News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

Godless morality

Started by winterbottom, May 06, 2008, 06:36:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "penfold"However there is an uncomfortable tension here. We express morals as universal maxims.

I think we should stop doing that.

QuoteWe say “x is wrong” not “I wouldn't do x”. The latter may be correct, but we use the former, and with that we imply universal applicability.

If the former is incorrect then I think we should discard it.  

QuoteIn other words 'conscience' while being subjective in nature is objective in content.

I think it pretends to be objective in content.

QuoteConscience is a capacity of judgement, and just as it allows us to judge ourselves it is also the mechanism by which we judge others.

True.  

QuoteSo if we have a 'conscience' we are doomed to talk and act as though morals are universal in nature (“if it is wrong for me then it is wrong for you”).

I don't think that's true.  If I catch you bullying someone, and my conscience disturbs me if I try to look the other way, then if I happen to be brave enough, I will attempt to thwart you.  I will simply say, "Stop that."  You will say, "Why should I?"  I will respond, "Because otherwise I'll beat the heck out of you."  

What's missing in the above is any attempt at debate.  If debate were somehow mandatory in order to alter people's behavior then I suppose I would have to concoct some bogus argument as to why bullying is objectively wrong.  Fortunately, I can simply threaten to beat the heck out of you.  I might even be able to do that while holding a baseball bat, with a friend at either shoulder, each with a baseball bat.  What I'm actually describing here is the genesis of law.  Law is subjective judgment backed up by force.  Police officers don't debate legality with us.  Police officers threaten us with violence if we don't submit.

The key here is to understand the purpose of law in contrast with the purpose of conscience.  The purpose of law is to get other people to do what the community wants them to do.  The purpose of conscience is to get myself to do what I think I should.  Law, other people, the community.  Conscience, myself, I.  Just as it would be absurd for me to write laws that only apply to myself, so too it is absurd for me to voice the complaints of my conscience to other people as if those complaints somehow applied to those other people.

QuoteShort of a huge paradigm shift the problem still stands.

A paradigm shift is precisely what I recommend.

QuoteYour point about legalism is well taken, however once again it is not so simple. While the ultimate justification of any rule of law is law itself; the way we construct our laws is bound up in morality. What should be understood is that laws require enforcement, and that requires consent of the population. This consent can be won by force (think Myanmar or DPK) but in our societies consent is won by appeal to ideas of 'right and wrong' and 'justice'.

Subjectivity can be collective.  If we all agree something is wrong, then we will all agree to legislate against it.  Our consensus makes conscience into law.  It doesn't make the subjective suddenly objective.  Also, law doesn't have to be founded in conscience.  It can be founded instead in utility.  If we all agree that our individual and collective goals will be more reliably fulfilled if a law is made, then that law will be made.  Collective conscience and collective utility inform law.  Never is subjectivity overcome.

QuoteSo we still need a justification for moral statements. Arguing that such statements are inherently subjective may have the virtue of being true, but it ignores the pragmatic need for us to justify them.

If we attempt to objectively justify statements that are inherently subjective, we are attempting deceit or engaging in error, as untruth can never be anything other than deceit or error.  My subjectivity rebels. :)
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

dloubet

QuoteIn fact I'm saying anything we claim as good is only good subjectively, because subjectivity is a fundamental attribute of goodness. The very concept of an "objective good" is an oxymoron.

What is morality supposed to address if not the mental states of conscious beings? The mental states of conscious beings are objective and can be measured. Happiness is objectively different from suffering. If morality consists of maximizing the happiness and minimizing the suffering, and certain specific behaviors objectively contribute or retard that process, then I fail to see where subjectivity comes in when we label them moral and immoral.

QuoteHowever, I dispute the validity of arbitrarily defining moral in such a way as to automatically include the things we like and automatically exclude the things we dislike, and then trying to argue that our definition, arbitrarily chosen, somehow supports the thesis that morality isn't arbitrary.

It has nothing to do with including or excluding what we like or dislike. It has to do with observation. We observe those behaviors that support a peaceful and harmonious society and label them moral. The only arbitrary thing is the definition of moral, not the items that fit that definition. Those items are not arbitrary since they have to fit the definition.

QuoteOne man's heaven would be another man's hell.

But not always.

As humans, we all share a certain mental hard-wiring. Within that common ground we should be able to find an objective morality.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "dloubet"What is morality supposed to address if not the mental states of conscious beings?

It is supposed to address that if so we suppose.  It is supposed to address something else if we suppose differently.  Furthermore, what mental states shall we optimize?  Pleasure and comfort?  There are a great many people who idealize pain and discomfort instead, and I don't mean masochists in the erotic sense, but people for whom our innate imperfections, as they perceive such, are so odious as to demand pain and discomfort to balance the scales of justice.  Basing morality on self-loathing is of ancient precedent and is alive and well today.

QuoteThe mental states of conscious beings are objective and can be measured. Happiness is objectively different from suffering.

True.  But I invite you to attempt to convince me objectively that I should make happiness my moral criterion.  So far you have claimed your premise true as if it were self-evident.  Yet I put to you the question, why that criterion and not another?  I say to you that to me your premise isn't self-evident.  I require objective reasons for adopting it.  What are those objective reasons?  

Furthermore, even if I were convinced that I should make my own happiness my moral criterion, I would remain unconvinced that I should make your happiness, or anyone else's but my own, a moral criterion for myself.  I invite you to attempt to convince me objectively that I should make your happiness, or anyone else's but my own, a moral criterion for myself.

I agree that once we agree on ends, the means can be debated objectively.  Means can be assessed by objective criteria.  But ends cannot, because ends by their very nature are subjective.  Only a subject has ends.  To have ends is to be a subject.  Without subjectivity, ends do not exist.  If all subjectivity vanished from the universe, all ends would vanish simultaneously.  

A moral system must defend not only its means but also its ends.  I agree you could convince me objectively to adopt your suggested means, if first you had convinced me to adopt your suggested ends.  I invite you to attempt an objective defense of your suggested ends.  
 
QuoteIf morality consists of maximizing the happiness and minimizing the suffering, and certain specific behaviors objectively contribute or retard that process, then I fail to see where subjectivity comes in when we label them moral and immoral.

What if it doesn't consist of that?  

QuoteThe only arbitrary thing is the definition of moral, not the items that fit that definition. Those items are not arbitrary since they have to fit the definition.

The definition is precisely what I say is arbitrary.  Because the definition is arbitrary, all that follows from it hinges necessarily on the arbitrary.  The arbitrary and the subjective are the same thing.  An arbitrary definition is a subjective one.  Logic that flows from subjectivity can never claim objectivity for itself.  It abandoned objectivity at the very start, at the selection of its founding premise.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

dloubet

QuoteWhat if it doesn't consist of that?

Sigh. When people use the word "if" it usually means that the listener, for the sake of argument, should consider the premis referenced by the "if" as true, and argue from there.

If we arbitrarily define morality as those behaviors that promote a peaceful and harmonious society, then can you agree that given that definition, objective morality is possible?

Then we can argue whether the definition is justified.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "dloubet"If we arbitrarily define morality as those behaviors that promote a peaceful and harmonious society, then can you agree that given that definition, objective morality is possible?

Yes, because we've defined morality in such a way that we've tied it to a measurable consequence.  We could just as well, of course, have defined morality as those behaviors that promote inflation in the price of pork bellies.  Objectivity would be possible then too.

QuoteThen we can argue whether the definition is justified.

OK.  I presume you mean objectively justified.  I would say that if a peaceful and harmonious society had utility for me, I might view your definition as constituting sound policy, but if a bellicose society had utility for me, I might not.  For instance, if I were a munitions manufacturer, I might prefer a bellicose society, and might therefore prefer to instigate conflict, so that people buy guns and bullets in bulk.  I'm thinking utility won't get us to objective justification.  But I'll stop here and give you the floor.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

dloubet

It seems the weapon manufacturer's idea of morality is getting what I want at the expense of others.

That seems to be the opposite of what everyone else means when they say morality. It's pretty much a description of an absence of morality.

Morality is meaningless to a person alone on a deserted island. That person is free to do whatever he wants to himself, and the objects in his surroundings, to satisfy whatever desires he has, without regard to anyone else. By his isolation he is amoral.

The situation is the same with the weapons manufacturer. He views himself as alone in the world, because all the other people are just objects to be used to satisfy his desires. He needs no morals. He has no morals. He is amoral.

It's commonly understood that a morality is there to place limitations on behavior. To keep us from instantly seeking to satisfy whatever counterproductive whim possesses us from moment to moment. In contrast, the weapons manufacturer seems to regard morality as liscense to indulge in those whims and do as he pleases. Since there thus appears no difference between his morality, and no morality at all, again I am forced to the conclusion that he is simply amoral instead of beholden to a different morality.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "dloubet"It seems the weapon manufacturer's idea of morality is getting what I want at the expense of others.

I wasn't describing his morality, necessarily, merely what he deems utile, my point being that utility won't get us to an objective justification for a proposed definition of morality.  But you may have another solution in mind, given the next quote.

QuoteThat seems to be the opposite of what everyone else means when they say morality.

Are you offering consensus as your way of objectively justifying your definition of morality?  

I am hoping you will state your objective justification for your proposed definition of morality; I.e., "behaviors that promote a peaceful and harmonious society."

If consensus is your suggestion, I'll be disputing it, since I'm unaware of there being any consensus around your proposed definition.

Please state your objective justification so we can talk about it.  

QuoteIt's commonly understood that a morality is there to place limitations on behavior.

I agree.  Morality isn't morality in any sense if it doesn't place limitations on behavior.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

dloubet

QuoteAre you offering consensus as your way of objectively justifying your definition of morality?

Yes. Of course. Consensus is the means by which all words possess meaning and definition. Without consensus, words are just noises. Consensus on the meanings of words is what allows us to communicate with spoken and written language.

If one willfully chooses to apply definitions and meanings to words that contradict the consensus, one is due for a world of misunderstanding.

This does not mean that meanings and definitions cannot change over time. We can observe that they do. And that is what many atheists, including myself, are trying to do by arguing for a definition of morality that is more inclusive than the dogmatic consensus of the religious. If we can remove the religious baggage from the word, then maybe we can show that morality is not a property specific to one's favored religion, but instead can be shared by all.

You, from what I can gather, seem to think that morality has no definition or meaning. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this impression, but it seems your only statements concerning morality are that we can't make any statements concerning morality.

I put it to you that my definition is closer to the consensus than yours, and that when you talk about morality you're not talking about what people mean by the word.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "dloubet"Consensus is the means by which all words possess meaning and definition. Without consensus, words are just noises. Consensus on the meanings of words is what allows us to communicate with spoken and written language.

True.

QuoteIf we can remove the religious baggage from the word, then maybe we can show that morality is not a property specific to one's favored religion, but instead can be shared by all.

A laudable objective, and easily achieved by suggesting to anyone willing to listen that all one has to do is decide for oneself what is right and what is wrong, and then embrace the right and eschew the wrong.

QuoteYou, from what I can gather, seem to think that morality has no definition or meaning. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this impression, but it seems your only statements concerning morality are that we can't make any statements concerning morality.

The consensus definition of the word morality is something like, "The principles of right conduct."  That's essentially what you'll find in any dictionary.  The consensus definitions of the word right number more than a dozen, but the ones relevant to our discussion would typically be stated as, "(1) the most just; (2) the most reasonable; (3) the most socially appropriate; (4) the most utile; (5) the most sane; (6) the most authentic."

Consensus leaves us, then, not with answers, really, but with six specific questions regarding conduct, and then a seventh:

1. What is the most just?
2. What is the most reasonable?
3. What is the most socially appropriate?
4. What is the most utile?
5. What is the most sane?
6. What is the most authentic?

And then -

7. What are the relative priorities of each of the six with respect to the other five?

That's as far as consensus gets us.  From there, all is open to debate, and long have the debates been under way, for centuries, for millennia, nor are they concluded even today, or showing any signs of nearing a resolution.
   
Your suggestion, that right conduct is whatever promotes a peaceful and harmonious society, is a plausible answer to the first six questions, and might even help answer the seventh.  I actually like your suggestion from a variety of perspectives.  I've merely been denying that it's an objective answer, since objective facts don't need to be debated, but can be demonstrated by empiricism, either out in the wild by standing back and simply observing, or in the laboratory by conducting experiments, or via tabulating the responses to survey questionnaires and applying statistical formulae, or some programmatic combination of two of the foregoing or all three.  All of these methods require variables that can be measured.  How does one measure justice, reasonableness, social appropriateness, utility, sanity, or authenticity?  Come to think of it, each of these six terms is itself a beggar for rigorous definition.  We find ourselves having to take another step back, with six more questions to answer:

1. How shall we define justice with rigor?
2. How shall we define reasonableness with rigor?
3. How shall we define social appropriateness with rigor?
4. How shall we define utility with rigor?
5. How shall we define sanity with rigor?
6. How shall we define authenticity with rigor?

Rigor is required for measurability, which is required for empiricism, which is required for objectivity.

Alternatively, we could allow morality to be a subjective affair, decided by the self for the self.  Subjectivity doesn't have to submit to empiricism, measurability, or rigor.  It can choose to, of course, but it could choose otherwise just as legitimately.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.