Morality: Objective or subjective?

[Skyler]

Questions for debate:

Is morality objective or subjective? Can we know either way?

Definition of terms:

morality: Differentiation between right and wrong

objective: An entity is objective when it exists independent of whether or not someone believes it.

subjective: An entity is subjective when it only exists if someone believes in it.

[duganism]

the proliferation still survives with-in. Not very Candidid but is the most poinient way of dissolving the topic. we live as very well kept socioalized humans but at the same time we are enemies. I believe the distinction between the two is up to conjectiure just like anything else.Yet I believe that we strive for greatness not weakness. Hamanity not survival. Though we have the lasting effect!in business there is the absence of ethics. I know this to be an untruth unless it serves you.So without provication can you really back an idea that never served you.

[Righteous Indignation]

I have an evolution program running on my computer called GenePool. The creatures in the program live in an imaginary pool where they compete for food and sex. Its amazing to watch them evolve through the process of random mutation and natural selection. There is no designer for these artificial life forms other than the evolutionary process yet the results are very imaginative. Strange artificial life forms which swim in every way imaginable and some I would have never imagined. The program can be downloaded for free at http://www.swimbots.com.

But we know there is imaginative skill behind the "randomness" of that program. The same hasn't been demonstrated for the universe. Just because a computer program, that can provide random results, has imaginative skill behind it, it does not logically follow that the same has to be true for the universe, no matter how fervently some wish to believe it..

The results are not random just the mutations are random. The process of mutation and selection has direction which is improved survivability. There are also several themes that play over and over again in evolution. One example is flight which has evolved independently in pterosaurs, bird, bats, and flying insects. Other reoccurring themes are competition, cooperation, and camouflage. These examples and others indicate that evolution through trial and error repeatedly stumbles upon universal principles that enhance survival. The process uses randomness but the results are not.

As to whether the universe is random or not, I think the verdict is still out on that. Its quite possible that there is some randomness at the subatomic level. Of course at our macromolecular level the randomness would tend to cancel itself out. In the same way that one roll of a die might be random but a million rolls would fall into a predicable pattern of each number coming up 1/6th of the time.

Even if the universe is totally deterministic with no randomness, it is too complex for us to understand all the factors involved. In the same way that a roll of the die might be predictable if we knew every force acting upon it, we can not, its just too complex for us to calculate. Randomness is a tool we use in our models of reality to replace that which is too complex to calculate.

I could collect my road kill frame it and call it art but is it really?

I don't presume to dictate what is or isn't "art". It is in the eye of the beholder, and inherently subjective. I suppose it can also be broken down to a more objective level, but when someone says "art" they're referring to their perception, whether they realize it or not. Just like with "moral".

In the same sense a lot of what is being called subjective morality isnt moral at all. In the world today we have crimes like: the stoning of gays, female circumcision (Cutting off a womens clitoris), burning of witches, and honor killings. All could be called subjective morality but they are not moral they are just ignorant.

They are moral to someone, even if you don't relate to it. Whether it's derived of ignorance or not is beside the point. Someone's "sense of aesthetics", for example, can also be "bred" to some extent, in order to be able to fully appreciate the intent behind the "art", but that doesn't mean "art" becomes objective in the process.

After some thought, I have decided to redefine my stance regarding subjective or objective morality. I believe secular morality is generally objective while anything else is subjective.

Secular morality is a code of ethics generally derived through reason and in the best interest of the individual and society. Its tenants are open for debate and are scientifically defensible. One example of a secular moral might be recycling. Recycling is generally believed to be in everyones best interest and those beliefs are supported by science. Whether recycling is good or bad is not a matter or perception, taste, or faith. Its a matter of fact.

Theistic moralities on the other hand are subjective. There are many systems or theistic morality to choice from and the choice is not general based on reason. Theistic morality generally starts with some crazy priest believing he has been given a moral code from one of the gods or godlike beings. They are generally a mix of secular ethics with random stuff mixed in like dont eat calf meat with its mothers milk. These morals are not debatable and must be accepted by faith alone. Examples of theistic morality are kill anyone working on Sunday, women should remain silent in church, gay men and blasphemers should be stoned. None of which can be shown to benefit the society.

In the past religion was the evolutionary engine of moral systems. Ancient societies were given random moral updates by insane priests. Those societies with the best system of morality survived while other failed. Random mutation was provided by the priests and selection through survival, just like evolution.

If I may ask, how do you think your view of "morality" relates to an agnostic position?

You lost me, is there an inconsistency between my reasoning on morality and defining myself as an agnostic/atheist.

[Beto]

If I may ask, how do you think your view of "morality" relates to an agnostic position?

You lost me, is there an inconsistency between my reasoning on morality and defining myself as an agnostic/atheist.

My mistake, as I tend to assume agnostic means agnostic/theist. At least, from experience, I figure that's the usual inclination. But if that's how you define yourself, than I see no inconsistency.

[Righteous Indignation]

If I may ask, how do you think your view of "morality" relates to an agnostic position?

You lost me, is there an inconsistency between my reasoning on morality and defining myself as an agnostic/atheist.

My mistake, as I tend to assume agnostic means agnostic/theist. At least, from experience, I figure that's the usual inclination. But if that's how you define yourself, than I see no inconsistency.

By definition I am an Atheist but I find that theists tend to understand Atheist as god haters or god deniers. Most of those I debate are theists and, after some thought; I decided to drop the term as it was communicating the wrong message. I still us it among fellow Atheists. For any Theists reading this, Atheist simply means non-theist nothing more.

[Beto]

By definition I am an Atheist but I find that theists tend to understand Atheist as god haters or god deniers.

That's mighty big of you, considering no Christian I know would ever even consider referring to themselves as anything other than "Christian" because of ignorant bigoted people. Perhaps we shouldn't either.

Most of those I debate are theists and, after some thought; I decided to drop the term as it was communicating the wrong message.

But if the term is ever to be understood properly, it must be used, don't you agree? Perhaps by using the ambiguous "agnostic", one is perpetuating the wrong message. "See, he doesn't call himself atheist, because atheists are x and y" or something of the sort.

I still us it among fellow Atheists. For any Theists reading this, Atheist simply means non-theist nothing more.

If only it were that simple. Myself, I use "atheist" when referring to a particular conception of "God" that I find cannot exist because of logical inconsistencies, and "non-theist" because I'm an "atheist" to all conceptions I've come to know. I think it's a false dichotomy saying you're either a "strong atheist" or a "weak atheist". Each conception deserves its own approach, and should be considered on its own merits. To a theist the difference may be negligible, but to us it may be quite significant.

[msmcneal]

Is it wrong to kill? Most people would say yes, it is. However, let's look at an example. There are three people in this example, we'll call them A, B, and C. A is a robber, who has broken into your house, and his intent is to kill you then steal your valuables. B is a Christian (denomination not required) who sincerly tries to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus to the best of his ability. C is a Muslim, who does the same, except the Qur'an instead of the Gospel. A breaks into your house, and you are aware that his intent is malicious. You also see that he's carrying a gun. Now, B says that Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, and not to forbid an evil man. So your decision is not to defend yourself. You make your choice, and the robber then kills you. C says that the Qur'an allows for self-defence, and you kill the attacker. Now, both of these people thought that killing is wrong. However, we can see the outcome of the viewpoints of both B and C, by the choices they made. So, this, at least to me, says that morality is subjective. Or, we could ask what our definition is of "to kill". We can say that both B and C had the same definition, as "the taking of another human life". This doesn't mean that it's not wrong to kill in the eyes of C, but that self-defence is the lesser of two evils, i.e., to allow someone to invade your home and kill you, or to kill someone who invades your home with that intention. I cannot see anyway, that morality, at least as a whole, could be considered objective. Even if we take all the world's philosophies and religions, qualify their moral teachings, and see which ones are in all points of view, I still don't think this would be a good example of objective morality.

[olavisjo]

Is it wrong to kill? Most people would say yes, it is.

No, most people would say no, it is not.

The fifth commandment in the Bible forbids murder.

13 "You shall not murder.

Killing in self defence is not murder, but killing to rob someone is murder.
So you can see that we all pretty much agree on this one. I have never heard of a society where murder is okay.

If morality was not objective there would be no point having courts to judge innocence or guilt, it would all be the whim of those in power that would decide all cases.

[Beto]

Killing in self defence is not murder, but killing to rob someone is murder.
So you can see that we all pretty much agree on this one. I have never heard of a society where murder is okay.

"Murder" is never okay by definition. The human sacrifices of the Aztecs weren't "murder" by their standards.

If morality was not objective there would be no point having courts to judge innocence or guilt, it would all be the whim of those in power that would decide all cases.

Do you simply choose to ignore the fact that there are different courts, with different criteria as to what constitutes "innocence" or "guilt"? It's other perspectives that make morality subjective. Why would you narrow the scope of "morality" to a specific time and place? Of course we usually subject ourselves to the current understanding of our community. "Current" being the operative word. But as an intellectual exercise, why should anyone be bound to an arbitrary pick of what constitutes "morality"?

[olavisjo]

Killing in self defence is not murder, but killing to rob someone is murder.
So you can see that we all pretty much agree on this one. I have never heard of a society where murder is okay.

"Murder" is never okay by definition. The human sacrifices of the Aztecs weren't "murder" by their standards.

If morality was not objective there would be no point having courts to judge innocence or guilt, it would all be the whim of those in power that would decide all cases.

Do you simply choose to ignore the fact that there are different courts, with different criteria as to what constitutes "innocence" or "guilt"? It's other perspectives that make morality subjective. Why would you narrow the scope of "morality" to a specific time and place? Of course we usually subject ourselves to the current understanding of our community. "Current" being the operative word. But as an intellectual exercise, why should anyone be bound to an arbitrary pick of what constitutes "morality"?

There was a time when atoms were thought to be like "raisin pudding". That does not make the reality of atoms any less objective, it just means that J.J. Thompson was wrong.
The same with the Aztecs, they were just wrong. And even courts, being human, can be wrong.
There are a lot of moral dilemmas for which we don't know the right answer to, but the idea that we would even seek a right answer implies that there is a right answer to be found.
Even moral relativist will deliberate over what is right and wrong and what they should or should not do, this would not happen if morality was subjective, we would be like the animals, we would not even think about these things.

[Beto]

There was a time when atoms were thought to be like "raisin pudding". That does not make the reality of atoms any less objective, it just means that J.J. Thompson was wrong.

This analogy is weak. Current knowledge of what constitutes an atom can be scientifically demonstrated. It bears no resemblance to "morality", unless you can demonstrate objectively that a "right" criteria exists to distinguish "right" from "wrong". Your assumption it exists remains just that.

The same with the Aztecs, they were just wrong.

Wrong to us now, perhaps not wrong to them then. You simply have no objective way to demonstrate the behavior was inherently wrong, as opposed to just wrong now, which isn't enough to claim "morality is objective".

And even courts, being human, can be wrong.

They can be "right" or "wrong" depending on who's judging, and depending on the criteria being enforced. Subjective.

There are a lot of moral dilemmas for which we don't know the right answer to, but the idea that we would even seek a right answer implies that there is a right answer to be found.

False. You're the one claiming an answer is sought after. To me, the answer is that morality is a dynamic concept, which evolves in the society that defines it, and in a broad temporal scope, has no fixed criteria.

Even moral relativist will deliberate over what is right and wrong and what they should or should not do, this would not happen if morality was subjective, we would be like the animals, we would not even think about these things.

Observe some animals for long enough, and a sense of "right" and "wrong" becomes apparent, which you probably just chalk up as "instinct". Even we humans deal with our instincts in one way or another, and even if morality was solely based on them , we still couldn't dictate which instincts are "wrong" or "right", without the societal context humans base their decisions on.