subjective morality is not.

I don't understand your claim. I don't see any justification for it. I invite you to expound and explain.

By and large, what is subjective is not real and it gets worse for the domain of morality if it is just subjective.

Why do you think objective morality has a better claim on us than subjective morality? Why do you think it is the "objective" part rather than the "morality" part that gives objective morality oughtyness?

I cited the argument from contradiction. I don't need to argue for objective morality, the contradiction inherent in subjective morality proves objective morality.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 18 by Divine Insight]

There is evidence for human opinions. There is no evidence that is grounds for morality.

Even theists exhibit the overwhelming evidence that morality amounts to nothing other than human opinions. Even theists can't agree among themselves what should or should not constitute moral behavior, save for a few extreme cases where they can reach a subjective consensus.

If you understood what you wrote you would understand why you defeated yourself. If even the theists (objective moralists) can't work out what constitutes moral behaviour then morality doesn't exist.

recognizing the our moral values are indeed our own personal subjective opinions

Just call them opinions. There are no unicorn opinions, there are no flying spaghetti monster opinions and there are no moral opinions. There are opinions. There is no subjective morality. Do you see that now?

The Biblical God is disgusting, The sooner humanity can get past these ancient immoral fables as supposedly being the directives of a God the better off we'll all be.

So that's why it's important for us to recognize the fallacy of these ancient God fables and start accepting the truth that human moral values are entirely based upon human subjective opinions.

The sooner we face the truth the sooner we can live in harmony with truth.

Doesn't anyone care about truth? Or is all they care about defending ancient barbaric immoral God fables? A jealous God who hates anyone who doesn't love him. Rolling Eyes

Just let that last sentence sink in for a while if you want to ponder the contradictions of these ancient jealous-God fables. A loving God who hates anyone who doesn't love him?

If that's not a contradiction I don't know what is.

Pointless, off-topic, diatribe.