Subjective Morality and God

[liamconnor]

Many here like to point out that morality is subjective. But many like to point out the moral wrongs of the so called god of the bible.


But if morality is subjective, then why are the doings of this god wrong?

Is it possible that there is a god, that it is the god of the bible, and that morality is subjective?

This question is for people who have subscribed to a subjective moral worldview, and yet continue to denounce the god of the O.T. as being objectively immoral.

If there is no objective morality, then the god of the o.t. cannot be denounced on moral grounds (other grounds, yes, but not moral grounds).

Right?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 57 by Bust Nak]


Okay, before we continue, let me take the word "actually" out of the equation. With this being the case, the question would be,

Can we agree, that if morality is subjective, this would mean that no one can be rightly accused, of being immoral?

That's like saying, "If we agree that race courses are to be measured in meters rather than furlongs, no one can rightly be said to have finished a race."

In fact, if you stipulate the length of the course in meters, then the race will be finished when that many meters have been passed.

Likewise, if you stipulate that morality is subjective, then it becomes an objective fact that immorality occurs when someone violates subjective moral rules.

That's like saying, "If we agree that race courses are to be measured in meters rather than furlongs, no one can rightly be said to have finished a race."

You are confusing the subjective, with the objective. If a race course is measured, then it is measured by an objective standard, no matter which type of measurement you use. Both, "meters, and furlongs" would be an objective measurement.

If the race is measured in meters, then those who participate, must travel the measured distance, and it would be the same with furlongs, since they are both objective standards of measurement.

When we turn our attention to morality, there is no objective measurement to gauge those who may be running the race. We are all left to our own subjective opinion as to what the measurement would be.

In fact, if you stipulate the length of the course in meters, then the race will be finished when that many meters have been passed.

Exactly! This is because there are those who have, "STIPULATED" how long the race would be. They are the ones who make the "rules" and if we want to participate in this race, then we must abide by their rules.

Who is it, who has "STIPULATED" the rules of morality? Who is it that, has determined the rules? We have just agreed that in a race there is a rule determining exactly how long the race will be, and I am sure we could find out exactly who all was responsible for making the rules. So what are the rules concerning morality?

Likewise, if you stipulate that morality is subjective, then it becomes an objective fact that immorality occurs when someone violates subjective moral rules.

First, none of us can "stipulate" that morality is subjective. Morality is subjective, or it is not, it cannot be, "stipulated."

Next, if morality is subjective, then there are no rules! That is what it means for something to be subjective.

If you like the taste of liver, and I do not, then it is all good. Why? Because it is subjective and there are no rules. I would rather have a dog for a pet, while others prefer a cat, and it is all good. I would rather drive a Chevy, while there are others who prefer a Ford, and it is all good. And again why? Because these things are subjective, and there are no rules!

So then, if morality is subjective in the same way as all these things above, then there are no rules, and no one can be accused of breaking the rules.

This is what it means for something to be subjective. Something that is subjective, is based upon feelings, tastes, and opinions, and there are no rules concerning such things. Once rules are stipulated, it becomes objective.

It is like this. For something to be subjective, there are not rules, there are only opinions. If something is objective, then there are rules, and your opinion would not factor into the equation.

I'm afraid you are the one who is confusing objective and subjective. A meter is not anymore objective than a moral is. A meter does not exist, the concept of measurement only has meaning in human brains. A meter has meaning because it is something that humans have agreed ought to have meaning. Morals are no different. Morals only exist because human brains assign concepts (like good or bad) to things. A foot is also a concept of measurement. So is an AU. The usefulness, and the agreement of that usefulness, differs over time and location. Same with morals. The value and usefulness of a moral differs depending on when and where it is attempted to be used. What is "right" in America is not necessarily "right" in Pakistan or the Brazilian rain forest. What is the "right" unit of measurement in America is not necessarily "right" in Pakistan or the Brazilian rain forest.

Seems morals and meters are much more similar than you first make them out to be...

Seems morals and meters are much more similar than you first make them out to be...

Oh really? Well, let's see if you are correct?

Would a meter measure the same in, "America", as it would in, "Pakistan", or the, "Brazilian rain forest?" I believe it would. Why? Because it is an objective measurement!

Would a foot, measure the same in all of these same places? I believe it absolutely would. In other words, I could go to any of these places, and I could use feet, or I could use meters, and they would absolutely measure the same in both places, depending on what measurement I decided to use.

Simply because different places in the world, decide to use different measurements, does not in any way mean that these measurements are subjective, because they are not. They all have an objective distance, and would measure the same in all places in the world.

Now, let's talk about , morals. Is there a moral standard that would measure the same, no matter what part of the world you were in? I do not believe there is. Why? Because, there is no objective standard, that would measure the same. With this being the case, your argument is dead in the water!

[Bust Nak]

Okay, let's attempt to do it like this. Morality really is subjective. Therefore, there really is, NO set of rules that define, or determine what morality, would really be. Therefore, no one can be said to, "really be immoral", since there is no way to determine what really is moral.

If it can be said that, "someone really is immoral", then we would all be, really immoral, since there are those that hold the opinion that we are, really immoral.

It seems then, the world is filled with, "really immoral people", just like the Christians say.

No, that's incorrect. The update version follows, corrections highlighted with italic:

Morality really is subjective. Therefore, there is NO set of rules that define, or determine what morality, would objectively be. Instead, any one can be said to, "really be immoral", since there are many subjective ways to determine what really is moral.

If it can be said that, "we all really are immoral", then we would all be, really immoral according to those that hold the opinion that we are, really immoral.

It seems then according to some, the world is filled with, "really immoral people", just like the Christians say.

[Realworldjack]

Okay, let's attempt to do it like this. Morality really is subjective. Therefore, there really is, NO set of rules that define, or determine what morality, would really be. Therefore, no one can be said to, "really be immoral", since there is no way to determine what really is moral.

If it can be said that, "someone really is immoral", then we would all be, really immoral, since there are those that hold the opinion that we are, really immoral.

It seems then, the world is filled with, "really immoral people", just like the Christians say.

No, that's incorrect. The update version follows, corrections highlighted with italic:

Morality really is subjective. Therefore, there is NO set of rules that define, or determine what morality, would objectively be. Instead, any one can be said to, "really be immoral", since there are many subjective ways to determine what really is moral.

If it can be said that, "we all really are immoral", then we would all be, really immoral according to those that hold the opinion that we are, really immoral.

It seems then according to some, the world is filled with, "really immoral people", just like the Christians say.

It seems then according to some, the world is filled with, "really immoral people", just like the Christians say.

Does this mean the world is really filled with immoral people? Or, is this simply an opinion that cannot be demonstrated?

[Bust Nak]

Does this mean the world is really filled with immoral people?

That depends on who you ask and what that person's opinion is. Since you are asking me - no, that does not mean the world is really filled with immoral people. Really, most people are moral.

Or, is this simply an opinion that cannot be demonstrated?

What does demonstrating an subjective opinion even mean? I can demonstrate that I do indeed, hold the opinion that most people are moral with my testimony, does that count? If so, consider it demonstrated that the world is not really filled with immoral people.

[Realworldjack]

Does this mean the world is really filled with immoral people?

That depends on who you ask and what that person's opinion is. Since you are asking me - no, that does not mean the world is really filled with immoral people. Really, most people are moral.

Or, is this simply an opinion that cannot be demonstrated?

What does demonstrating an subjective opinion even mean? I can demonstrate that I do indeed, hold the opinion that most people are moral with my testimony, does that count? If so, consider it demonstrated that the world is not really filled with immoral people.

That depends on who you ask and what that person's opinion is.

No my friend, this is not the case at all! An opinion does not cause something to be one thing or the other. Therefore, either the world IS, full of immoral people, or it is not, and no one's opinion would CAUSE there to be immoral people.

I do not like the taste of liver, but this does not cause liver to taste bad, because there are others who enjoy the taste, and this does not cause liver to taste good.

Because the taste of liver is subjective, I really could not rightly say, "liver tastes bad" because this would not be true, to all, and my opinion of the taste, has no bearing upon whether it tastes bad or not.

This means that the most I could say is, "liver tastes bad to me" which is nowhere near synonymous with, "liver tastes bad." The two statements are not the same.

With all this being the case, no one would be incorrect when proclaiming their opinion of the taste of liver, because there is no, incorrect, as far as opinions go. But again, it is important to understand, that an opinion does not cause something to be one thing or the other.

So then, there may be those who hold the opinion that, "the world is filled with immoral people", and they would be correct in expressing this opinion, if this is the opinion they truly hold. However, their opinion in no way causes there to be immoral people.

As you have said, the shape of the Earth, is what it is, no matter the opinions folks may hold, because the shape of the Earth is objective, and an opinion would have no effect on the shape. In other words, there is an absolute objective standard, concerning the shape of the Earth, and opinions do not factor into the equation.

Now, with things concerning the subjective, there is NO standard at all, only feelings, tastes, and opinions, and feelings, tastes, and opinions, are not a standard, nor are they rules, because unlike the shape of the Earth, there are no facts involved.

Stating that, "it is a fact, that you may hold the opinion that the world is filled with immoral people", may in fact, be a fact. But this is not a fact, concerning morality in the least. Rather, it would simply be a fact, concerning your opinion.

Again, there are no facts, concerning things that are subjective. There are not rules, laws, or standards. If there were then there would be no distinction between the objective, and the subjective.

And again, simply claiming that you hold a certain opinion concerning things that may be subjective, is no demonstrating facts concerning the subjective, but is rather demonstrating facts concerning your opinion, and there is a tremendous difference.

[fredonly]

How do you know there aren't moral facts? I ask because many people believe there are.

Moral facts may exist even if there are no existing "objective moral values." I propose that a "moral fact" is a relation between an act.and the evolutionary standard of survival and thriving of species. Harming another person is contary to this standard. Further, I suggest that this is baked into our dna, manifested as empathy and guilt.

[Realworldjack]

How do you know there aren't moral facts? I ask because many people believe there are.

Moral facts may exist even if there are no existing "objective moral values." I propose that a "moral fact" is a relation between an act.and the evolutionary standard of survival and thriving of species. Harming another person is contary to this standard. Further, I suggest that this is baked into our dna, manifested as empathy and guilt.

How do you know there aren't moral facts?

If you are referring to my last post, I do not believe that I ever stated, "there aren't moral facts." What I did say was,

Again, there are no facts, concerning things that are subjective.

So then, if morality is indeed subjective, then there are no facts involved. Only feelings, tastes, and opinions, of what morality should be.

I ask because many people believe there are.

You are correct, but these folks believe there is an absolute moral standard, and that morality is objective, which means there would be facts involved. The problem is, these folks have failed to demonstrate that there is indeed, and absolute moral standard. Rather, this seems to be simply their opinion of morality, which brings us back again to the subjective.

Moral facts may exist even if there are no existing "objective moral values."

If you are suggesting here, that there could be an absolute moral standard that we are not aware of, or that we do not acknowledge, and that this standard would not depend upon our opinion, then you would be correct. There could in fact be such a moral standard.

But again, the problem is the fact that a standard of morality has not been demonstrated, which seems to leave us with our own personal feelings, tastes, and opinions.

However, if you are suggesting that, there could be moral facts, without out a standard of morality, then this would not be possible. Allow me to demonstrate, using your own words.

I propose that a "moral fact" is a relation between an act.and the evolutionary STANDARD of survival and thriving of species.

Notice the emphasis on the word "STANDARD." Now you go on to say,

Harming another person is contary to this standard.

So you see, you have a certain standard involved, that can be used as a gauge. This would have to mean that it is objective, and we are using the standard to gauge against. But, if morality is subjective, we only have our feelings, tastes, and opinions.

Further, I suggest that this is baked into our dna, manifested as empathy and guilt.

I highly doubt you could win that argument, because we do not all experience "empathy, and guilt", over the same things. In fact, those who flew the jet planes into buildings on 9-11, did not seem to experience any sort of empathy, nor guilt, and actually seem to be quite proud of the act, because they believed they were carrying out their moral duty.

Moreover, I do not believe that we all experience empathy, and guilt to the same degree. Therefore, it would be very difficult to win such an argument.

At any rate, you are arguing for an objective morality. In other words, you are suggesting that there is indeed a standard, and there can be those who violate this standard, and one of the things one could do to violate this standard, would be to "harm another person."

Now the question becomes, can you demonstrate this standard you are referring to exists? Or, is this simply your opinion?

[fredonly]

How do you know there aren't moral facts? I ask because many people believe there are.

If you are referring to my last post, I do not believe that I ever stated, "there aren't moral facts."

No, I wasn't specifically referring to your post, but rather to the general notion. I haven't read every post in this thread, but from the sampling I did, I didn't notice anyone defending the possibility that there might actually BE moral facts. I agree with nearly everything you said, so have not response to most of it. But I do want to respond to:

Further, I suggest that this is baked into our dna, manifested as empathy and guilt.

I highly doubt you could win that argument, because we do not all experience "empathy, and guilt", over the same things. In fact, those who flew the jet planes into buildings on 9-11, did not seem to experience any sort of empathy, nor guilt, and actually seem to be quite proud of the act, because they believed they were carrying out their moral duty.

Moreover, I do not believe that we all experience empathy, and guilt to the same degree. Therefore, it would be very difficult to win such an argument.

My comments are related to my response to Christians who "prove" God's existence via the argument for moral values. The reasoning is:
1. if objective moral values do not exist, then there are no moral facts, only opinions
2. if morality is entirely opinion, then nothing is objectively right or wrong.
3. but there IS objective right and wrong
4. Therefore objective moral values DO exist
5. Therefore God exists

My claim is directed at people who believe 1-3. #3 is supported solely by moral intuition. I'm saying that moral intuitions are plausibly attributable to the feelings of empathy and guilt that we all have.

At any rate, you are arguing for an objective morality. In other words, you are suggesting that there is indeed a standard, and there can be those who violate this standard, and one of the things one could do to violate this standard, would be to "harm another person."

Now the question becomes, can you demonstrate this standard you are referring to exists? Or, is this simply your opinion?

Sure, it's an opinion, one I don't claim to be able to prove, but it pertains to there being an ontological basis to a materialist theory of mind. Ontologies can never be proven true, but they can be proven false by finding something incoherent, and they can be shown suspect if they cannot account for some aspect of the world. We make moral judgments - that's clear, and so the question becomes: how can a materialist theory of mind account for this. (Sorry if that's far beyond what you're interested in discussing, but it's the sort of discussion I've had with many Christians on another forum).

So, although I don't believe objective moral values exist, I do believe humans have the capacity to make moral judgments (this seems self-evident). If one accepts the fact that we HAVE this capacity, how can this be accounted for? I account for this in terms of our having a mental capacity, one that is rooted in feelings of empathy and guilt. Compare this to our mental capacity to distinguish color. It is impossible to know what the color of RED is, except in terms of the phenomenal impact it has in our minds (scientific descriptions of the reflectivity of objects and the specific wavelengths of light do not convey redness to anyone). To simply say that right/wrong is mere opinion omits consideration of this unique capacity, the feeling that we get as a reaction to hearing about a child being needlessly harmed. Sure, I'm expressing an opinion when I say it's "wrong" to gratuitously inflict harm on a child, but the terms right/wrong carry meaning - and for them to carry meaning, they have to relate to something. And just as redness is a concept that can't be fully described in words, the same is true of right and wrong. That is an aspect of moral judgment that isn't captured by labeling such judgements mere opinion.

[Artie]

So, although I don't believe objective moral values exist

Actually objective morals do exist due to evolution and natural selection. Normal healthy human beings have instincts like the survival/self-preservation instinct. Living in well-functioning societies increase our chances of survival. For a species with such an instinct the objectively right/good/moral way to behave is to behave in such a manner that it increases chances of survival for the society and the individuals in it and the objectively wrong/bad/immoral way to behave is to behave in such a manner that it decreases chances of survival of the society and the individuals in it. That is how we determine whether an act is moral or immoral. If a computer had all the variables it could have told us in every instant which would be the objectively moral act with no subjective input from our part.

[wiploc]

I propose that a "moral fact" is a relation between an act.and the evolutionary standard of survival and thriving of species. Harming another person is contary to this standard. Further, I suggest that this is baked into our dna, manifested as empathy and guilt.

A woman once told me that if we were down to the last two human beings, one man and one woman, and the woman didn't want to have sex, the man would have to force her. For the continuation of the species, you see. Morality would require him to rape.

Baked into our DNA: Does that mean we can change morality by splicing genes? Morally speaking, we ought to take orders from chromosomes?

I posit that DNA and survival are sometimes in opposition. The long term carrying capacity of the earth may be about one billion people, but we continue to increase our population in obedience to genetic imperatives. When what is baked into our DNA conflicts with what will help us survive, which one carries moral authority?

I hate it when people just ask questions and pretend like they have made an argument. So I ask your forgiveness for "writing my way in" to this post. I will now try to cure:

I don't see any reason that we ought to take orders from DNA. Nor ought we take orders from a survival plan. Nor from gods.

If a god gave a moral order, there wouldn't necessarily be any reason for us to go along with it. It's the same with DNA and survival plans.

If we had the choice of surviving in misery or dying, dying would be better. Who would want, for instance, to live for eternity in Hellfire rather than being extinguished? Maybe somebody would, but there's no reason to think that would be the right moral choice. Yes, you would "survive" in Hellfire, but at what emotional cost? What would be right or good or moral about that?

Or, take a less extreme example: Suppose we could either die out or be raised in boxes like chickens in an egg factory. Each person in solitary confinement always. Would survival be worth that?

Survival is not the be all and end all, is my point. I don't see how it can be the source of morality. There may be times--theoretically, at least--when we have to rise above survival in order to do the right thing, just as we sometimes have to rise above the law to be moral.

I can go this far with you: Morality and survival are mostly conjoined. They normally travel hand in hand. What is good for the one is usually good for the other.

But it would take magic to get from survival as the is to morality as the ought. And here's the thing: If a morality were based on magic, there would be no reason to go along with it. What would be the point?

Let me close by saying that I'm a utilitarian. Being nice to people is good. And being nice does tend to increase our odds of survival. And being nice may be baked into our DNA next to the impulses to murder and organize wars. But being nice isn't good because it's in our DNA. Nor because it helps us survive, except when survival would be reasonably pleasant.

And now I want to backpedal somewhat, because it seems that I've made this about me and my theories. I'm not trying to get into a position where I wind up defending utilitarianism. I probably wouldn't be good at it.

My point is just that I don't see how morality can be based on either DNA or on survival (sans happiness).