Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #1

Post by Divine Insight »

In another thread The Tanager has requested a separate thread for his argument for the existence of a Non-Subjective morality.
The Tanager wrote: 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.
The Tanager wrote: 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.
[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
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #2

Post by The Tanager »

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

I meant a thread for the further question focused solely on how we would now what the objective morality is. I think the case for objective morality should remain with the other thread. If you still want to share thoughts on my arguments there, we can then come back to here to further discuss.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #3

Post by Divine Insight »

The Tanager wrote: I think the case for objective morality should remain with the other thread..
Well, you haven't made a case for it yet. I'm still waiting on that.

All you did in the other thread was demand that I prove that subjective morality is all that exists. I don't feel I'm under and obligation to prove this since my position is that subjective morality is the only thing we have any evidence for. I never claimed that I could prove that subjective morality is all that exists.

I don't see how you could argue that subjective morality doesn't exist? We clearly see humans holding clearly subjective moral opinions on morality. So the existence of subjective morality is a given.

The only question now is whether there might also exist some objective morality beyond that. And thus far you have presented zero evidence for that.

So feel free to do that here, or in the other thread. But subjective morality clearly already exists. There can be no doubt about that.
[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
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1335
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #4

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Divine Insight wrote: In another thread The Tanager has requested a separate thread for his argument for the existence of a Non-Subjective morality.
The Tanager wrote: 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.
The Tanager wrote: 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.
Much of your arguments creates problems for theistic and non-theistic systems of morality. One naturalistic argument that I'm against is the one that relies on evolution. In my view, for objective morality to truly work, it would need to apply or have effect on the entire Universe. Evolution only relates to biology, and mostly to humans in a moral context. There's no sense in telling me that natural selection determines "objective" morality when the rest of the universe is guided by blind (amoral) forces. Amoral forces that has ledc to the destruction of countless of species. What good is being good if the Universe continues regardless of good or bad or regardless of "life" at all? At least in the theistic paradigm, humans and Universe are guided by a moral entity.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #5

Post by Divine Insight »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Much of your arguments creates problems for theistic and non-theistic systems of morality.
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.
AgnosticBoy wrote: One naturalistic argument that I'm against is the one that relies on evolution.
Again, I agree 100%. Trying to use evolution as a basis for morality is absurd. Evolution has clearly favored species who rob, steal and kill for their own survival, with humans being no exception to this.

I do understand how some people can argue that evolutionary factors may have played a role in shaping some of our subjective opinions about morality, but trying to turn to evolution as a the basis for an objective morality is clearly a grave mistake.
AgnosticBoy wrote: In my view, for objective morality to truly work, it would need to apply or have effect on the entire Universe.
Agreement again. :D
AgnosticBoy wrote: Evolution only relates to biology, and mostly to humans in a moral context.
Evolution is clearly fine with stealing the eggs, and babies of other species. Or killing and eating a pregnant mother and any children she might have clinging to her.

Evolution is hardly a model for human morality. Evolution condones a dog-eat-dog world. Stealing is perfectly fine in terms of evolution as long as it contributes to your reproduction. Evolution would most likely frown upon monogamy too. Why settle for monogamy when you can be more genetically prolific achingly like a rabbit?

In fact, evolution seems to favor rabbits pretty well. :D
AgnosticBoy wrote: There's no sense in telling me that natural selection determines "objective" morality when the rest of the universe is guided by blind (amoral) forces. Amoral forces that has ledc to the destruction of countless of species. What good is being good if the Universe continues regardless of good or bad or regardless of "life" at all? At least in the theistic paradigm, humans and Universe are guided by a moral entity.
Again, I totally agree.

Perhaps you misunderstood the purpose of this thread?

I was not arguing for non-subjective morality. :D

I started this thread for The Tanager to post his arguments for non-subjective or "objective" morality.

Apparently it turns out that he doesn't have any arguments to support those philosophical ideals.

I agree with you, for starters he would need to show where there is evidence for the existence of such a thing. But thus far, no evidence has been produced.
[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

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #6

Post by Artie »

AgnosticBoy wrote:Much of your arguments creates problems for theistic and non-theistic systems of morality. One naturalistic argument that I'm against is the one that relies on evolution. In my view, for objective morality to truly work, it would need to apply or have effect on the entire Universe. Evolution only relates to biology, and mostly to humans in a moral context. There's no sense in telling me that natural selection determines "objective" morality when the rest of the universe is guided by blind (amoral) forces. Amoral forces that has ledc to the destruction of countless of species. What good is being good if the Universe continues regardless of good or bad or regardless of "life" at all? At least in the theistic paradigm, humans and Universe are guided by a moral entity.
You might be interested in this article. https://thegemsbok.com/art-reviews-and- ... -morality/

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #7

Post by Bust Nak »

Article posted by Artie wrote: [Morality is] not objective, in the sense that it is not the immutable force described by moral realists.
In a philosophical debate of subjectivism vs objectivism, whether morality is as described by moral realists or not is the deciding factor.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #8

Post by The Tanager »

Divine Insight wrote:I started this thread for The Tanager to post his arguments for non-subjective or "objective" morality.

Apparently it turns out that he doesn't have any arguments to support those philosophical ideals.

I agree with you, for starters he would need to show where there is evidence for the existence of such a thing. But thus far, no evidence has been produced.
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.

(3) Assuming agnosticism on the theism issue, I argued that objectivism would be more plausible than subjectivism until a defeater comes along...(akin to trusting our physical senses until shown evidence that we see a mirage before us)...due to a very specific universal human initial moral intuition that morality is an objective kind of thing.

I did not propose data backing up that this is universal (since it is introspective evidence and we can't get that kind of data on it) and only offered it in that light, telling those whose introspective evidence goes against that to discount the argument and turn back to agnosticism concerning the objectivism/subjectivism issue.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #9

Post by Divine Insight »

The Tanager wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:I started this thread for The Tanager to post his arguments for non-subjective or "objective" morality.

Apparently it turns out that he doesn't have any arguments to support those philosophical ideals.

I agree with you, for starters he would need to show where there is evidence for the existence of such a thing. But thus far, no evidence has been produced.
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.
You were demonstrated to be wrong in the other thread. And ironically you repeat those flawed argument again here:

(1) If atheism is true, then human morality is probably subjective.
It wouldn't just "probably" be subjective, it would be subjective. That's all it could be. And that's also all that it actually is.
(2) If theism is true, then human morality is objective.
This is clearly false because even if a God existed (especially a God as described in the Hebrew Bible, then morality would be nothing more than the subjective opinions of that God.

If there actually existed an objective morality then even the God would need to abide by that higher morality. But the Biblical God has no problem murdering anyone he feels like murdering. He even commanded men to kill other men who worship God's other than him. He's a self-confessed jealous God who has no problem killing anyone who doesn't worship and obey him.

But never mind the immoral God of the Bible. That's obviously a work of fiction anyway.

The bottom line is that if there was an objective morality that says that it's wrong to kill human babies then any God who created animals that would attack an eat a human baby would be an immoral God. Yet, that's exactly what we see happening in our real world. So there cannot be any objective morality. Even if a creator God exists he would necessarily be an immoral creator. Unless you want to claim that it's moral to kill human babies.
(3) Assuming agnosticism on the theism issue, I argued that objectivism would be more plausible than subjectivism until a defeater comes along...(akin to trusting our physical senses until shown evidence that we see a mirage before us)...due to a very specific universal human initial moral intuition that morality is an objective kind of thing.
But this argument fails for the same reason. The defeater already exists. It's called the universe. Many people refer to it as "real life".
I did not propose data backing up that this is universal (since it is introspective evidence and we can't get that kind of data on it) and only offered it in that light, telling those whose introspective evidence goes against that to discount the argument and turn back to agnosticism concerning the objectivism/subjectivism issue.
Introspection can't change the fact that we live in a dog-eat-dog world. Humans can do all the introspection they so desire, that's not going to change the reality that the natural world does not behave in a fashion that humans consider to be moral.

The fact that the world is not designed in a way that even humans would consider to be moral proves that there cannot be a moral creator God, or any form of objective morality.

So there is no question that objective morality does not exist. It's a philosophical dream that many humans, including myself, would be thrilled if it could be true. But the fact is that it can't be true. The facts are already in. We live in an universe that does not behave in way that we wish it would behave.

That's reality.

Talking about an imaginary objective morality may be a temping philosophical dream to wish for. But unfortunately the universe doesn't behave in a way that is compatible with that dream.

If this universe was created by a God, then that God cannot be moral., At least not in a way that would be compatible with what humans think should constitute morality.

It's not just that there is no evidence for objective morality. The problem for moral dreamers is that the evidence that no objective morality can exist is already abundant in the universe. Right here on planet earth, right before our very eyes.

And the immorality of the earth can't even be blamed on humans. Animals were behaving in ways that humans deem to be immoral long before humans ever evolved, and if humans became extinct tomorrow animals would continue to behave in ways that humans would consider to be immoral. So actions that humans would consider to be immoral exist even without humans being around to complain about it.

The world is innately immoral. And if it was created by a God then the creator God is necessarily also immoral. So trying to claim that our universe was created by a perfectly moral creator doesn't work anyway.

The evidence against the existence of any objective morality is overwhelming.
[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

Re: Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

Post #10

Post by Artie »

The Tanager wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:I started this thread for The Tanager to post his arguments for non-subjective or "objective" morality.

Apparently it turns out that he doesn't have any arguments to support those philosophical ideals.

I agree with you, for starters he would need to show where there is evidence for the existence of such a thing. But thus far, no evidence has been produced.
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... ?

Post Reply