On Morality and Counter-Apologetics

[Jester]

I have heard it claimed by several on this site that morality is merely a social construction. In general, the state of affairs is that those who believe in some kind of deity/higher power believes objective ethics flow from that deity; those who don't believe consider human opinion (whether corporate, individual, or both) to be the source of ethics.

It seems to me, and to most atheists with whom I've discussed the matter, that there is no point in using the Bible as a source of ethics until you've convinced your opponent that the God of the Bible exists (and, for some, not even then).

While many theists tend to be blind to this fact, the opposite seems the harder to grasp for some atheists I have personally encountered: That, if one claims that social convention and/or individual decision is the source of all ethics, those who disagree will be entirely nonplussed by moral cries made on these grounds.

More simply, there are those who seem to demand that religion has caused a great deal of immorality - expecting to make the religious see the err of their ways - then sabotage their own claim by stating that morality is up to society. What is more surprising to me is the case of claiming that ethics are social, then claiming (in a predominantly theist society) that worshiping a God is immoral.

The questions, then, are as follows:
Is it reasonable to claim that ethics are socially created, but that it is not unethical to disagree with a society?
Is this what is actually being claimed by the non-theists which you have encountered (or yourself, if you happen to be a non-theist)? If not, what is it?
Quite apart from truth, is there any point in theists or non-theists trying to persuade an opponent with ideas which require acceptance of a whole new paradigm before they will carry any weight?
If indeed morals are merely human constructs, is there any process by which we can claim that some are better than others, or are we stuck with the idea that the Nazis are no more good or bad than we?
Lastly, is there any view of ethics which does not either depend on belief in some form of deity or logically lead us to nihilism?

[ChaosBorders]

Quite apart from truth, is there any point in theists or non-theists trying to persuade an opponent with ideas which require acceptance of a whole new paradigm before they will carry any weight?

Probably not directly, though arguably trying to persuade an opponent can often increase the certainty in your own beliefs, so if you need to strengthen your own beliefs for your personal state of mind then go on ahead and argue.

If indeed morals are merely human constructs, is there any process by which we can claim that some are better than others, or are we stuck with the idea that the Nazis are no more good or bad than we?

Not objectively better, no. Subjectively we can (and often do) claim we're better than anybody we feel like.

Lastly, is there any view of ethics which does not either depend on belief in some form of deity or logically lead us to nihilism?

I am aware of none that do not lead to objective nihilism, but there are plenty of subjective systems and plenty of people who do not feel the need for objectivity in this matter.

[Jester]

Quite apart from truth, is there any point in theists or non-theists trying to persuade an opponent with ideas which require acceptance of a whole new paradigm before they will carry any weight?

Probably not directly, though arguably trying to persuade an opponent can often increase the certainty in your own beliefs, so if you need to strengthen your own beliefs for your personal state of mind then go on ahead and argue.

I suppose there's more truth there for each of us than we'd like to admit.

If indeed morals are merely human constructs, is there any process by which we can claim that some are better than others, or are we stuck with the idea that the Nazis are no more good or bad than we?

Not objectively better, no. Subjectively we can (and often do) claim we're better than anybody we feel like.

I agree, and this bothers me (objectively or subjectively depending on who is right).

Lastly, is there any view of ethics which does not either depend on belief in some form of deity or logically lead us to nihilism?

I am aware of none that do not lead to objective nihilism, but there are plenty of subjective systems and plenty of people who do not feel the need for objectivity in this matter.

I suppose that, unless objectivity can be established, there's nothing obliging them to care. I would say that I personally doubt that anyone truly doesn't care so much as is choosing not to seriously consider the idea. While I wouldn't try to argue unconscious motivations in most all circumstances, the position that there is no objective ethic, and that some are simply not bothered by such a thing, does not line up with the fact that many of those who have told me they are not bothered by it have demanded that I accept their moral positions. This causes me to wonder about that point.

[ChaosBorders]

Lastly, is there any view of ethics which does not either depend on belief in some form of deity or logically lead us to nihilism?

I am aware of none that do not lead to objective nihilism, but there are plenty of subjective systems and plenty of people who do not feel the need for objectivity in this matter.

I suppose that, unless objectivity can be established, there's nothing obliging them to care. I would say that I personally doubt that anyone truly doesn't care so much as is choosing not to seriously consider the idea. While I wouldn't try to argue unconscious motivations in most all circumstances, the position that there is no objective ethic, and that some are simply not bothered by such a thing, does not line up with the fact that many of those who have told me they are not bothered by it have demanded that I accept their moral positions. This causes me to wonder about that point.

If they consider their subjective position more logically valid, they are not inclined to care that it cannot be defended from an objective standpoint, they are still likely to try and persuade others their position should be accepted. Regardless of one's standpoint, it is almost always human nature to try and persuade others to agree with your point of view.

[Jester]

Lastly, is there any view of ethics which does not either depend on belief in some form of deity or logically lead us to nihilism?

I am aware of none that do not lead to objective nihilism, but there are plenty of subjective systems and plenty of people who do not feel the need for objectivity in this matter.

I suppose that, unless objectivity can be established, there's nothing obliging them to care. I would say that I personally doubt that anyone truly doesn't care so much as is choosing not to seriously consider the idea. While I wouldn't try to argue unconscious motivations in most all circumstances, the position that there is no objective ethic, and that some are simply not bothered by such a thing, does not line up with the fact that many of those who have told me they are not bothered by it have demanded that I accept their moral positions. This causes me to wonder about that point.

If they consider their subjective position more logically valid, they are not inclined to care that it cannot be defended from an objective standpoint, they are still likely to try and persuade others their position should be accepted. Regardless of one's standpoint, it is almost always human nature to try and persuade others to agree with your point of view.

I certainly don't see how anyone could demand that they do not without imposing some outside morality which these people, obviously, would not share. My only issue would be with the idea that they see their subjective position to be more logically valid. I don't see how one could believe that a position is both subjective and more logically valid. As I understand logical validity, this would be a contradiction of terms.

[ChaosBorders]

I certainly don't see how anyone could demand that they do not without imposing some outside morality which these people, obviously, would not share. My only issue would be with the idea that they see their subjective position to be more logically valid. I don't see how one could believe that a position is both subjective and more logically valid. As I understand logical validity, this would be a contradiction of terms.

Logical validity is different from soundness. If they view someone else's position as internally inconsistent, it is not logically valid, whereas if they view their own position as more consistent then they can argue it is more valid (but not objectively sound). If someone tried to argue their position was logically sound, you would be absolutely correct that soundness and subjectivity are a contradiction in terms.

[Jester]

Logical validity is different from soundness. If they view someone else's position as internally inconsistent, it is not logically valid, whereas if they view their own position as more consistent then they can argue it is more valid (but not objectively sound). If someone tried to argue their position was logically sound, you would be absolutely correct that soundness and subjectivity are a contradiction in terms.

I suppose that's true. Internal consistency may be an issue.
I've not often considered it, however, in that opinions are not generally expected to be internally consistent - and, if one happens to be insisting that morality is subjective, I don't see that a demand that others' opinions be logical is any more reasonable than demanding that one's tastes elsewhere be consistent.

Most of all, however, thanks for the comments. Agree or disagree, they are helping me to understand the sides of the issue much more clearly.

[ChaosBorders]

Logical validity is different from soundness. If they view someone else's position as internally inconsistent, it is not logically valid, whereas if they view their own position as more consistent then they can argue it is more valid (but not objectively sound). If someone tried to argue their position was logically sound, you would be absolutely correct that soundness and subjectivity are a contradiction in terms.

I suppose that's true. Internal consistency may be an issue.
I've not often considered it, however, in that opinions are not generally expected to be internally consistent - and, if one happens to be insisting that morality is subjective, I don't see that a demand that others' opinions be logical is any more reasonable than demanding that one's tastes elsewhere be consistent.

It certainly can be a somewhat ironic position to take.

Most of all, however, thanks for the comments. Agree or disagree, they are helping me to understand the sides of the issue much more clearly.

You're welcome.

[Cathar1950]

I see humans as social and morality seems to have a social dimension.
How can a person be ethical or moral if there is only one person?

Morality and ethics are abstractions based upon human social relations.
We develop and learn morality as we mature. I was reading somewhere that we are not even fully morally developed until we are past our teens.
Moral development and reflection are based on how we act towards others. We judge actions towards others to be good or bad.
What is the good?

Morality is relative and by relative I mean dependent upon relations between people. God doesn’t so much declare what is good as much as God would recognize the good in the relationships or conditions…
This is why I have problems with your idea that there is no morality with out God.
Our evolution has created us as social creatures which is the foundation of our morality.
We don’t created out of nothing nor is it an arbitrary creation. As a social concept as it is grounded in social relationships and Reciprocal altruism.

[Jester]

Morality is relative and by relative I mean dependent upon relations between people. God doesn’t so much declare what is good as much as God would recognize the good in the relationships or conditions…
This is why I have problems with your idea that there is no morality with out God.
Our evolution has created us as social creatures which is the foundation of our morality.
We don’t created out of nothing nor is it an arbitrary creation. As a social concept as it is grounded in social relationships and Reciprocal altruism.

While I can understand, even empathize with, this, the question isn't about whether or not such a system is based on some central belief in the value of social relationships, but whether or not there is a reason to support such a belief outside of opinion.

To rephrase a bit, what support would you present in a debate against a person who claimed "I feel no need to respect social relationships and reciprocal altruism"?