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.

[AgnosticBoy]

There is no set definition or purpose for morality which opens the door for subjectivity. Is it just about order and survival? What is the "reality"? Why should I go simply by the biology of a small planet instead of the biology and physics of the entire Universe? Perhaps nothing is meant to survive forever? All things go through periods of existence and non-existence?

Keeping all of this in mind, I'm not advocating for chaos. I'm just pointing to the fact that reality can be cruel or amoral, as opposed to moral or immoral. I personally choose to function as if morality should be shared even if it isn't objective.

[Divine Insight]

I personally choose to function as if morality should be shared even if it isn't objective.

Exactly. Just because morality is a human ideal is no reason to ignore it or dismiss it as being irrelevant.

Also, we should indeed be prepared to question the "Absolute Moral Authority" of anyone.

Why stand back and watch as religious zealots burn women at the stake as "witches" just because they claim that this is what some invisible God supposedly wants them to do?

Why stand back and watch religious zealots condemning gay couples, treating them cruelly and demanding they go though shock treatment to cure them?

Questioning mortal authoritarians is a GOOD thing!

[Divine Insight]

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

It's the only concept of morality that exists. Can you show any other form of morality? No, you can't. Why? Because there is no evidence for morality beyond human opinion.

Yes, human opinions are the only ground for morality. The problem with theists is that they think there should be more to it than this. but there isn't.

How do we know that there isn't anything more to it than this? Because there is absolutely nothing we can point to for support of that ideal.

Moreover, the universe itself reveals to us daily that our opinions on morality are meaningless to the universe. They are only meaningful to us.

In other words, morality only has subjective meaning to humans. If it wasn't for human subjective opinions on morality there would be no such thing as morality.

Clearly there was no morality before humans appeared on the planet. There would be no morality if humans suddenly became extinct. And as much a humans like to argue about morality they can't even behave in a way that is consistent with their own moral views and ideals.

Morality is nothing more than a human dream.

Fortunately being a social species we can dream together and create a system of subjective morality for our own conduct.

But where his concept of morality goes sour is when people start to claim that their moral opinions are backed up by some all powerful God.

That's when the very concept of morality devolves to become nothing more than religious arrogance. And historically that approach hasn't even worked anyway. All it has ever done is cause religious division, holy wars, and holy men preying on the innocent children in their flocks.

If anything religions have proven that they are terrible when it comes to upholding any sense of moral integrity.

Religions drag the concept of morality into the sewer. They have no business trying to proclaim moral superiority. They make a joke of the very concept of morality.

[AgnosticBoy]

You might be interested in this article. https://thegemsbok.com/art-reviews-and- ... -morality/

I liked some points from the article but ultimately it doesn't justify objective morality in my view.

Here are some key points I took away:

From this perspective, one will be able to observe that although morality, both for the individual and for society, might not be literally objective, this does not mean that it must be purely subjective; it may be functionally objective. Certain basic moral strictures, as twentieth century moral philosopher James Rachels points out, are necessary for a society to go on existing:

There is a general theoretical point here, namely, that there are some moral rules that all societies will have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist. (Rachels 157)

This may be true for a handful of rules, like don't kill, steal, and cheat. But even following this does not ensure survival when an asteroid can hit the planet and wipe out all life as we know it (if you don't like asteroid then substitute any number of natural accidents/disasters). Can we then say that human life was "meant" to survive? If it is not meant to survive, then I see little to no reason to call morality "objective".

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

It's the only concept of morality that exists.

It doesn't exist mate. Your imaginary thoughts are not real.

Maybe some atheists can explain this to you. There are a few on this forum....

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

It's the only concept of morality that exists.

It doesn't exist mate. Your imaginary thoughts are not real.

Maybe some atheists can explain this to you. There are a few on this forum....

What do you mean it doesn't exist?

Apparently what you actually mean is that objective morality doesn't exist.

Morality as a human idea most certainly does exist. We wouldn't be talking about it if it didn't.

What you mean is that subjective morality does not equate to objective morality.

Of course it doesn't. There is no such thing as objective morality. If you think there is then please produce it. No one throughout all of history has been able to do that yet. Morality has never been anything other than a human idea.

Apparently you don't understand what is being said, for if you did you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements as "Subjective morality doesn't exist".

We all know that subjective morality most certainly exists. That would necessarily continue to be true even if an objective morality also existed. The existence of an objective morality wouldn't make subjective morality go away. They would simply coexist. But that's assuming that there was such a thing as objective morality. The problem is that no one can point to it.

Can you point to objective morality? If not, then you clearly don't have an objective morality to even speak of.

[Bust Nak]

If I might:

How is a subjective view of morality real?

The same way food taste is real, the same way aesthetics is real, the same way music taste is real. Real in the sense that moral statements are propositions about entities in reality, propositions that have truth values.

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

Why does anyone need to accept that the Earth is not flat? Why does anyone need to accept that 1+1=2? In short because it would be nicer for the rest of us, if we base our decision on the correct view.

As always your arguments seem so self-defeating... we have a firm basis for morality being objective.

What exactly were you referring to by "I want to admit defeat. To be honest [DI] defeated me several years ago." What are you admitting defeat to, if you do not actually accept that the case for subjectivism has triumphed over objective morality?

Just call them opinions. There are no unicorn opinions...

I opine that there are no such things as unicorns. Does that not count? We do call them opinion, but what's wrong with categorising them according to the area they deal with?

Is there such a thing a food taste? Is there such a thing as music taste? Why this and not "just call them opinions. There are no music taste, there are no food taste. There are opinions. There is no aesthetics. Do you see that now?"

It doesn't exist mate. Your imaginary thoughts are not real.

Sure they do, they are signals in our brains. Perhaps you meant to say my thoughts are abstract as opposed to "not real?"

[Artie]

You might be interested in this article. https://thegemsbok.com/art-reviews-and- ... -morality/

I liked some points from the article but ultimately it doesn't justify objective morality in my view.

Here are some key points I took away:

From this perspective, one will be able to observe that although morality, both for the individual and for society, might not be literally objective, this does not mean that it must be purely subjective; it may be functionally objective. Certain basic moral strictures, as twentieth century moral philosopher James Rachels points out, are necessary for a society to go on existing:

There is a general theoretical point here, namely, that there are some moral rules that all societies will have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist. (Rachels 157)

This may be true for a handful of rules, like don't kill, steal, and cheat. But even following this does not ensure survival when an asteroid can hit the planet and wipe out all life as we know it (if you don't like asteroid then substitute any number of natural accidents/disasters). Can we then say that human life was "meant" to survive? If it is not meant to survive, then I see little to no reason to call morality "objective".

Some behaviors are objectively beneficial for the well-being and survival of a society, some behaviors are objectively detrimental. Human subjective opinions about those behaviors are completely irrelevant to whether those behaviors are actually objectively beneficial or detrimental. Hence morality is objective.

[AgnosticBoy]

You might be interested in this article. https://thegemsbok.com/art-reviews-and- ... -morality/

I liked some points from the article but ultimately it doesn't justify objective morality in my view.

Here are some key points I took away:

From this perspective, one will be able to observe that although morality, both for the individual and for society, might not be literally objective, this does not mean that it must be purely subjective; it may be functionally objective. Certain basic moral strictures, as twentieth century moral philosopher James Rachels points out, are necessary for a society to go on existing:

There is a general theoretical point here, namely, that there are some moral rules that all societies will have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist. (Rachels 157)

This may be true for a handful of rules, like don't kill, steal, and cheat. But even following this does not ensure survival when an asteroid can hit the planet and wipe out all life as we know it (if you don't like asteroid then substitute any number of natural accidents/disasters). Can we then say that human life was "meant" to survive? If it is not meant to survive, then I see little to no reason to call morality "objective".

Some behaviors are objectively beneficial for the well-being and survival of a society, some behaviors are objectively detrimental. Human subjective opinions about those behaviors are completely irrelevant to whether those behaviors are actually objectively beneficial or detrimental. Hence morality is objective.

You made a good point but survival of society is not dependent solely on behavior. I'm raising an argument from natural evil about your view of objective morality. I assume the purpose of an objective morality is to ensure good society, health, etc. But such things aren't ensured and may not matter if we are expendable to the greater whole of the Universe.

I think your view also doesn't cover the oughtness issue. Who or what says that society has to exist some way? Biology? Physics says otherwise . Life has not always existed, needs not exist, and we are expendable to the greater whole of the Universe.

[Artie]

You made a good point but survival of society is not dependent solely on behavior.

Never said otherwise.

I'm raising an argument from natural evil about your view of objective morality. I assume the purpose of an objective morality is to ensure good society, health, etc.

There is no "purpose" to an objective morality. Evolution and natural selection didn't give us moral brains for a "purpose". Those who got them just happened to get a survival advantage. We who have them follow the moral wiring for everybody's benefit including our own.

I think your view also doesn't cover the oughtness issue. Who or what says that society has to exist some way? Biology? Physics says otherwise . Life has not always existed, needs not exist, and we are expendable to the greater whole of the Universe.

Never claimed society or life "needs" to exist. Evolution and natural selection don't have "needs". It's the same brain wiring that makes us behave morally that makes us think we "ought" to do it. Two sides of the same coin.