Morality: Does it have an Objective Standard?

[Defender of Truth]

This is a thread where we can discuss whether morality has an Objective standard, or a Subjective standard.

I don't think anyone would claim that there is no such thing as morality, but if someone wishes to, they may do so here.

Morality: Right or wrong conduct
Subjective Standard: Morality is different for different people/societies/nations
Objective Standard: There is one universal set of morals for all people and all time periods.

[Goat]

This is a thread where we can discuss whether morality has an Objective standard, or a Subjective standard.

I don't think anyone would claim that there is no such thing as morality, but if someone wishes to, they may do so here.

Morality: Right or wrong conduct
Subjective Standard: Morality is different for different people/societies/nations
Objective Standard: There is one universal set of morals for all people and all time periods.

There does seem to be variations with morality between different societies and different times. That implies that there is a very strong subjective element to it.

There probably are some 'morals' that are common through all societies, but those morals will have to do with survival of the society (such as against incest)

[Defender of Truth]

I think we should ponder these things very carefully, because they're very important in how we live our lives.

It seems that there is widespread—if not universal—agreement on the notion that morality is objective, not subjective. Let me clarify. I do not mean to say that no one argues that morality is subjective. As a matter of fact, some do. What I mean is that virtually all of us, if we were to ponder for just a short while what a world without objective morality would be like, would agree that morality is an objective commodity. I think this is best seen by simply taking note of what it would mean for all morality to be subjective.

Let's imagine, for purposes of argument, that morality really were a strictly subjective commodity. What would follow from this? Well, first of all, this would mean that the moral statements we all make would be exactly like our judgements about the way things taste. There would be no question of their being right or wrong. Their truth, or shall we say correctness, would depend strictly upon the attitude, opinion or belief of the person making them. He or she is the individual subject.

We already agreed that a person could never be called wrong for uttering the words 'Spinach is bad.' That is because the truth or falsity of that statement depends entirely upon the attitude or opinion of the person making it. We call that person the speaking subject. If he doesn't like it, to him it is bad. I cannot call his statement wrong even if I like it-which I do!
Now here is the point, for our purposes. If morality is subjective, then moral statements will be just like all the things we say about the way things taste. That will mean, of course, that your and my moral judgements could conflict and still both be correct.
But there's more. If morality were entirely subjective, then our moral judgements about certain actions or things would not really be saying anything about those actions or things at all. Rather, they would only be saying something about us, the speakers. When I say, 'Liver is awful,' I'm not really saying anything about liver at all, am I? I'm saying something about myself. I am telling you that I don't like it. In the same way, assuming morality is subjective, if I were to say a particular action is wrong, all I would really be saying is 'I don't like that action' or 'That action offends me.' My attitude toward that action would be revealed, but that's all. You see, that's what we mean by calling a statement subjective. Its truth or falsity hinges upon the speaking subject.

Perhaps an illustration would help. We hear of murder going a lot in the streets these days. Some of us think that the murderers are wrong. But you see, if morality is entirely subjective, then murder is not really wrong. I mean that it is not wrong in any objective sense that would be obligatory or binding on anyone else. It may offend your personal moral taste, but you'll have to recognize that others may have different moral tastes that are just as right as yours—that is, if morality is subjective.
If morality is subjective, we can't condemn anyone for any moral action more than “I don't like it.�

Let me sum up my comments about what subjective morality would mean for us. We could say it this way. If that is the true nature of morality, then it would mean each of us is free, morally speaking, to choose whichever moral point of view we find most appealing. The choice of whether to be a Mother Teresa or an Adolf Hitler would be roughly the same choice as whether to become a saxophone player or an organ player. You simply choose the one you find most appealing and worthwhile.

Is there anyone who believes this view of morality is true? Isn't it true that we know that certain actions are really honestly morally wrong?

What do we say to the person who tries to defend himself for cruel and vicious deeds done by saying, 'Oh, I was just playing by the rules set up by our group'? We reject such a defense out of hand. The Nazis tried that in court and the defense was rejected.

I said earlier that some people take the position of subjective morality and argue for it. But if you do, and if you try to live out your position consistently, you just may encounter a couple of other difficulties on your way in addition to the ones we've just seen. Let me point them out so you won't be surprised when they make their appearance.
First, you just may run into what we often call 'the problem of self-refutation' or 'self-reference.' The principle of self-reference is applied whenever we apply a principle to itself. We turn it back on itself and see whether or not it can stand the same test it applies to other things.
What I mean is this. Notice what you do when you assert that morality is subjective. With this assertion you affirm that there are no objective moral principles that are binding on anyone else. Now here's the problem. It is immensely difficult to deny the existence of all objective moral principles without at the same time affirming at least one. Which is that because there are no objective moral principles, you ought not to evaluate my actions by any such principles. The problem with that statement is that it refutes itself. It is something like the statement, “I can't speak a word of English�. By speaking the sentence, I refute it. The subjectivist appears to do the same thing when she tells other they ought not to judge her by any objective moral standards. Does she really believe all moral judgements are subjective or not? She claims to believe this, but at the same time she implies one objective moral principle, which is that no one ought to judge her by any objective moral principle.

But I said there were two difficulties to be encountered by those who argue morality is subjective. The second can be put this way: Is anyone really willing to live as though morality were all subjective? I doubt it.
Consider the story of a philosophy student who wrote an essay arguing that there were no objective moral principles. In terms of its research, structure, argumentation and documentation, it was a very strong paper. He slipped it into a shiny blue folder and handed it in. When it was returned the instructor had given it an F and written, 'I do not like blue folders.'
Of course the student stormed back to the professor. 'You can't do this!' he yelled. 'It's not fair. How can you grade me on the basis of the color of my folder? If I wrote a good paper, I deserve a better grade.'
The instructor asked the student if he was referring to the paper that argued there are no objective standards such as fairness or justice. 'Yes, that's the one,' the student responded. The instructor replied, 'Well, then, I don't like blue folers,' and went back to his work.

As the story goes, once the instructor made his point, he changed the grade. But what was his point? It was that the student had argued elequently for subjective morality. He thought he believed it. But when it applied to his essay, he appealed to an objective standard that was correct regardless of what his instructor thought. In other words, he argued for moral subjectivism, but he didn't believe it either. Now, in my opinion, that is a very serious charge. You see, it really is true that our actions often give us away. They tell the real stroy of what we believe. If it is true that a person does not consistently live as though moral values were subjective, then we have to say that neither does that person seriously believe they are subjective.
The point we dare not miss about that story is that it pretty accurately depicts how every person claiming to believe that morality is subjective acts when an injustice is done to him or her. I would encourage you, as a practical project, to watch how anyone claiming to believe this acts when that person is lied to, cheated, defrauded, or treated unfairly in some other way.

I'd better end this post right here because it's getting long. I hope its length didn't scare you off. I'm sorry if I bored you, but I had a lot to say. And I think it's very important.

[McCulloch]

A deontological position is one which inculcates the idea of absolute certainty. So long as ethical actions are defined by a clearly discernable obedience to a god’s commands, it is easy to know for sure when a person is being moral or immoral. Humanist ethics differ from deontological ethics in the focus on consequences. Under such a utilitarian system, actions are judged based upon how well they achieve some goal (usually happiness, although other goals appear as well).

...the theist’s argument is immoral, for it abandons the moral conscience for an authoritarian ground, and thus sidesteps the content of the moral imperative itself.

Kurtz argues instead for a humanistic ethics which incorporates both objective and subjective aspects. Ethics are a matter of human social interaction, and such interaction must necessarily be both objective and subjective in various ways. The objective is based on our biology, our evolutionary history. Morality is a process, and finding answers to moral questions is a quest which never really ends. The values discussed are values which must always be under discussion and refined as we learn and grow.

There has been some interesting questions arising from the so-called trolly problem. Not so much what the correct answer to the various ethical dilemmas are, but the fact that religion provides no guidance to the ethicist. The responses, on average, to these issues cannot be distinguished between the strongly religious, nominally religious and non-religious.

[Defender of Truth]

...the theist’s argument is immoral, for it abandons the moral conscience for an authoritarian ground, and thus sidesteps the content of the moral imperative itself.

Sorry, but I don't speak chipmunk. In English, please? Why does Paul Kurtz think that theist's argument is immoral?

[Goat]

...the theist’s argument is immoral, for it abandons the moral conscience for an authoritarian ground, and thus sidesteps the content of the moral imperative itself.

Sorry, but I don't speak chipmunk. In English, please? Why does Paul Kurtz think that theist's argument is immoral?

Basically, Paul Kurtz is saying that theists are accepting the valuation of someone else for what is 'moral or not' due to 'The church says God says so' and blindly accepting an authoritarian figure for it's moral conscience' rather than taking responsibility for morality for one self.

"It's moral because the church says so' verses 'It is my responsibly to find out figure out this is moral, and I personally am responsible for my choices'

[McCulloch]

Why does Paul Kurtz think that theist's argument is immoral?

The divine revelationist theist version of morality has abandoned the field of ethics for mindless authoritarianism. Rather than developing a moral conscience, the theist has a code of right and wrong, given to him by God. Follow the code and you are right, break the code and you are wrong.

True ethics seeks to address the question of how how moral values should be determined. This question is sidestepped by the holders of divine revelation. Their approach to this question is simply, "We've got a book from God and it tells us what is right and what is wrong."

You might want to read up on the Euthyphro dilemma.

[Defender of Truth]

Thanks for explaining, goat.

Basically, Paul Kurtz is saying that theists are accepting the valuation of someone else for what is 'moral or not' due to 'The church says God says so' and blindly accepting an authoritarian figure for it's moral conscience' rather than taking responsibility for morality for one self.

So Paul Kurtz says there's a subjective standard. I already dealt in my last post how I don't think anyone really believes in a subjective standard, although some argue for one.

One reason I believe in an objective standard, is because a subjective standard as I have already talked about is grossly inadequate. If anyone wants to discuss what I made in my previous post I'd be happy to. There are other reasons, however, which I will get into soon.

If we're supposed to take responsibility for our morality on ourselves, then as I said in the first post, choosing our moral life is no different then choosing to be an organ player or a harp player. It's just what pleases us. No difference between choosing Adolf Hitler than Mother Teresa. If I wrong you, I take personal responsibility, you can't tell me I'm wrong because it's just your own personal tastes. I talked about this in more detail in my previous post.

Defender of Truth

[Goat]

Thanks for explaining, goat.

Basically, Paul Kurtz is saying that theists are accepting the valuation of someone else for what is 'moral or not' due to 'The church says God says so' and blindly accepting an authoritarian figure for it's moral conscience' rather than taking responsibility for morality for one self.

So Paul Kurtz says there's a subjective standard. I already dealt in my last post how I don't think anyone really believes in a subjective standard, although some argue for one.

One reason I believe in an objective standard, is because a subjective standard as I have already talked about is grossly inadequate. If anyone wants to discuss what I made in my previous post I'd be happy to. There are other reasons, however, which I will get into soon.

If we're supposed to take responsibility for our morality on ourselves, then as I said in the first post, choosing our moral life is no different then choosing to be an organ player or a harp player. It's just what pleases us. No difference between choosing Adolf Hitler than Mother Teresa. If I wrong you, I take personal responsibility, you can't tell me I'm wrong because it's just your own personal tastes. I talked about this in more detail in my previous post.

Defender of Truth

You have not shown that there IS an objective standard.

You have made the claim, but you have not shown there actually is. You have admitted there is different morality between different times and different cultures.

Doesn't that show there is subjective morality?

[McCulloch]

So Paul Kurtz says there's a subjective standard. I already dealt in my last post how I don't think anyone really believes in a subjective standard, although some argue for one.

That is an oversimplification. Much of morality is based on the objective truth of our own biology. We are a social animal. Our societies have evolved to include moral principles. The application of these principles contributes to the success of our species.

So, to answer those who claim that by taking responsibility for our own morality makes ethics into something akin to aesthetics are wrong. There are objectively poor moral choices. So, I argue on the side Yes side of the question of whether there are objective moral standards. But unlike the theist, I don't look for a supernatural source for those standards. They are rooted in our biology, evolution, anthropology and sociology.