A less selfish Pascal's wager

[Davin]

Jac3510, I think you've done a fine job of proving that objective morality can't be grounded in something evolutionary or social.

However,  you brought up the idea of the morality machine on a far off planet. I don't believe you addressed KebertX's point regarding this (I'm wrong alot though).  If this machine exists, then we would have objective morality without God.  You seem to have also proven that objective morality doesn't require God.

In the scenario I suggested, the machine would have to be somehow related to the purpose of man. Just spitting out rules wouldn't mean anything unless those rules were somehow connected to man's purpose.

Now, I suppose there IS a way that you can have objective morality without God in this regard . . . if you argue that humanity was created by an alien race, then you can argue that we were designed for a specific purpose (theoretically) and therefore we ought to act in a certain way if we are to fulfill our intended purpose. The only problem with that is you come dangerously close to falling into Euthyphro's Dilemma again. I don't think most people appreciate that the original dilemma deeply rests on the polytheism of the Greek world.

It seems like you're saying with these two paragraphs that in order for objective morality to exist, it would have to be for the purpose of us humans.

Anyway, with that said, I don't think there is anybody, especially not here, who thinks that we were designed for a purpose by an alien race that has imposed a moral structure on our society. If someone does want to argue that, I suppose I can concede that is a rational possibility. Shy of that, we are still left with a completely subjective moral system if God doesn't exist.

Unless we can objectively determine what objective morality is, we're always going to be stuck with subjective morality.

[humblesmurph]

Jac3510, I think you've done a fine job of proving that objective morality can't be grounded in something evolutionary or social.

However,  you brought up the idea of the morality machine on a far off planet. I don't believe you addressed KebertX's point regarding this (I'm wrong alot though).  If this machine exists, then we would have objective morality without God.  You seem to have also proven that objective morality doesn't require God.

In the scenario I suggested, the machine would have to be somehow related to the purpose of man. Just spitting out rules wouldn't mean anything unless those rules were somehow connected to man's purpose.

Now, I suppose there IS a way that you can have objective morality without God in this regard . . . if you argue that humanity was created by an alien race, then you can argue that we were designed for a specific purpose (theoretically) and therefore we ought to act in a certain way if we are to fulfill our intended purpose. The only problem with that is you come dangerously close to falling into Euthyphro's Dilemma again. I don't think most people appreciate that the original dilemma deeply rests on the polytheism of the Greek world.

Anyway, with that said, I don't think there is anybody, especially not here, who thinks that we were designed for a purpose by an alien race that has imposed a moral structure on our society.If someone does want to argue that, I suppose I can concede that is a rational possibility. Shy of that, we are still left with a completely subjective moral system if God doesn't exist.

This is where we diverge Chris.  First, I don't necessarily agree with your characterization of this morality machine.  If morality could be manufactured, like say light, it doesn't really matter if it is connected to man's purpose.  The sun doesn't exist for the purpose of man, but we are given light by it.  In the same sense, morality could be just generated by some far off entity that is not concerned about, or even knowledgeable of, human existence.

I'm not arguing that such an entity exists.  I'm saying that it is just shy of infinitely more likely than the Christian God.  It's an intermediate source of objective morality that you don't seem to give the same credence as God or human intellect.  Basically, you are saying that either we did it, or god did it.  That seems like an excluded middle fallacy to me.  The mere fact that people generally would find a morality making machine ridiculous doesn't count as an argument against it's existence.

[Jac3510]

It seems like you're saying with these two paragraphs that in order for objective morality to exist, it would have to be for the purpose of us humans.

I am. For morality to be objective in any species it would have to be connected to that species purpose. That's why morality must be subjective in the absence of a Creator (or, as I conceded, on some level a creator). Broadly speaking, without God, morality cannot be objective.

Unless we can objectively determine what objective morality is, we're always going to be stuck with subjective morality.

You are confusing epistemology with ontology again. Knowing what something is (epistemology) has no bearing on whether or not that something is (ontology). We've not gotten far enough to talk about how we know what objective morality is, although we've laid the groundwork. We've only talked about what it would mean if it were or were not objective.

This is where we diverge Chris.  First, I don't necessarily agree with your characterization of this morality machine.  If morality could be manufactured, like say light, it doesn't really matter if it is connected to man's purpose.  The sun doesn't exist for the purpose of man, but we are given light by it.  In the same sense, morality could be just generated by some far off entity that is not concerned about, or even knowledgeable of, human existence.

Strictly speaking, morality can't be "manufactured" because morality, by its very definition, discusses how man ought to behave. There is no behavior atom. Morality governs man's actions, so it can't be "manufactured" like light can. Thus, the light of the sun is an objective reality. It is there whether we agree or disagree with it. The statement, "The sun puts out light" is either true or false, regardless of what you or I believe. That's because its reality isn't tied to man's purpose. How man ought to behave, however, is tied to his purpose (assuming he has one). If man has no purpose, then there is absolutely no objective truth-value to the statement, "This is the right thing to do." Nothing is the "right" or "wrong" thing to do. All those statements mean, if man has no purpose, is, "I want you to do this because it is in line with my value system."

I'm not arguing that such an entity exists.  I'm saying that it is just shy of infinitely more likely than the Christian God.  It's an intermediate source of objective morality that you don't seem to give the same credence as God or human intellect.  Basically, you are saying that either we did it, or god did it.  That seems like an excluded middle fallacy to me.  The mere fact that people generally would find a morality making machine ridiculous doesn't count as an argument against it's existence.

Hopefully the above explained what I mean. The whole reason I brought up the machine analogy in the first place was to compare it to the divine command model. Theoretically, a machine can issue commands just as much as a God can. I can concede here precisely the same thing I conceded to Kerbert about his value of happiness of all. Morality could be objective in a weak sense of the word if a machine was just telling me what I ought to do. I could look at the machine's command I choose to base my actions on that, which would, by definition, be weakly objective. It would not, however, be objective in the strong sense which I have been arguing for throughout this thread, that is, morality being objective in and of itself. In other words, there would be no intrinsic reason for adopting that machine's commands as normative anymore than there is an objective reason for adopting human happiness as the normative value. The only way around that would be to make this machine an intrinsic part of the purpose of man, as if an advanced alien race created us and somehow tied our behavior in with that (did you ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?). There is, however, absolutely no reason to suggest that is the case. Thus:

If mankind has a purpose, morality can be objective.
If mankind does not have a purpose, morality cannot be objective.

How does man get purpose? From a Creator who designed Him, because purpose is tied to the notion of intention, which is tied to the notion of design.

[humblesmurph]

This is where we diverge Chris.  First, I don't necessarily agree with your characterization of this morality machine.  If morality could be manufactured, like say light, it doesn't really matter if it is connected to man's purpose.  The sun doesn't exist for the purpose of man, but we are given light by it.  In the same sense, morality could be just generated by some far off entity that is not concerned about, or even knowledgeable of, human existence.

Strictly speaking, morality can't be "manufactured" because morality, by its very definition, discusses how man ought to behave. There is no behavior atom. Morality governs man's actions, so it can't be "manufactured" like light can. Thus, the light of the sun is an objective reality. It is there whether we agree or disagree with it. The statement, "The sun puts out light" is either true or false, regardless of what you or I believe. That's because its reality isn't tied to man's purpose. How man ought to behave, however, is tied to his purpose (assuming he has one). If man has no purpose, then there is absolutely no objective truth-value to the statement, "This is the right thing to do." Nothing is the "right" or "wrong" thing to do. All those statements mean, if man has no purpose, is, "I want you to do this because it is in line with my value system."

I'm not arguing that such an entity exists.  I'm saying that it is just shy of infinitely more likely than the Christian God.  It's an intermediate source of objective morality that you don't seem to give the same credence as God or human intellect.  Basically, you are saying that either we did it, or god did it.  That seems like an excluded middle fallacy to me.  The mere fact that people generally would find a morality making machine ridiculous doesn't count as an argument against it's existence.

Hopefully the above explained what I mean. The whole reason I brought up the machine analogy in the first place was to compare it to the divine command model. Theoretically, a machine can issue commands just as much as a God can. I can concede here precisely the same thing I conceded to Kerbert about his value of happiness of all. Morality could be objective in a weak sense of the word if a machine was just telling me what I ought to do. I could look at the machine's command I choose to base my actions on that, which would, by definition, be weakly objective. It would not, however, be objective in the strong sense which I have been arguing for throughout this thread, that is, morality being objective in and of itself. In other words, there would be no intrinsic reason for adopting that machine's commands as normative anymore than there is an objective reason for adopting human happiness as the normative value. The only way around that would be to make this machine an intrinsic part of the purpose of man, as if an advanced alien race created us and somehow tied our behavior in with that (did you ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?). There is, however, absolutely no reason to suggest that is the case. Thus:

If mankind has a purpose, morality can be objective.
If mankind does not have a purpose, morality cannot be objective.

How does man get purpose? From a Creator who designed Him, because purpose is tied to the notion of intention, which is tied to the notion of design.

Thank you for the clarification.  I think we are getting closer to the point of agreeing to disagree.  I disagree with your definition of morality.  Why only humans? Why not animals? Why not yet unknown intelligent beings in far reaches of the universe?   Saying that there is no behavior atom is as baseless a claim as saying there is no god.  Just because you haven't seen this atom, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just as the lack of proof for God isn't sufficient proof of it's non existence.

You choose to associate objective morality with humankind's purpose.  That seems arbitrary, I don't accept or reject this .  Setting that aside, couldn't a proponent of KebertX's line of thinking simply say that humankind's purpose is to survive?   Doesn't this leave you two right back where you started?

You reject the morality machine as you have outlined it.  Fair enough.  It still presents an inescapable problem in my view. I purposely referred to this machine as an "entity".  This entity could be supernatural, but not omnipotent. There could be a god of the humans, a being that created humans and endowed them with morality, reason, love, and all the rest.  This god needn't have any hand in the creating of the rest of the physical universe.  You are presuming a omnipotent god is responsible for a thing  that an infinitely less powerful being could be capable of.  

To be clear, I don't believe in anything supernatural, and I don't think that morality is objective.

[Jac3510]

Thank you for the clarification.  I think we are getting closer to the point of agreeing to disagree.  I disagree with your definition of morality.  Why only humans? Why not animals? Why not yet unknown intelligent beings in far reaches of the universe?   Saying that there is no behavior atom is as baseless a claim as saying there is no god.  Just because you haven't seen this atom, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just as the lack of proof for God isn't sufficient proof of it's non existence.

Technically, I'm not arguing that animals don't have a morality. Unfortunately, I'm not a lion, tiger, or bear, so I can't tell you whether or not they have a moral system. The best I can do is examine them and say, "there doesn't appear to be one." I can go a little further then that, which I will below, but the point remains. Or let's say a super-advanced alien race examined humanity. Unless they could understand our language, would they believe that we had a moral system? There is no reason to think that they would. They would make precisely the same statements about us that we make about animals or rocks. That is, all their statements about our behavior would be descriptive rather than normative. They would say, "When man A kills man B and is caught, and man A is quarantined from the rest of humanity by men C, D, and E." That doesn't yield, "You ought not murder." Description is not prescription. Morality deals with the latter.

You choose to associate objective morality with humankind's purpose.  That seems arbitrary, I don't accept or reject this .  Setting that aside, couldn't a proponent of KebertX's line of thinking simply say that humankind's purpose is to survive?   Doesn't this leave you two right back where you started?

My choice to ground morality in the structure of human relationships is a matter of logical necessity. Let me prove it:

1. Something can only be said to be "supposed to be" it is rooted in a supposer's design for the thing to be that way;
2. Human action is commonly said to "supposed to be" a certain way;
3. Therefore, human action is rooted in the design of a supposer.

This is why this is all so important, Mike. When we say "morality is objective" we are talking about an "ought" which logically requires a design, and design, as you know, requires a designer. My rooting objectivity in the intended structure of human society is not arbitary; it is an analytical requirement, just like declaring all unmarried men bachelors is not arbitrary but an analytical requirement.

The best you can do is just deny that morality is objective. That's fine. We haven't had the discussion yet whether or not morality is objective. Just getting people to see what that means is a feat in and of itself. But, for this discussion, the all important point is that if there is no Creator who designed human society, objective morality is absolutely impossible.

You reject the morality machine as you have outlined it.  Fair enough.  It still presents an inescapable problem in my view. I purposely referred to this machine as an "entity".  This entity could be supernatural, but not omnipotent. There could be a god of the humans, a being that created humans and endowed them with morality, reason, love, and all the rest.  This god needn't have any hand in the creating of the rest of the physical universe.  You are presuming a omnipotent god is responsible for a thing  that an infinitely less powerful being could be capable of.  

To be clear, I don't believe in anything supernatural, and I don't think that morality is objective.

No, no, no, no. In this thread, I have not presumed that objective morality is rooted in the Creator of the Universe. Logically, it could be that human morality is rooted, objectively, in a higher species. But to say that is to assert that this species designed us for a particular purpose. Again, absolutely the only thing I am trying to show in this thread is that for morality to be objective, it must be rooted in a higher power. It cannot be objective and be rooted in human values, be that individual or societal, or human evolution.

This, then, is what allows me to logically infer that there is no moral system in rocks or tigers. There appears to be no intended purpose in their societal structure precisely because there appears to be no higher designer. We didn't design them, and there is no evidence that we, or they, we designed by aliens. There is no theological position I know of that declares that lower animal societal structure was intended to be a certain way. Now, perhaps there is an undetectable Tiger God who did design tiger social structure. If so, we would never know about it, and as you of all people know, there is no reason to accept the existence of an undetectable Tiger God. To the best of our knowledge, with absolutely no reason of any kind to believe the contrary, there is, then, no animal morality (but again, if I was a tiger and could talk to you, then maybe I could inform you otherwise; I doubt I would).

SO

All of this long drawn out discussion is just meant to prove a very simple point. In the absence of a Designer, objective morality is a myth. Morality is strictly and totally a matter of personal opinion. Whether or not morality is objective is another debate that I intend on taking up after we finish the metaphysical argument we're having right now in the Arguments for God thread.

[humblesmurph]

Technically, I'm not arguing that animals don't have a morality. Unfortunately, I'm not a lion, tiger, or bear, so I can't tell you whether or not they have a moral system. The best I can do is examine them and say, "there doesn't appear to be one." I can go a little further then that, which I will below, but the point remains. Or let's say a super-advanced alien race examined humanity. Unless they could understand our language, would they believe that we had a moral system? There is no reason to think that they would. They would make precisely the same statements about us that we make about animals or rocks. That is, all their statements about our behavior would be descriptive rather than normative. They would say, "When man A kills man B and is caught, and man A is quarantined from the rest of humanity by men C, D, and E." That doesn't yield, "You ought not murder." Description is not prescription. Morality deals with the latter.

I'm not talking about ability to judge another specie's morality. I'm talking about morality, that's a different thing.  Sure these aliens may  only able to describe what they see, but men C, D, and E in your example are prescribing.  They are representative of society at large.  Morality  is a societal construct. US money exists, but there is no gold or anything else of real value to back it, it is simply currency we use to facilitate the running of our country.  Morality is a similar, but more important currency, without it, humanity fails.  My suggestion is that species other than ours could be using a similar currency.  The fact that we don't understand it doesn't matter.  The point is that we can't assume that morality only applies to humans.

My choice to ground morality in the structure of human relationships is a matter of logical necessity. Let me prove it:

1. Something can only be said to be "supposed to be" it is rooted in a supposer's design for the thing to be that way;
2. Human action is commonly said to "supposed to be" a certain way;
3. Therefore, human action is rooted in the design of a supposer.

This is why this is all so important, Mike. When we say "morality is objective" we are talking about an "ought" which logically requires a design, and design, as you know, requires a designer. My rooting objectivity in the intended structure of human society is not arbitary; it is an analytical requirement, just like declaring all unmarried men bachelors is not arbitrary but an analytical requirement.

The best you can do is just deny that morality is objective. That's fine. We haven't had the discussion yet whether or not morality is objective. Just getting people to see what that means is a feat in and of itself. But, for this discussion, the all important point is that if there is no Creator who designed human society, objective morality is absolutely impossible.

For the moment, I'll concede that "supposed to be" is rooted in a designer.  Humankind is the designer of societies.  Humans can make ought statements within a particular social framework.  Ought statements needn't be objective, just supportive of the framework.  

You reject the morality machine as you have outlined it.  Fair enough.  It still presents an inescapable problem in my view. I purposely referred to this machine as an "entity".  This entity could be supernatural, but not omnipotent. There could be a god of the humans, a being that created humans and endowed them with morality, reason, love, and all the rest.  This god needn't have any hand in the creating of the rest of the physical universe.  You are presuming a omnipotent god is responsible for a thing  that an infinitely less powerful being could be capable of.  

To be clear, I don't believe in anything supernatural, and I don't think that morality is objective.

No, no, no, no. In this thread, I have not presumed that objective morality is rooted in the Creator of the Universe. Logically, it could be that human morality is rooted, objectively, in a higher species. But to say that is to assert that this species designed us for a particular purpose. Again, absolutely the only thing I am trying to show in this thread is that for morality to be objective, it must be rooted in a higher power. It cannot be objective and be rooted in human values, be that individual or societal, or human evolution.

I see. Sorry if you are exasperated. I'll try to keep up.

This, then, is what allows me to logically infer that there is no moral system in rocks or tigers. There appears to be no intended purpose in their societal structure precisely because there appears to be no higher designer. We didn't design them, and there is no evidence that we, or they, we designed by aliens. There is no theological position I know of that declares that lower animal societal structure was intended to be a certain way. Now, perhaps there is an undetectable Tiger God who did design tiger social structure. If so, we would never know about it, and as you of all people know, there is no reason to accept the existence of an undetectable Tiger God. To the best of our knowledge, with absolutely no reason of any kind to believe the contrary, there is, then, no animal morality (but again, if I was a tiger and could talk to you, then maybe I could inform you otherwise; I doubt I would).

As stated above, I don't think that tigers would need a tiger god to have functional morality.  They certainly aren't in the same category as rocks.  What appears to us doesn't matter, I can't assume that tigers don't have morality.  I certainly can't assume that chimps or gorillas or dolphins or aliens don't either.

SO

All of this long drawn out discussion is just meant to prove a very simple point. In the absence of a Designer, objective morality is a myth. Morality is strictly and totally a matter of personal opinion. Whether or not morality is objective is another debate that I intend on taking up after we finish the metaphysical argument we're having right now in the Arguments for God thread.

You go too far Chris. "Personal opinion"?, hardly.  Morality is collectively subjective.  Large numbers of people agree that murder is wrong, it's not just a single person's personal opinion or the arbitrary ruling of very few.  This consensus is certainly not objectivity in the strict sense.  It can be shown objectively that it doesn't fit in our social framework.  It's not objectivity, but it's all we have until God blesses us with some straight answers.

[Jac3510]

Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it objective, Mike. It just means that a lot of people have the same personal opinion on something. Tell me, if ninety nine kids are making fun of one, does that mean that it is ok for them to do so? Of course not. Objectivity isn't decided by vote, whether the society is small or large. I made it a point very early in this discussion to distinguish between moral absolutism and moral objectivity.

Humans, then, may construct societies, but such human inventions will be the product of human values, and thus, any moral systems that flow from them will be rooted in pure subjectivity. There would be no objective reason to maintain that society's moral system or to exalt its moral values above any you yourself preferred. This is easy enough to demonstrate. Suppose you moved to a hyper-Christian country where the society declared that everyone who did not go to church would be imprisoned as being immoral. You may go to church out of compulsion, but would you regard not going as immoral? Of course not. It doesn't matter what the society agrees on. The question is why they agree upon it. Is there an objective reason, or is it merely subjective personal opinion that lots of people hold in common?

On atheism, it is only the latter. On theism, it is the former.

[Davin]

It seems like you're saying with these two paragraphs that in order for objective morality to exist, it would have to be for the purpose of us humans.

I am. For morality to be objective in any species it would have to be connected to that species purpose. That's why morality must be subjective in the absence of a Creator (or, as I conceded, on some level a creator). Broadly speaking, without God, morality cannot be objective.

Now I see the problem, though the terms may look the same, we're talking about two different things. You're talking about objective morality as in morality has an objective (or that humanity has an objective or something has an objective for humanity), while I'm talking about objective morality the same way gravity is objective. Perhaps purposed morality is a term that distinguishes it from the other while also being a term that describes it.

Unless we can objectively determine what objective morality is, we're always going to be stuck with subjective morality.

You are confusing epistemology with ontology again. Knowing what something is (epistemology) has no bearing on whether or not that something is (ontology). We've not gotten far enough to talk about how we know what objective morality is, although we've laid the groundwork. We've only talked about what it would mean if it were or were not objective.

This is a misunderstanding of what I said, I made no mention of what exists or not, just what we're stuck with. Without being able to objectively determine what objective morality is, if we're going to even attempt to be moral, then we're left with no option but to use what we can determine, which is subjective morality.

[humblesmurph]

Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it objective, Mike. It just means that a lot of people have the same personal opinion on something. Tell me, if ninety nine kids are making fun of one, does that mean that it is ok for them to do so? Of course not. Objectivity isn't decided by vote, whether the society is small or large. I made it a point very early in this discussion to distinguish between moral absolutism and moral objectivity.

Humans, then, may construct societies, but such human inventions will be the product of human values, and thus, any moral systems that flow from them will be rooted in pure subjectivity. There would be no objective reason to maintain that society's moral system or to exalt its moral values above any you yourself preferred. This is easy enough to demonstrate. Suppose you moved to a hyper-Christian country where the society declared that everyone who did not go to church would be imprisoned as being immoral. You may go to church out of compulsion, but would you regard not going as immoral? Of course not. It doesn't matter what the society agrees on. The question is why they agree upon it. Is there an objective reason, or is it merely subjective personal opinion that lots of people hold in common?

On atheism, it is only the latter. On theism, it is the former.

No no no no no no    I wasn't saying that consensus equals objectivity.  Quite the contrary. I'm saying it's consensus that lets us "know" right from wrong.  You just have to ask the proper question. Take those 99 kids, ask them if it is OK to tease the 1 kid, they would likely say something like "yeah dummy, that's why we are teasing her".  If, however, you were to convene those 100 kids for a vote and tell them that one, and only one, was going to get teased mercilessly till the end of her days, they would vote unanimously against such an action.  That is how we "know" it is wrong for 99 kids to tease 1, regardless of what those 99 kids think at the time.  

  The same for your hyper-Christians.  If you convene all the people in the country and tell them that a group was going to be imprisoned for their beliefs, without knowing which group that was going to be, they would vote unanimously against it. That's how we "know" religious persecution is wrong.

No, it's not objective per se, but it isn't nearly as will nilly as you seem to imply. It's certainly better than an appeal to religion.  I've met literally thousands of theists, and talked religion at length with over a hundred just in my college and bartending experience, none, not one, had the insight that you hold regarding Christianity (I've read your blog).  Wouldn't it seem to you that the mythical vote is a simpler and more effective way to determine functional morality than trying to decipher what God's moral objectivity is?  Likely, the end results would be much the same no?

[Jac3510]

Now I see the problem, though the terms may look the same, we're talking about two different things. You're talking about objective morality as in morality has an objective (or that humanity has an objective or something has an objective for humanity), while I'm talking about objective morality the same way gravity is objective. Perhaps purposed morality is a term that distinguishes it from the other while also being a term that describes it.

Much closer, but still off, in my view, by a hair. I am saying that morality is objective in just the same sense that gravity is. I am saying, however, that the reason it is objective is that it is rooted in a definite and intended human social structure. If there is a definite and intended human structure, then morality is just as objective as gravity is. A moral statement in that context can be objectively true for objective reasons even if you disagree with it. In short, you can be wrong about your moral opinions, just like scientists can be wrong about gravity.

This is a misunderstanding of what I said, I made no mention of what exists or not, just what we're stuck with. Without being able to objectively determine what objective morality is, if we're going to even attempt to be moral, then we're left with no option but to use what we can determine, which is subjective morality.

Yes, you said that we are stuck with subjective morality, which is an epistemological, not ontological issue (unless you mean that "unless we can discover that morality is objective, we have to assume it is really subjective," in which case, I just disagree).

I suspect that what you mean is that no matter how our debate goes, we all have to go out and do right and wrong today, and that our decisions to do right or wrong are ultimately based on our value systems, our relationship to society, etc., and those things are subjective. And, of course, you are right. I can choose what I want to value. But if morality is objective, I can choose to do something that I believe is wrong because I just want to.

Suppose someone angers me and I decide I want to kill them. Suppose that I know I am going to be caught and executed. Knowing the consequences, suppose that I decide that my vengeance is more important to satisfy than my desire for life or the happiness of others. I can acknowledge that murder is wrong, and say I don't care, and just do it anyway. When I say, "I can acknowledge murder is wrong," that only makes sense if morality is objective in the sense that I am describing it. If it is just a personal construct, then murder is good, because it is in accordance with my values. If it is a societal construct, then it is wrong only if the society I am in decides that vengeance is wrong. Either way, it's all a matter of personal value system, be it singular or collective. In that sense, to say it is "wrong" is only to say, "I am doing something that other people would rather I not do."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No no no no no no  

[KebertX]

Hey Kerbert,

Rather than line-by-line your reply and create a motherload of a tl;dr, let me boil everything down into two basic points. Please, if in doing so, I miss anything at all you feel needs commenting on (even if it turns out to be your whole reply!) just let me know and I will immediately comment on that specifically. Fair enough?

"If your post requires a tl;dr section, then you have failed as a writer." Not sure where I got that quote from...  Anyways, on with the actual content of this discussion.

1. It seems to me that your central value is social happiness, which stands in distinction to ethical egoism (in which happiness of the individual is the basic value pursued). Now, first, let me comment positively that this view is at least "objective" in a weak sense of the word, although not in the sense I am pressing. By that, I mean we can have a rational argument about what will bring about the most happiness for any given course of action and then label that action as the one that "ought" to be done. Further, I don't have a particularly pragmatic problem with the approach as it probably provides a fairly good test to help us discover the good (although I'm here presuming morality is objective as I mean it).

You don't think the desire to propagate happiness is objective? That's the most basic pretext of the concept of motivation. Every animal organism feels an equivalent of what we consider happiness as a motivation to do anything. Happiness could possibly be defined as what we feel as a result of achieving an outcome we want. So, wanting to propagate a good feeling that is achieved through behaviors that have been naturally selected for.  I think that's pretty damn objective.

I don't see it being any more or less objective than your god explanation: That's just the nature he programmed into the universe. I say that's just the nature of life. "I believe in God, only I spell it Nature." ~ Frank Lloyd Wright. It did itself. You don't need a designer to bring about an evolutionary process. This is getting closer to my area of expertise. And at the point where a natural process can be explained by natural laws, it really doesn't make sense to postulate an infinitely complex, thing that's supposed to be everywhere, but is for some reason, unobservable.

Okay, so you want to know why happiness ought to be sought after? Because it makes people happy. Isn't that enough?  Asking, "Why do we want to be happy?" is somewhat pointless. Happiness is the reason we want things! We want to be happy because we've got 3,000,000,000 years of programming to vet us into certain behaviors that make us want to behave in such a way that propagates happiness.

Maybe you don't think that's objective, but if it's not, I'm still content with that.  I can live with subjective morality, I don't care. As long as I am making people around me happy, and making myself happy, I am content that my life is moral.  If making other people happy isn't enough motivation for some philosopher I encounter, and he thinks that's just a subjective opinion, I can live with that. I am content.

With that said, I have two objections.

First, there seems to be no objective reason to adopt it. You state that egoism is a pre-conventional morality, but that doesn't make it wrong. People beliefs, whether past, present, or future have no bearing on a statement's truth-value.

Oh no, not wrong. Just less mentally developed. For young children, the only morality is making sure your parents give you a cookie instead of a spanking.  There is an objective reason to adopt it: IT'S OUR NATURE. It's programmed in by illions of years of natural selection, similar to the way you claim morality has been programmed in by God.

You are assuming here that happiness (rather than survival as I originally commented on) is the proper value, and more specifically, the happiness of others. Now, I want to say here, "That may be true, but . . ." and yet I can't. I can't because the statement "that may be true" implies that the statement "The happiness of others ought to be sought" is an objective statement with a truth value in and of itself. But who says that it is? On what basis? There is no objective reason for accepting even your position. It is still just as subjective as anything else, which means morality is still reduced to nothing more than personal opinion.

No, happiness of everyone. If you make yourself happy (unless it's at the expense of others) that's completely moral to me. I don't think people depriving themselves of something they want are doing anything particularly moral.  Happiness ought to be sought because it is our motivator.  If a donkey has a carrot dangling in front of it, and a stick behind it, the donkey ought to move forward. This has an objective truth value because the aggregation of every attribute of donkey's results in the donkey behaving this way.  So maybe it's just a matter of donkey opinion that eating a carrot is preferable to getting beaten. Maybe it's not grounded in God, and maybe that makes it subjective to you.  But I say, living beings do what they are a naturally motivated to do. That's objective enough for me.

Second, I can't agree with your conflation of inevitability and objectivity. To say,"People ought to behave such and such a way
because they were bound to learn to act that way" doesn't address the fundamental issue, which is why should I behave as people are bound to behave? What objective reason can be provided to explain why I ought to adopt your value system? You can't appeal to your personal value to answer that, because it just begs the question.

They should behave that way because it is their nature? That makes sense as an objective fact to me. I still don't understand why this objective source of morality must be god, and not Karma, or a morality dispensing machine. They all make the same amount of sense, and there's no real reason to pick one over the other.

I'm afraid I failed to understand why you don't think a machine wired to our brains programming our behavior wouldn't be objective. Isn't that basically what god is in your scenario? He designed our behavior to be consitent with his nature. The machine programs our behavior to be consistent with its nature. Am I missing something in this analogy?

2. You ask how it is that morality is objective with God. The question is fair. I have said repeatedly, and you have acknowledged, that I am not a deontologist. We don't root morality in God's command (although if we did, the worst we could say is that morality is objective for us, being His creations, even if it is subjective for Him. He is, after all, God!). It is rooted in the intention of God concerning the created order.

Okay, so god invented right and wrong in such a way that is consistent with his nature, and we now think of this state of the universe as good and bad.  But, I have demonstrated sufficiently how we would come to think the same way even if there is NO Invisible Pink Unicorn.  So, why should I believe that there is a God?  What is there in observable reality that cannot be explained through any means other than an omniscient creator?  The correct answer to this is: Nothing.

You seem to say that objective morality is too complicated to be grounded in anything but omniscient consciousness. But any creator capable of designing all the universe and installing it with moral laws, would have to be infinitely more complex. You can't answer for complexity by postulating more complexity.  The argument shoots itself in the foot.

Let me give you an example.

Did you ever see The Little Mermaid? Do you remember the scene where Ariel uses the fork as a hair brush? She saw this strange thing and just assumed that it was to be used on her hair. Of course, she was wrong. That's not what a fork is for at all. It wasn't designed to brush hair. The fact that it can do serve that purpose is neither here nor their. Its purpose is for eating. Ariel was wrong, sincerely and ignorantly so, about its purpose. But she could only be wrong if it had an actual purpose, and it could only have a purpose if it was designed by an intelligent designer.

God created the universe to work according to certain laws. We study them every day in the laboratory. Morality is precisely the same way, which is why it used to be called "the moral law." Mankind is intended to be kind to one another. That intention provides the basis for an objective ought. Let me, however, make a STRONG word of caution. I am NOT saying that the objective basis provides an epistemic test for what we ought to do in any given test. Part of the problem with modern ethics is that they confuse the question "How do I know right from wrong" with the question "What is right and wrong." I am simply offering why it is that morals can be objective if God exists. His intentions, in any case, are rooted in His nature, not His commands (which is something philosophers are very well aware of when discussion practical reason).

Or, perhaps there is no intention. No higher purpose. Maybe this universe is just a universe. Maybe we weren't meant to use the fork in any way. The fork is just there, make what you want of it.

So the confusion, you perceive, is between the questions "How do I know right from wrong" with the question "What is right and wrong." You seem to dodge both of these. You say we know right from wrong because God just made it that way, and it's pre-programmed in. And you keep saying that the latter question is irrelevant to your position of objectivity.  Both of these sound like copouts to me.

So here's the practical take away:

Someone asks you, "Why should I be kind," you answer, "Because it increases happiness." They respond, "Why should I care about increasing happiness," you can only respond, in whatever words you choose, "Because you should!"

You should be kind because it makes you happy, and makes others around you happy.  You all want to be happy because that's the motivation behind all action, it's an inescapable part of the nature of existence.  I don't see a problem with that, it seems objective to me, and I have no clue what I'm missing.

Someone asks me, "Why should I be kind," I answer, "Because God created social relationships to be couched in kindness." They respond, "Why would God create the world in such a way," and I respond, "Because it is consistent with His nature."


Notice that in your answer, we ought to do something relative to a value system, which makes it subjective, because everyone has the right to their own value system. In my answer, we ought to to something relative to the way reality is structured, which makes it objective, because people do not have the right to their own realities.

And why is that consistent with his nature? Is kindness good because God wills it, or does God will kindness because it is good? Does this God answer to any form of morality, or is it just a random contention that he's had since the dawn of time? Why is God this way? If he's conscious, then he must be capable of thought. How did God come to the conclusion that being moral was preferable?  When you bring your moral argument up to a God scale, it falls apart like Newton's laws do at the speed of light.

People don't have a right to their own realities. What I fail to understand is WHY you think god is real. You say: If God is real, then morality is objective. If morality is not objective, it's not meaningful enough. I prefer to think that morality is objective, therefore I must hold the contention that God is real.  That's simply not a valid argument.

Thanks for reply, and no, you certainly did not disappoint. If you think it is refreshing to talk to a theist who rejects deontology, I find it just as refreshing to talk to a non-theist who is willing to engage in serious dialogue on this rather than just accuse me of Bible thumping. :p

Based on what I've seen you say, you must be too smart to be a bible thumper. There's a severe intellectual difference between saying, "The nature of existence has been set by an infinite consciousness of the universe." And saying, "There was a 900 year old man 6000 years ago who built a giant fucking boat and rounded up to of every animal!" Only one of those technically makes sense.  I am interested to know, based on all you have said about "design," you do accept evolution, right? Perhaps this belongs on another thread...

This has definitely been interesting, but I am ready to concede that morality is subjective now.  You're definition of objective morality has been pinholed to the point where it is absolutely meaningless unless I accept all your premises about God being an omnipotent creator of the universe who endowed human beings with a purpose, and a moral nature.  I'd rather just say that happiness is a subjective opinion than have to go all out in favor of something so unsubstantiated.

Morality isn't really objective in the same sense as gravity. There is no morality on a lifeless asteroid, or the center of the sun. Morality inhabits a conscious mind. You have made a very convincing argument that it doesn't matter if we all agree that being kind is moral, because that doesn't make it right. But I think that this is wrong. All morality is societally defined. We stick with it because society agrees with it. And society agrees with it because we're motivated to be happy.  Very simple, I don't think I have anything else to say.

[Jac3510]

[Davin]

I would, though, challenge you on this. Forgive me for being blunt, but I don't think you are being honest with yourself. Were the Aztecs right or wrong when they engaged in human sacrifice? Were Southerner's right or wrong when they had slaves? Those societies defined those things as right. You'll say they are wrong, which you can only say if morality is objective. You must say that slavery and human sacrifice is not wrong and was not wrong in those cultures. You could fall back on your other argument that it was wrong because it didn't increase everyone's happiness (certainly not of the victims and of the slaves!), but then you have to abandon your statement that morality is socially defined. You can't eat your cake and have it to. One of these can't be true. And, again, if you fall back on your happiness argument, you still have to contend with the fact that you think some things are, in fact, right that reduce individual's happiness. At that point, you are very close to utilitarianism, which gets you right back into justifying slavery. And beyond that, the Aztecs and racist South serve as two historical examples of people who would have said "So what?" to your subjective moral compass. They just would have disagreed with you. You would have absolutely no basis on telling them they ought to have done anything any differently. If they were aware of evolution, they could have just laughed and said, "So what? The only reason we have this desire to make people happy is because it helped the species survive? Well forget it, then. There is nothing binding about that at all. Now, somebody get the shackles, and I'll get the altar ready. We're gonna have us some barbeque tonight!" What is there to say in response to that? Absolutely nothing. You can complain that its just pre-convention morality, but the "So what?" question will come back again.

Sorry. If God doesn't exist--if humans don't have an intended purpose--then morality is totally objective. Murder and chocolate ice cream. That's it.

You have the very same "so what?" problem with objective morality. Go back to those in the U.S. who said that they know gods moral laws and that they are allowed by god to own slaves and just tell them that slavery is wrong. They'll say you don't know about gods laws because it says so plain and clear in the bible that slavery is OK.

Even better, go back to the Aztec's and tell them that you understand objective morality and gods will and they'll probably say that that isn't their god or their gods objective morality. The "so what?" question comes back to you every time as well.

So what do you have that shows that your version of objective morality isn't just something subjectively created by your and other people's minds?

[Jac3510]

You have the very same "so what?" problem with objective morality. Go back to those in the U.S. who said that they know gods moral laws and that they are allowed by god to own slaves and just tell them that slavery is wrong. They'll say you don't know about gods laws because it says so plain and clear in the bible that slavery is OK.

Even better, go back to the Aztec's and tell them that you understand objective morality and gods will and they'll probably say that that isn't their god or their gods objective morality. The "so what?" question comes back to you every time as well.

So what do you have that shows that your version of objective morality isn't just something subjectively created by your and other people's minds?

No, they wouldn't say to me "So what?" They would say, "No, you are wrong that this is not what God intended."

Therein lies the difference.

edit:

To press the point, if I say to someone that they ought not do something and explain to them why, and they say, "so what?"--all they are saying is that they don't care about the way reality works. That's fine. There is a fundamental difference in them not carrying about the way reality works and not caring about my personal value system. Just because morality is objective, that doesn't mean that people will abide by it. In fact, as you know, they often don't care what is supposed to be the case. That is the very reason we can condemn them for it, because they doing what is really wrong.

In the second place, saying "you have the same problem" is a logical fallacy called tu quoque. Even if I do have the same problem, that doesn't change the fact that Kerbert's has the problem. He thinks his position is, for the most part, objective, although he admits subjectivity to a degree. I'm pointing out that it is necessarily 100% subjective. Whether or not mine is subjective (and it isn't, since it is rooted in the nature of reality) doesn't change the fact his is. To point to a fault in my argument is logically invalid.

[Davin]

You have the very same "so what?" problem with objective morality. Go back to those in the U.S. who said that they know gods moral laws and that they are allowed by god to own slaves and just tell them that slavery is wrong. They'll say you don't know about gods laws because it says so plain and clear in the bible that slavery is OK.

Even better, go back to the Aztec's and tell them that you understand objective morality and gods will and they'll probably say that that isn't their god or their gods objective morality. The "so what?" question comes back to you every time as well.

So what do you have that shows that your version of objective morality isn't just something subjectively created by your and other people's minds?

No, they wouldn't say to me "So what?" They would say, "No, you are wrong that this is not what God intended."

Hey, your fictional situation is just as valid as mine. You can't say that they wouldn't in my example, however I can, because it's my example. I could easily say they'd say "so what?" to you just as you said they'd just say "so what?" to KerbertX. Really, neither one of us knows (or is even remotely sure) what someone would say to a time traveling stranger telling them how to live.

To press the point, if I say to someone that they ought not do something and explain to them why, and they say, "so what?"--all they are saying is that they don't care about the way reality works. That's fine. There is a fundamental difference in them not carrying about the way reality works and not caring about my personal value system. Just because morality is objective, that doesn't mean that people will abide by it. In fact, as you know, they often don't care what is supposed to be the case. That is the very reason we can condemn them for it, because they doing what is really wrong.

How are they really wrong?

In the second place, saying "you have the same problem" is a logical fallacy called tu quoque.

Incorrect, it would have been the logical fallacy "tu quoque" if I had said that "because you have the same problem that makes your argument invalid." Throwing around the names of fallacies is much better when you understand what the fallacies are. All I said was that you have the very same problem you claim that exists with KerbertX's. I made no attempt to dismiss your argument, I even asked you clearly, "So what do you have that shows that your version of objective morality isn't just something subjectively created by your and other people's minds?" I didn't say anything close to, "you have the same problem therefore your argument is invalid." In fact I never even said that your argument was invalid, just pointed out that the problem you pointed out also applies to your argument, then asked you how you solved the problem.

Even if I do have the same problem, that doesn't change the fact that Kerbert's has the problem.

I do not disagree, why are you even saying this?

He thinks his position is, for the most part, objective, although he admits subjectivity to a degree. I'm pointing out that it is necessarily 100% subjective.

I'm not arguing for KerbertX, I was asking you a question... which you didn't answer.

Whether or not mine is subjective (and it isn't, since it is rooted in the nature of reality) doesn't change the fact his is.

The only part of this sentence I disagree with is that if you're going to go around saying that your version of morality "is rooted in the nature of reality," you're going to have to fulfill that pesky burden making a positive claim entails.

To point to a fault in my argument is logically invalid.

Are you sure? I think it's perfectly logically valid to point to faults in your argument. I'm going to assume that you didn't really mean this, is that correct?

Now that you've just wasted a bunch of time saying things that didn't need to be said, please just answer the question: So what do you have that shows that your version of objective morality isn't just something subjectively created by your and other people's minds?