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.

[Skyler]

But, if Atheism is true "The act we call murder is not wrong".

There is no "if" atheism is true. "I do not believe" is true as much as "you believe" is true. This is not up for consideration for either of us, agreed?

D'you suppose there's a reason he capitalized it? Dawkins differentiates between "lowercase a" and "uppercase A" atheism. Uppercase Atheism states that God does not exist. This is the worldview olavisjo is critiquing--and, if it is not true that God does not exist, then it must be true that God does exist.

There is simply no reason why any killing would be wrong under Atheism.

"Belief in god(s), or lack thereof" has NOTHING to do with whether or not one feels killing another human being might be wrong, or unlawful. I think it would be wrong for someone to kill someone I'm attached to, period. This attachment is reason enough for it to be wrong, or unlawful. No other consideration is necessary. Hence, the killing of other humans can be considered wrong, unlawful, OR MURDER, regardless of laws or "divine mandates".

Well, I think it would be wrong for someone to not believe in God. So then can atheism be considered wrong or unlawful, regardless of laws or "divine mandates"?

Just some thoughts.

Skyler

[Beto]

But, if Atheism is true "The act we call murder is not wrong".

There is no "if" atheism is true. "I do not believe" is true as much as "you believe" is true. This is not up for consideration for either of us, agreed?

D'you suppose there's a reason he capitalized it? Dawkins differentiates between "lowercase a" and "uppercase A" atheism. Uppercase Atheism states that God does not exist. This is the worldview olavisjo is critiquing--and, if it is not true that God does not exist, then it must be true that God does exist.

It doesn't matter either way. These positions, whatever they are, weak, strong, agnostic, they have little or no bearing on how we FEEL about a behavior, which is what will determine if it is "wrong" or "right" to that person. It may "match" the society's perspective as a whole, or it may not. Our feelings may have a certain correlation with religious teachings, but correlation does not imply causation. I can just as easily argue the religious teachings reflect behavioral predispositions.

There is simply no reason why any killing would be wrong under Atheism.

"Belief in god(s), or lack thereof" has NOTHING to do with whether or not one feels killing another human being might be wrong, or unlawful. I think it would be wrong for someone to kill someone I'm attached to, period. This attachment is reason enough for it to be wrong, or unlawful. No other consideration is necessary. Hence, the killing of other humans can be considered wrong, unlawful, OR MURDER, regardless of laws or "divine mandates".

Well, I think it would be wrong for someone to not believe in God. So then can atheism be considered wrong or unlawful, regardless of laws or "divine mandates"?

Of course. If that's how you feel about "strong" atheism, than to you it is wrong. I have no problem with that, because "right" and "wrong", or "morality", are subjective for that precise reason. Whether or not our feelings reflect the reality of the position is irrelevant to determine if a behavior is "wrong" or "right" to a person, or group of people.

[Skyler]

But, if Atheism is true "The act we call murder is not wrong".

There is no "if" atheism is true. "I do not believe" is true as much as "you believe" is true. This is not up for consideration for either of us, agreed?

D'you suppose there's a reason he capitalized it? Dawkins differentiates between "lowercase a" and "uppercase A" atheism. Uppercase Atheism states that God does not exist. This is the worldview olavisjo is critiquing--and, if it is not true that God does not exist, then it must be true that God does exist.

It doesn't matter either way. These positions, whatever they are, weak, strong, agnostic, they have little or no bearing on how we FEEL about a behavior, which is what will determine if it is "wrong" or "right" to that person. It may "match" the society's perspective as a whole, or it may not. Our feelings may have a certain correlation with religious teachings, but correlation does not imply causation. I can just as easily argue the religious teachings reflect behavioral predispositions.

I'm simply pointing out what he's arguing because I think you missed it. If there is no God, then right and wrong only exist in your head. They have no meaning outside it.

There is simply no reason why any killing would be wrong under Atheism.

"Belief in god(s), or lack thereof" has NOTHING to do with whether or not one feels killing another human being might be wrong, or unlawful. I think it would be wrong for someone to kill someone I'm attached to, period. This attachment is reason enough for it to be wrong, or unlawful. No other consideration is necessary. Hence, the killing of other humans can be considered wrong, unlawful, OR MURDER, regardless of laws or "divine mandates".

Well, I think it would be wrong for someone to not believe in God. So then can atheism be considered wrong or unlawful, regardless of laws or "divine mandates"?

Of course. If that's how you feel about "strong" atheism, than to you it is wrong. I have no problem with that, because "right" and "wrong", or "morality", are subjective for that precise reason. Whether or not our feelings reflect the reality of the position is irrelevant to determine if a behavior is "wrong" or "right" to a person, or group of people.

Like I said. It only exists in your head. There is nothing really "right" or "wrong" about it.

[Beto]

Two Christian fundamentalists engaging in deliberate obtuseness is more than I'm willing to indulge.

[olavisjo]

There is simply no reason why any killing would be wrong under Atheism.

"Belief in god(s), or lack thereof" has NOTHING to do with whether or not one feels killing another human being might be wrong, or unlawful. I think it would be wrong for someone to kill someone I'm attached to, period. This attachment is reason enough for it to be wrong, or unlawful. No other consideration is necessary. Hence, the killing of other humans can be considered wrong, unlawful, OR MURDER, regardless of laws or "divine mandates".

Okay, let me rephrase that "There is simply no reason why any killing would be wrong under [strike]Atheism[/strike] Scientific Naturalism".

I think it would be wrong for someone to kill someone I'm attached to, period. This attachment is reason enough for it to be wrong, or unlawful. No other consideration is necessary. Hence, the killing of other humans can be considered wrong, unlawful, OR MURDER, regardless of laws or "divine mandates".

You are a good person, you just don't know why.

It is wrong because it violates the rights of the victim

Who gives the victim these rights? And why would it be wrong to violate them?

there are even species survival consequences if taken to the extreme.

Okay, there are "species survival consequences" and your point is?

It is wrong because in order for society to get along

Who made the rule that society should get along.

Murder is wrong because it interferes with a stable, ordered society.

Again, why should we even have a stable, ordered society.
I see a lot of claims here and very little evidence.

Two Christian fundamentalists engaging in deliberate obtuseness is more than I'm willing to indulge.

I can understand your frustration, but I feel that we are talking about some very important things that may have eternal consequences.
Get a good night sleep and if you are up to it I will meet you half way on another day.

[Goat]

There is simply no reason why any killing would be wrong under Atheism.

"Belief in god(s), or lack thereof" has NOTHING to do with whether or not one feels killing another human being might be wrong, or unlawful. I think it would be wrong for someone to kill someone I'm attached to, period. This attachment is reason enough for it to be wrong, or unlawful. No other consideration is necessary. Hence, the killing of other humans can be considered wrong, unlawful, OR MURDER, regardless of laws or "divine mandates".

Okay, let me rephrase that "There is simply no reason why any killing would be wrong under [strike]Atheism[/strike] Scientific Naturalism".

Well, 'scientific naturalism' does not look at morality at all, or make moral judgments. So, for you to try to bring that term in is a red herring.

In specific, 'scientific naturalism' is a methodology for problem solving. It has nothing to do with examining supernatural claims, since it assumes that any problem being looked at has a 'natural' solution. It does not make 'moral judgments'.

There is a difference between methodological naturalism , and metaphysical naturalism.

However, your entire arguement breaks down when it comes to 'self interest'. When it comes to murder, think of 'enlightened self interest'.

From a subjective point of view,most people would consider it very bad if someone were to try to murder them. So, there is an unwritten social contract between a person and society. Society (the collection of individuals) that make it up will attempt to protect members against rogue members in return for insisting that each individual member follow the contract

I give up killing other people of society, and society then helps protect me against others that would do me harm. It is in my own best interest not to harm others, so I won't be harmed in return.

See, a subject way of looking at murder. No objective moral required.

Some people who might not buy into that will buy into the idea the the society as a whole might cause them to have unpleasant consequences if they don't follow the majority on this matter.

[Beto]

Two Christian fundamentalists engaging in deliberate obtuseness is more than I'm willing to indulge.

I can understand your frustration, but I feel that we are talking about some very important things that may have eternal consequences.
Get a good night sleep and if you are up to it I will meet you half way on another day.

I positively hate getting gracious comebacks to my unpleasant remarks. It leaves me in the awkward position where I feel I have to apologize... so, I apologize.

But let me present a scenario for "objective morality", as it applies to Humanity as a whole, without the need for gods, and completely naturalistic:

-- "Morality" is the set of human behaviors that offers the best chance of aiding in a society's progress. --

I don't really like how I phrased that, but it'll do for now, as the meaning is clear.

So, for example, the Aztec behavior was clearly self-destructive. What Christians often claim as their trademark behaviors (thou shalt not kill, etc...) are clearly beneficial, and the set of behaviors survives, and is naturally assumed by many to be "perfect". Now, whether it is or not is not in question. But defined like that, morality can be objective, certain behaviors are objectively right or wrong, and no gods were needed. Take away Humanity's advantages over other animals, and the core behaviors (or lack of behaviors) remains the same. Some animals help each other in the best possible way to ensure their society survives. We are more complicated, so the set of behaviors we could call "moral" are more complicated, but their goal remains the same.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 15 Post 144:

It is wrong because it violates the rights of the victim

Who gives the victim these rights? And why would it be wrong to violate them?

If folks were allowed to go around killing anyone they disagreed with, there would be much discord, distrust, and all kinds of whatnot among society. So, folks get together and realize, "If we don't go around killing each other, we are better able to provide for ourselves, and society as a whole". Where lawlessness is rampant, much more energy is expended in protecting oneself, and one's stuff from others. Eliminate this threat and folks have more time and energy to persue food, leisure, and what have you.

there are even species survival consequences if taken to the extreme.

Okay, there are "species survival consequences" and your point is?

If murder/homicide were allowed to continue, there will eventually come a point where only two humans would be left. Then one of 'em kills the other, and there's no way the species can continue (barring scientific advancements).

It is wrong because in order for society to get along

Who made the rule that society should get along.

In general, when folks gather around, and one of 'em kills another, then someone is gonna want revenge. If this revenge is carried out, then likely there'll be another, and so on and so on. In the course of history, some wise so and so realizes "If we don't keep killing ourselves, we can concentrate on survival".

Murder is wrong because it interferes with a stable, ordered society

Again, why should we even have a stable, ordered society.
I see a lot of claims here and very little evidence.

And yet you would place a god in here somewhere? It behooves a species not to go about trying to eliminate itself from the gene pool.

[olavisjo]

so, I apologize.

Accepted.

-- "Morality" is the set of human behaviors that offers the best chance of aiding in a society's progress. --

Okay, that is as good as any definition for now, but my concern is why should anyone buy into it. As long as it gives me what I want, I will go along but when it no longer satisfies my lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride then I will opt out and make sure that nobody knows that I cheated.

I give up killing other people of society, and society then helps protect me against others that would do me harm. It is in my own best interest not to harm others, so I won't be harmed in return.

Your position is the same as above, and I will go along with the program when there are benefits to be had, but when a golden opportunity to cheat with minimum risk of getting caught falls into my lap, I will take it. Why should I not?

And yet you would place a god in here somewhere? It behooves a species not to go about trying to eliminate itself from the gene pool.

We don't want to eliminate ourselves, we just want a more comfortable place in the pool.
At least if there is a god in the equation, nobody can cheat because god would know everything. So if you do harm to someone else, you are only doing harm to yourself.
So you can see that theism would offer an ironclad reason to conform, no other system could do that. It is a selfish reason, but a reason none the less.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 15 Post 148:

And yet you would place a god in here somewhere? It behooves a species not to go about trying to eliminate itself from the gene pool.

We don't want to eliminate ourselves, we just want a more comfortable place in the pool.
At least if there is a god in the equation, nobody can cheat because god would know everything. So if you do harm to someone else, you are only doing harm to yourself.
So you can see that theism would offer an ironclad reason to conform, no other system could do that. It is a selfish reason, but a reason none the less.

But your position here says nothing about the validity of such beliefs. Where others and me have shown that morals are subjective, and specifically why the morality of murder is independent of god belief, aren't we closer to providing the answer the OP seeks?
The "god in the equation" here can't be shown to be anything above a human construct. I agree some folks will attempt to act in accordance to what they think a given god wants, but in the final analysis the god can't be shown to exist.
So, when we equate a given moral position as coming from god, how can we elevate such above being a human construct?

At least if there is a god in the equation, nobody can cheat because god would know everything. So if you do harm to someone else, you are only doing harm to yourself.

This says nothing about those who would do harm in their god's name. Nor does it implicate morals as somehow originating with this god, or even with the simple belief in the god.
I reject this line of thinking because doing harm to others is doing harm to others. God or no god, if I kill someone I expect to be held to the full measure of the law. And this law is good for reasons I've stated previously.

So you can see that theism would offer an ironclad reason to conform, no other system could do that. It is a selfish reason, but a reason none the less.

As you say this, I'm reminded of the Swaggarts, the Jim Joneses, the Bakers, and the what's that guy with the funny shaped mouth that condemned homosexuality and turned out to be one.

So, ironclad is hardly the proper term. History tells us that folks will conform their interpretation of morals to what they themselves deem appropriate.

I know folks are getting tired of me pointing this out, but lacking evidence for any of the thousands of gods proposed throughout history, I must ask how we can think that morals are anything but a human construct.

If religion offered an "ironclad" reason, wouldn't we expect that there would be some evidence for such? If a proposed God wishes us to act in a certain way, why is it that only the preachers and adherents are aware of this? Before you respond, if you wish to use the Bible, I must first ask you to prove why all other religious texts should be discounted.

If I didn't want my young'n doing something, I'd tell him personally. I wouldn't run up the road and ask some stranger to tell him. "This is a sign", or "That is a sign" don't cut it either. I've got an eighth grade education, surely God would explain his wishes to me in a manner I can understand.

I know it's tiresome, but until this God can be shown to exist, I don't know how in hell's half acre we're ever gonna know what this god's wishes are.

As we lack this evidence, we look at the evidence that some have presented in this thread. As a reasoned, logical position, I don't see how anyone can refute the idea that morals are a product of individual interpretation, and individual interpretation expressed through society as a whole.