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]

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.

I agree completely. Our concepts of morality are indeed entirely subjective. This is why we often disagree on what we subjectively consider to be moral.

I think it's safe to say that the it's even "objectively apparent" that morality is subjective. Just as you have clearly pointed out. There can no no such thing as values that are independent of those who hold subjective values.

Therefore we can know with absolute certainty that all concepts of morality are necessarily subjective value judgements.

And so I agree that the argument for "objective morality" has been clearly debunked and has no merit. There can be no such thing as "objective morality". All concepts of morality are necessarily subjective values.

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?

I agree again. A God cannot be the source of objective morality. At best a God could only be the dictator of his own subjective moral opinions.

I also agree that those who argue for an objective morality that even God must obey and conform to defeats the whole purpose of introducing a God in the first place. Yet this is precisely what theists demand when they claim that their God is "righteous". By what standard of morality?

If God is nothing more than a dictator of his own subjective moral values then who's to say that he's "righteous"?

And if there is a higher standard above God that represents "objective righteousness" then this places God in the same boat with us merely having to obey some higher objective morality.

So it's an oxymoron to try to claim that a God is the source of absolute morality.

Humans are the source of all morality, and all morality amounts to are subjective values of individual humans who sometimes form groups and support a general consensus of subjective morality. But we even see disagreement in groups that do this.

There is no such thing is "objective consensus" either. All consensus is subjective and this is why humans can never agree on an absolute objective consensus.

And of course the proof of this resides in the myriad of religious groups, each of which boasts of having the highest consensus of morality. But closer examination reveals that even within each of these groups there are distinctive views on what should be considered moral or immoral.

Religions themselves are proof that there is no such thing as "objective morality".

[bluethread]

And of course the proof of this resides in the myriad of religious groups, each of which boasts of having the highest consensus of morality. But closer examination reveals that even within each of these groups there are distinctive views on what should be considered moral or immoral.

Religions themselves are proof that there is no such thing as "objective morality".

Yes, the wide range of activity based organizations does show that moral codes vary quite a bit. Even within the animal rights movement, their are varying degrees of what is considered moral and immoral treatment of animals, yet each group insists that their practices be followed by all societies. What is moral and immoral with regard to things, like how one treats animals, depends on one's philosophy.

[wiploc]

Morality does not make a statement about the good and bad until a set of values is established.

I'll stipulate that for the sake of argument.

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.

There's no such thing as intrinsic value. That would require value without a valuer.

But I don't see how that entails the absence of objective values.

To say that life is valuable is to assume that there is a thing called life and there are those that value it,

And those are objective facts, right?

once you have established this subjective notion you can make objective statements about how life is best valued.

One paragraph ago, you said this was impossible. So why are you now reversing yourself? Either you can make objective statements about the implications of subjective values, or you can't. If you can, then there's no reason that you can't make objective moral statements based on subjective moral values.

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.

Agreed. Good point.

[Alueshen]

There's no such thing as intrinsic value. That would require value without a valuer.

I agree, but I'm not sure how that, or even if that was meant to invalidate what I said or just refine the idea. I'll assume refine.

But I don't see how that entails the absence of objective values.

What does it mean to have an "objective value" independent of someone to consciously value it? When talking about a god, if a perfect being decides what values are important, they are valued with respect to it's subjective notion of value. Again, if you want to try to claim that the universe is permeated with "objective values" then you are saying that god is merely the messenger and really he isn't the source of values, but passing values along that would exist w/ or w/o god. Said another way....To say that objective values that exist in a universe where there are no subjects to value them is a meaningless and incoherent concept. It's similar to the concept of measurement. Do measurements exist in a universe where there are no minds to create and use them? What would it even mean to posit such a concept like measurement in a universe devoid of minds?

One paragraph ago, you said this was impossible. So why are you now reversing yourself? Either you can make objective statements about the implications of subjective values, or you can't. If you can, then there's no reason that you can't make objective moral statements based on subjective moral values.

You misunderstand. I said there are no objective values, once you decide something is subjectively valuable there are objectively right and wrong ways to achieve or fail to achieve certain values. For example, if you value your life, it is objectively deleterious to your life to skydive without a parachute. See, to say that there can be objective ways to achieve values once their known is not the same as saying there are no objective values.

[wiploc]

There's no such thing as intrinsic value. That would require value without a valuer.

I agree, but I'm not sure how that, or even if that was meant to invalidate what I said or just refine the idea. I'll assume refine.

I agree that you can't have a value without a valuer. I don't see what that has to do with objective morality.

You act like the lack of intrinsic value entails the lack of objective morality. How do you make that work?

But I don't see how that entails the absence of objective values.

What does it mean to have an "objective value" independent of someone to consciously value it?

My apology. I did say "objective values" where I should have said "objective morality."

You said that valuation is done subjectively, and only after that does morality come into play: making rules about how we ought to behave in order to achieve what we value.

Thus, for instance:
Subjective value: I don't want my finger eaten by a wild bear.
Objective rule based on that value: I shouldn't dip my finger in honey and put it in a wild bear's mouth.

The value is subjective, but the rule is not.

I don't see any way to get from your premise (values are subjective) to your conclusion (moral rules based on subjective values must be subjective too), particularly when you yourself give examples of objective rules based on subjective values.

When talking about a god, if a perfect being decides what values are important,

When talking about gods, "perfect" means omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. At least that's what I learned in class. So maybe it is a usage to be avoided as potentially confusing.

If perfect doesn't mean tri-omni, then using the word begs the question of what standard we're measuring the god against. That's your topic anyway, but using this word here seems to muddy the waters.

I'm just noting the problem in passing. Maybe it won't cause any problems further down.

they are valued with respect to it's subjective notion of value.

At least if it arbitrarily decides.

Again, if you want to try to claim that the universe is permeated with "objective values" then you are saying that god is merely the messenger and really he isn't the source of values, but passing values along that would exist w/ or w/o god.

I call this the "signpost god." He's not causing love to be good; he's only reporting that love is good. He is entirely irrelevant to morality.

Said another way....To say that objective values that exist in a universe where there are no subjects to value them is a meaningless and incoherent concept. It's similar to the concept of measurement. Do measurements exist in a universe where there are no minds to create and use them? What would it even mean to posit such a concept like measurement in a universe devoid of minds?

S'pose everybody died. All life ended. Objective facts would remain: The speed of light. The earth is not the center of the universe. Objects of differing mass accelerate at the same rate in a vacuum.

I apologize again for using the phrase "objective values." You said that values are subjective, and I should have asked why that prohibits the existence of "objective morality," not "objective values."

One paragraph ago, you said this was impossible. So why are you now reversing yourself? Either you can make objective statements about the implications of subjective values, or you can't. If you can, then there's no reason that you can't make objective moral statements based on subjective moral values.

You misunderstand. I said there are no objective values, once you decide something is subjectively valuable there are objectively right and wrong ways to achieve or fail to achieve certain values. For example, if you value your life, it is objectively deleterious to your life to skydive without a parachute. See, to say that there can be objective ways to achieve values once their known is not the same as saying there are no objective values.

Right. Granted. I apologize for misspeaking.

But you did say there can be no objective morality. And this is where you say morality comes in: after the determination of subjective values.

You say, "Once you decide something is subjectively valuable there are objectively right and wrong ways to achieve or fail to achieve certain values." If the topic of these subjective values has to do with morality (say, for instance, honesty, religion, honor, fidelity, or loyalty) then the "objective ways to achieve values" will be objective moral rules.

I think. It makes sense, doesn't it?

[Alueshen]

[Replying to post 6 by wiploc]

I don't see any way to get from your premise (values are subjective) to your conclusion (moral rules based on subjective values must be subjective too), particularly when you yourself give examples of objective rules based on subjective values.

So here is the crux of the problem as I see it. You are thinking about morality as actions taken. Morality is a noun and while there may be "moral rules" all that means is that those rules are judged as good based upon positive outcomes based on actions taken by those that share those values.

What I'm saying is there are objectively right and wrong actions that we can take to achieve moral outcomes. The actions are measured by morality, they are not moral until they are viewed in light of values, because the same actions can lead to different moral outcomes. So the action itself cannot be objectively moral.

It is wrong to steal. That is a subjective value, but the morality of stealing can really only be determined in the light of the values held by the society that judges the actions based on values which in turn inform morality.

Thus, if you were a judge and a person were brought before you and charged with stealing (an action generally thought of as morally wrong) would you pass sentence without explanation? Even if there were video clearly showing that the accused had stolen, could you pass judgement then without an explanation? Of course not because stealing isn't objectively wrong, its subjective based on the circumstances. If the person stole something because a person outside the store he stole from was holding a gun to his wife's head and told to steal, then we can understand, because we value his wife's life more than the property he stole.

There are lots and lots of situations that we can use to illustrate this point.

Since values come before morality, how could you say that morals are objective?

Now in the end you state:

S'pose everybody died. All life ended. Objective facts would remain: The speed of light. The earth is not the center of the universe. Objects of differing mass accelerate at the same rate in a vacuum.

I never said that a universe w/o people wouldn't have objective facts, I said that a universe without people wouldn't have objective values*, thus it follows morality as a concept would be equally useless.[/u]

*Where values (implied: positive values) are ideas that sentient creatures deem important or beneficial.

[wiploc]

So you're recanting? You're saying that this statement ...

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.

... is no longer true?

[Alueshen]

So you're recanting? You're saying that this statement ...

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.

... is no longer true?

Really not sure where the disconnect lay. That statement is perfectly consistent with what I've been saying.

Subjective notion: We value happy healthy flourishing children

Moral implication: Acts that knowingly and willfully jeopardize the happiness, health and ability of children to flourish are immoral*.

Example, torturing children is immoral.

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

If raising happy, healthy flourishing children is valued (and it is), then one ought not torture children as torturing children would objectively counter the goal of happy , healthy flourishing children. There is no universe where torturing children will lead to happy healthy children*.

*This assumes there aren't any extenuating circumstances.

[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 ...