Re: Chicken and Xian Family Values

[Sandra Craft]

It becomes relative, and it's simply a matter of what a particular group of people in a particular community decide will be right/wrong among them.  

Which, as far as I can see is exactly what we do have, Xtians included.  The only difference is that Xtians back their chosen morality up with "god says so" while others (at least in the West) back theirs up with "this seems fair".  I will never understand why subjective morality is such an issue when that's what we're all (those of us who believe morality exists, at least) using.  It's like arguing about the existence of air while you're breathing it in and using it to talk.

If you can't get a universal, objective way to discern the will of this being (which you can't), the existence of this being and its "authority" is irrelevant. It simply gives individual people credence to do whatever they subjectively think is right with an objective label -- which is more dangerous, to my mind, than developing a subjective morality that you have to defend in the real world.  

Exactly.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

What about by using principles like justice and fairness?  You don't think it's possible to determine if a law is just, regardless of your personal belief system?  Why do we even have laws then?  (I'm aware that I'm debating this with two lawyers....)

Justice and fairness treat everyone the same, and as a society people may decide that this is the best way to go.  However, just deciding that this is how we want to go does not make it universally, objectively right. A person with sufficient power could decide that he/she wanted to force people to what is most beneficial to him, his family, or his tribe.  There is no universal, objective argument that conclusively shows that he/she shouldn't do that. People in the Confederacy were quite satisfied that slavery was morally sound.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Unless there is some creator of all things or some other authority that establishes right/wrong, there is no universal, objective way to determine the issue.

If you can't get a universal, objective way to discern the will of this being (which you can't), the existence of this being and its "authority" is irrelevant. It simply gives individual people credence to do whatever they subjectively think is right with an objective label -- which is more dangerous, to my mind, than developing a subjective morality that you have to defend in the real world. 

I don't disagree with you.  My point is simply that, in the absence of such a being, there is no universal, objective morality.  In effect, even we who believe in such a being don't agree on what he wants, so we are pretty much back to moral relativism, which means that we decide what is right and wrong.

[En_Route]

So how do we know things are right or wrong? I am constantly told how sceptical and freethinking the Atheistic community is and of their principled rejection of anything which cannot be proven or which is based on irrational conviction. All too often people bandy around absolutist terms such as right or wrong or moral or immoral to authenticate or lend a weight to their own views. Once people say or imply  something is self- evident, then I  know as with convinced theists there is no room for argument.

Unless there is some creator of all things or some other authority that establishes right/wrong, there is no universal, objective way to determine the issue. It becomes relative, and it's simply a matter of what a particular group of people in a particular community decide will be right/wrong among them.  That's what you see playing out in America now - there's a discussion about what we are going to conclude is right/wrong.  Christians by and large rely on the authority of scripture regarding the definition of marriage, while those on the other side rely by and large on the enlightenment ideal (embodied in the U.S. Constitution) that there should be equality.  You really can't arrive at either position by pure rational analysis alone, IMHO.

What about by using principles like justice and fairness?  You don't think it's possible to determine if a law is just, regardless of your personal belief system?  Why do we even have laws then?  (I'm aware that I'm debating this with two lawyers....)

Changing the adjectives doesn't escape from the fundamental issue that concepts of right and wrong are inherently self- validating. Human beings are rule- makers and all human societies establish at a minimum  rules about  core issues such as  who you are allowed to kill or have sex with and who owns what; in Western societies our propensity for rule- manufacturing  means a constant expansion of regulation to the point that you are at a risk if you start dating horrible things about people on Twitter in the UK.  The rule- making, rule- enforcing and presumably rule- complying traits would seem to confer considerable evolutionary advantages.

[En_Route]

It becomes relative, and it's simply a matter of what a particular group of people in a particular community decide will be right/wrong among them.  

Which, as far as I can see is exactly what we do have, Xtians included.  The only difference is that Xtians back their chosen morality up with "god says so" while others (at least in the West) back theirs up with "this seems fair".  I will never understand why subjective morality is such an issue when that's what we're all (those of us who believe morality exists, at least) using.  It's like arguing about the existence of air while you're breathing it in and using it to talk.

If you can't get a universal, objective way to discern the will of this being (which you can't), the existence of this being and its "authority" is irrelevant. It simply gives individual people credence to do whatever they subjectively think is right with an objective label -- which is more dangerous, to my mind, than developing a subjective morality that you have to defend in the real world.  

Exactly.

The blogger in this case and it seems to me the estimable Ali to boot ( not that I would ever dream of booting her), in  fact invoke right and wrong as if these were objective concepts no less than theists. The only difference it seems to me is that the theists will look to their holy books to justify their brand of religious belief while those who propound objective morality hauls themselves up by their own bootstraps ( I have boots on the brain today, but that is  for another thread in another forum)..

[En_Route]

So how do we know things are right or wrong? I am constantly told how sceptical and freethinking the Atheistic community is and of their principled rejection of anything which cannot be proven or which is based on irrational conviction. All too often people bandy around absolutist terms such as right or wrong or moral or immoral to authenticate or lend a weight to their own views. Once people say or imply  something is self- evident, then I  know as with convinced theists there is no room for argument.

Personally I look to questions like: is this just/fair?  Who does this harm?  Who does it help?  In the case of people working to actively keep gay marriage illegal, no, I do not believe that it is just or fair to deny people equal rights or protections under the law.  Who does it hurt?  Millions of families in the US who just happen to be gay, plus all of the rest of us because I believe that when we allow any of us to be oppressed, we open the door for all of us to be oppressed.  Who does it help?  No one, as far as I can tell.  Religious people that believe that gay marriage is a sin can continue to not enter into gay marriages when it is legal, so I don't see that they really have a dog in this fight.

I don't see how any of that is irrational.  I also don't believe you that you don't go through similar judgment exercises.  Otherwise how could you ever form an opinion on anything, and you have LOTS of opinions. 

You can add to my list of opinions the repudiation of the idea that you need to believe in objective morality in order to form an opinion on anything.

[DeterminedJuliet]

The blogger in this case and it seems to me the estimable Ali to boot ( not that I would ever dream of booting her), in  fact invoke right and wrong as if these were objective concepts no less than theists. The only difference it seems to me is that the theists will look to their holy books to justify their brand of religious belief while those who propound objective morality hauls themselves up by their own bootstraps ( I have boots on the brain today, but that is  for another thread in another forum)..

Gee, I'd give Ali more credit than that. She certainly seems more flexible in adjusting her opinions than a fundamentalist who says "because the Bible says so." Just because someone subscribes to an objective morality, doesn't mean that their opinions or basis for their arguments are entirely inflexible. I know plenty of people who claim to have an "objective" rooting in their morality, but have changed their opinions over time due to a rational argument (yes, it doesn't look that "objective" if it changes over time, but that's how some people like to frame things and -- honestly-- I think people are wired to think that way). For someone who hates people painting others with a black-and-white brush, you seem to do it an awful lot for "moralists".

[Sandra Craft]

The blogger in this case and it seems to me the estimable Ali to boot ( not that I would ever dream of booting her), in  fact invoke right and wrong as if these were objective concepts no less than theists.

Once again I have to disagree, which I think stems solely from my having a better general opinion of people than you do.  

I think most of us understand very well that right and wrong are as subjective as anything else and there's nothing wrong with that, which is fortunate since it's unavoidable.  There's also nothing wrong with a culture, society or nation deciding what it will subjectively consider, and treat, as right and wrong.

[En_Route]

The blogger in this case and it seems to me the estimable Ali to boot ( not that I would ever dream of booting her), in  fact invoke right and wrong as if these were objective concepts no less than theists.

Once again I have to disagree, which I think stems solely from my having a better general opinion of people than you do.  

I think most of us understand very well that right and wrong are as subjective as anything else and there's nothing wrong with that, which is fortunate since it's unavoidable.  There's also nothing wrong with a culture, society or nation deciding what it will subjectively consider, and treat, as right and wrong.

As my daddy did say, self-praise is no praise.
In fact, moral relativism is by no means as popular or as widely- held a position as you seem to imagine. It seemed plain to me that the blogger and Ali were not hedging their bets on the rights and wrongs of Mr. Cathy's views. As for there being nothing wrong about a culture adopting a subjective code of morality, I assume you are using wrong in a subjective sense.

[Sandra Craft]

As for there being nothing wrong about a culture adopting a subjective code of morality, I assume you are using wrong in a subjective sense.

Honestly now, is there another sense I could use it in?

[En_Route]

The blogger in this case and it seems to me the estimable Ali to boot ( not that I would ever dream of booting her), in  fact invoke right and wrong as if these were objective concepts no less than theists. The only difference it seems to me is that the theists will look to their holy books to justify their brand of religious belief while those who propound objective morality hauls themselves up by their own bootstraps ( I have boots on the brain today, but that is  for another thread in another forum)..

Gee, I'd give Ali more credit than that. She certainly seems more flexible in adjusting her opinions than a fundamentalist who says "because the Bible says so." Just because someone subscribes to an objective morality, doesn't mean that their opinions or basis for their arguments are entirely inflexible. I know plenty of people who claim to have an "objective" rooting in their morality, but have changed their opinions over time due to a rational argument (yes, it doesn't look that "objective" if it changes over time, but that's how some people like to frame things and -- honestly-- I think people are wired to think that way). For someone who hates people painting others with a black-and-white brush, you seem to do it an awful lot for "moralists".

Firstly, I'd say you can believe in an objective morality but change your mind about what it consists of. Secondly, you believe in the existence of an objective morality or you don't. I don't think there is an intermediate position, and if I'm right then that does make it a black and white issue. It's not a reflection on the individuals who hold those views.Ali can speak for herself but it seems to me she is rooting for an objective morality, which many people do.

[xSilverPhinx]

What if I just say that there is an objective morality, and make up a objective law-maker to back me up?

The way I see it, we're all really just children of our moral and cultural/geographical zeitgeist, and lean on that when it comes to making assertions of what is projected right or wrong. It's also clear in the bible, so even theists who do say they have an objective moral law maker to back up their assertions actually don't have that much at all.

I also think that arguing philosophy brings us to a standstill, and that better answers lie in neurobiology, at least as start off points. Maybe I think that mostly because I'm no philosopher. The whole thing is just too complicated and convoluted.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Secondly, you believe in the existence of an objective morality or you don't. I don't think there is an intermediate position, and if I'm right then that does make it a black and white issue.

I don't know that I believe one way or another, because it seems irrelevant to me. Humans are subjective and our brains are subjective, so our philosophies will always be subjective. I don't know that that means that there are no universals. There could be something written into our DNA that approaches some kind of "objective" driving force for how we construct morality. But I don't care, frankly, because, even if there are universals, our ability to access them isn't universal (as I mentioned to Bruce). And then you get into the clutter of semantics and the limitations of language when it comes to expressing "subjective" vs. "objective" ideas. So, while I do lean away from objective definitions, I definitely don't take a "black and white" stand on it.

[En_Route]

What if I just say that there is an objective morality, and make up a objective law-maker to back me up?

The way I see it, we're all really just children of our moral and cultural/geographical zeitgeist, and lean on that when it comes to making assertions of what is projected right or wrong. It's also clear in the bible, so even theists who do say they have an objective moral law maker to back up their assertions actually don't have that much at all.

I also think that arguing philosophy brings us to a standstill, and that better answers lie in neurobiology, at least as start off points. Maybe I think that mostly because I'm no philosopher. The whole thing is just too complicated and convoluted.

I would be interested to hear how you think neurobiology might contribute to the debate. I'm no neurobiologist. Some people might say I'm not much of a philosopher either.

[En_Route]

Unless there is some creator of all things or some other authority that establishes right/wrong, there is no universal, objective way to determine the issue.

If you can't get a universal, objective way to discern the will of this being (which you can't), the existence of this being and its "authority" is irrelevant. It simply gives individual people credence to do whatever they subjectively think is right with an objective label -- which is more dangerous, to my mind, than developing a subjective morality that you have to defend in the real world. 

I don't disagree with you.  My point is simply that, in the absence of such a being, there is no universal, objective morality.  In effect, even we who believe in such a being don't agree on what he wants, so we are pretty much back to moral relativism, which means that we decide what is right and wrong.

Let's say that everyone had reached a consensus on the morality enshrined in the Bible. Could you then say that something is right or wrong  only because it says so in the bible? Is it possible that what you are told in the bible is right is in fact wrong and if so why not?