What is the appeal of "objective morality"

Belz... said:
That's unfortunate. I rather enjoy our discussions, phiwum.
Click to expand...

In retrospect, maybe I can make a couple of comments.

First, let's draw a distinction between objective morality and a morality based on various (inter-)subjective tendencies, whether genetic pre-disposition or socialization.

If, for instance, there is a non-theological basis for objective morality, then I see no reason that an atheist can't feel similar obligations as a theist. Kant argued (as I dimly recall) that rational beings must presume that a God exists to enforce moral justice, or else they will not be compelled to do what morality commands, but I've always found that hard to follow. According to Kant, any rational being will see the (contingent) necessity of acting according to moral law, so I never understood why we need the extra carrot-and-stick promises that them that don't will get what's coming.

If, on the other hand, morality consists only of subjective tendencies to view this or that act as good or bad, then all we have are our own emotional reactions to actions keeping us in check, so to speak. Once we recognize that the norms we have accepted up until now are merely a matter of our genes or upbringing, then it seems to me that their effect will be greatly weakened -- yes, I tend to think that murder is wrong, but only as an accident of nature and/or nurture, and this doesn't seem to give me much reason not to kill when I see advantage to do so.

I regard this as essentially the same situation when we recognize that we tend to apply the gambler's fallacy, although there is no good reason to do so and good reason not to do so. At that point, if we are careful, we can avoid using the fallacy thereafter.

In exactly the same way, my tendency to see murder as wrong is not an expression of objective values, but just an accident of birth and upbringing. Therefore, in those rare occasion that I see murder is in my (long-term) interests, rationality seems to require that I overthrow those old-fashioned notions and take advantage of the opportunity.

That's my half-thought initial impressions. Any thoughts, Belz...?

ETA: I'm not sure that this is an atheism/theism issue so much as an objective vs. non-objective morality issue. The theist tends to be (is always?) a moral realist, so that's part of the reason that it seems like (a)theism is an issue. Another part is, of course, that even Kant thought that belief in ultimate justice was a necessary motivation for moral behavior, but while I can see that it would help motivate, I don't see that it's necessary.
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
That is what I am trying to say... seems.

Just like homosexuality seems like a choice to the theists but now we know better, I am saying that what seems like a choice in many many things might not be such a clear cut case as it seems if we use science to study them.

When I was young and fit as a fiddle I used to run miles and miles every week. On many occasions I used to get a craving for butter. It is not that I liked butter or even could tell the difference between it and margarine... but somehow I would get a hankering to sit down and butter a nice doughy fresh baguette with lots of REAL butter and eat it just like that... no other thing, just butter on bread.

So my brain was telling me that I needed whatever it is that my brain has learned it can get only from real butter on baguettes.

From observing the numerous wives and girlfriends (:p) I had I am absolutely sure that the craving for chocolate they get a certain time every month is due to something the brain needs and recognizes it can obtain from DARK chocolate.

So could it be that vegetarianism is satisfying an aversion/need that the brain decided is better satisfied by only eating vegetables? :confused::confused:

But here is another consideration... social pressure!!

Many vegetarians have become so because of parents or friends or some other social pressure so it is not really the clear cut case of choice as it seems.

Do not also forget conditioning and other types of inducements for behavioral changes that can make a person "willingly" do things that do not exactly tally with their evolutionary imperatives... e.g. fighting for a king or tribal leader etc.
Click to expand...

I understand all the forces that can come into play with moral questions. And, undoubtedly, science can study those forces.

I understood the claim was that science was able to weigh in on moral decisions, specifically that science could decide which moral decision was appropriate. In which case, I don't think a case can be made that science can decide that veganism is, or is not, in fact the correct moral course.
 
The Greater Fool said:
I understand all the forces that can come into play with moral questions. And, undoubtedly, science can study those forces.

I understood the claim was that science was able to weigh in on moral decisions, specifically that science could decide which moral decision was appropriate. In which case, I don't think a case can be made that science can decide that veganism is, or is not, in fact the correct moral course.
Click to expand...


But that is entirely the point.

No one can decide for anyone what is moral or is not moral or right or wrong.

Only the person can do that depending on his/her past and present existence and genetic makeup and social conditioning and the chemical constitution of his/her brain at the time of making decisions.

In other words... it is entirely subjective... and there is no such thing as "objective morality".

If there is anything that a human does which is divorced from his neuro-electro-chemical-biology then cases of brain damage and of congenital problems or disease would not have an effect on those things.

Thus "objective morality" is just another myth like souls and spirits and ghosts and demonic possessions.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
If, for instance, there is a non-theological basis for objective morality, then I see no reason that an atheist can't feel similar obligations as a theist. Kant argued (as I dimly recall) that rational beings must presume that a God exists to enforce moral justice, or else they will not be compelled to do what morality commands, but I've always found that hard to follow. According to Kant, any rational being will see the (contingent) necessity of acting according to moral law, so I never understood why we need the extra carrot-and-stick promises that them that don't will get what's coming.
Click to expand...

I think I agree. I'm still very doubtful that the idea of objective morality even makes sense.

Once we recognize that the norms we have accepted up until now are merely a matter of our genes or upbringing, then it seems to me that their effect will be greatly weakened
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not. Is it like alcoholism i.e. once you realise you have a problem you can begin to work on it? Or is it more like hunger i.e. even if you know the process, you still have to eat?

I tend to think that murder is wrong, but only as an accident of nature and/or nurture, and this doesn't seem to give me much reason not to kill when I see advantage to do so.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I know that "murder is wrong" is either socially conditioned/learned, or a genetic predisposition, and yet I agree with it, because the idea of murder makes me uncomfortable regardless of my knowledge of its source, and also because there are good reasons to both respect and enforce this "rule", given my personal values and objectives (e.g. a stable society, safety from revenge by the victim's loved ones, etc.)

ETA: I'm not sure that this is an atheism/theism issue so much as an objective vs. non-objective morality issue.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a religious issue either, mostly because I think that, for most theists, morality has little to do with religious belief, the latter being more of an excuse for a preexisting (learned or otherwise) set of social values.
 
Belz... said:
I don't think it's a religious issue either, mostly because I think that, for most theists, morality has little to do with religious belief, the latter being more of an excuse for a preexisting (learned or otherwise) set of social values.
Click to expand...

I think that's a good point. People convert to different religions, disagree with specific teachings within their own religion, commit "sinful" acts, and sometimes need to change their morals or find a new church if their own church changes.

Though religious people may claim they are following objective, unchanging morals, they seem to exercise as much freedom to think and do what they want as non-religious people.
 
Belz... said:
I think I agree. I'm still very doubtful that the idea of objective morality even makes sense.
Click to expand...

Sure, I expected as much. I didn't say anything here to convince you otherwise.


Maybe. Maybe not. Is it like alcoholism i.e. once you realise you have a problem you can begin to work on it? Or is it more like hunger i.e. even if you know the process, you still have to eat?

I don't know. I know that "murder is wrong" is either socially conditioned/learned, or a genetic predisposition, and yet I agree with it, because the idea of murder makes me uncomfortable regardless of my knowledge of its source, and also because there are good reasons to both respect and enforce this "rule", given my personal values and objectives (e.g. a stable society, safety from revenge by the victim's loved ones, etc.)
Click to expand...

I think that's the real question. If we discover that our moral tendencies are just an accident of birth or upbringing, would we regard them as disadvantages, like fallacies of reasoning, or more like preferences, like our food choices?

I tend to think that the rational response would be to overcome the moral shackles, regarding them as nothing more than hindrances which limit our choices for no good reason. That doesn't mean, of course, that we would often find it useful to break widely regarded moral laws, because there are good prudential reasons not to do so, but we would rely only on prudence when we make such decisions.

At least, this is what an ideally rational man would do, I'd think. Insofar as you don't view your moral values as a fiction that senselessly inhibits your choices, you're just not ideally rational. Sorry.

That said, even moral realists have a devil of a time[1] trying to figure out why we should be moral, so I probably glossed over the realists' problems too easily earlier.

[1] Oh, I'm a funny lad.
 
For the advocates of some supernatural morality ...
  • Is homosexuality an immoral act?
  • Is anal sex an immoral act?
  • Is oral sex an immoral act?
  • Is incest an immoral act?
  • Is eating pork or meat on Friday and immoral act?

  • Is genociding entire peoples and using their little girls as sex objects and slaves a moral act?
  • Is slavery a moral act?
  • Is killing the neighbors' children and taking their land in the name of the King and country and god a moral act?
  • Is denying entry to neighbors trying to make a living and find better places to live a moral act?

Who or what decided the answers to all the above and where and when and how?
 
Last edited:
I Am The Scum said:
Leumas said:
For the advocates of some supernatural morality ...
Click to expand...


I don't think any of those people are in this thread.
Click to expand...


Ok then... thread over!!!

Since we all agree there is nothing but natural stuff and nothing outside nature is over lording humans mandating to them what is good and what is bad... then we all agree that there is no such thing as "objective morality"... just as there is no such thing as gods or spirits or souls or ghosts or any of those delusions that have been fabricated by benighted ignorant ancient minds.

/thread
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
Ok then... thread over!!!

Since we all agree there is nothing but natural stuff and nothing outside nature is over lording humans mandating to them what is good and what is bad... then we all agree that there is no such thing as "objective morality"... just as there is no such thing as gods or spirits or souls or ghosts or any of those delusions that have been fabricated by benighted ignorant ancient minds.

/thread
Click to expand...

"Objective morality" is not synonymous with "commands from God."
 
I Am The Scum said:
"Objective morality" is not synonymous with "commands from God."
Click to expand...


Then what is it synonymous with?

No seriously... what is it?

What exactly is "objective morality"?

What is it? Is it akin to a force field like gravity or electromagnetism?

Where is it? Is it like dark matter or like neutrinos or light?

Is it what penetrates human brains and instructs them as to the answers to the questions listed below?

Or does it possess humans and resides inside them like demons?

Or is it aliens sending the information via psychic frequencies?

  • Is homosexuality an immoral act?
  • Is anal sex an immoral act?
  • Is oral sex an immoral act?
  • Is incest an immoral act?
  • Is eating pork or meat on Friday an immoral act?
  • Is musterbation immoral?

  • Is genociding entire peoples and using their little girls as sex objects and slaves a moral act?
  • Is slavery a moral act?
  • Is killing the neighbors' children and taking their land in the name of the King and country and god a moral act?
  • Is denying entry to neighbors trying to make a living and find better places to live a moral act?
  • Is making a movie about illegal wars and raking money from selling death to people a moral act?
  • Is watching movies about our side swatting the nasties of other countries and enjoying them a moral act?

Who or what decided the answers to all the above and where and when and how?
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
Then what is it synonymous with?

No seriously... what is it?

What exactly is "objective morality"?

What is it? Is it akin to a force field like gravity or electromagnetism?

Where is it? Is it like dark matter or like neutrinos or light?

Is it what penetrates human brains and instructs them as to the answers to the questions listed below?

Or does it possess humans and resides inside them like demons?

Or is it aliens sending the information via psychic frequencies?

  • Is homosexuality an immoral act?
  • Is anal sex an immoral act?
  • Is oral sex an immoral act?
  • Is incest an immoral act?
  • Is eating pork or meat on Friday an immoral act?
  • Is musterbation immoral?

  • Is genociding entire peoples and using their little girls as sex objects and slaves a moral act?
  • Is slavery a moral act?
  • Is killing the neighbors' children and taking their land in the name of the King and country and god a moral act?
  • Is denying entry to neighbors trying to make a living and find better places to live a moral act?
  • Is making a movie about illegal wars and raking money from selling death to people a moral act?
  • Is watching movies about our side swatting the nasties of other countries and enjoying them a moral act?

Who or what decided the answers to all the above and where and when and how?
Click to expand...
exactly.

What I have never understood about objective morality is exactly that. Some debates I have heard the god bother-er either tells us it's installed into us by God but if that's the case why are there so many moral dilemma?

Or that we as humans don't know what they are explicitly, but philosophically that there has too be an underlying objective morality otherwise killing babies could be o.k.

But both of these makes no sense. As far as I can see we struggle to define whats moral constantly all over the world. I read recently that a woman in the Maldives (I think) was spared being stoned http://tribune.com.pk/story/975432/maldives-woman-wins-reprieve-from-death-by-stoning/. So where is the Objective morality there. Clearly someone thinks that stoning this woman for getting pregnant was morally correct. Many many more people think not surprise surprise. To me the answer is obvious and I'm an Atheist. Some god followers think otherwise...

If God made objective morality he was clearly acting immorally when he didn't give us the rules up front. How can we decide to be bad if we don't know what good is to start with.

As usual with all these things, it's obvious. We are just a tribal group of animals that are now communicating globally that are evolving a set of universal moral principals, often struggling along and getting held up with some more difficult issues like abortion and getting confused and derailed by inherited cultural values often manifest in religious superstitious claptrap.
 
phiwum said:
Sure, I expected as much. I didn't say anything here to convince you otherwise.




I think that's the real question. If we discover that our moral tendencies are just an accident of birth or upbringing, would we regard them as disadvantages, like fallacies of reasoning, or more like preferences, like our food choices?

I tend to think that the rational response would be to overcome the moral shackles, regarding them as nothing more than hindrances which limit our choices for no good reason. That doesn't mean, of course, that we would often find it useful to break widely regarded moral laws, because there are good prudential reasons not to do so, but we would rely only on prudence when we make such decisions.
At least, this is what an ideally rational man would do, I'd think. Insofar as you don't view your moral values as a fiction that senselessly inhibits your choices, you're just not ideally rational. Sorry. That said, even moral realists have a devil of a time[1] trying to figure out why we should be moral, so I probably glossed over the realists' problems too easily earlier.

[1] Oh, I'm a funny lad.
Click to expand...

Unless there are some sort of imposed moral standard the rational man discards morals and acts as he pleases.

This is nothing more than the theist canard that without god's morals atheists are completely amoral.
 
IanS said:
- can you give any example of what you would call moral behaviour, that is inherently beyond any scientific investigation?
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but I think your question is not well targeted. Science has a lot of things to say about the moral behaviour. I understand “moral behaviour” as the kind of behaviour that is managed by a categorical order or a system of rules about the rightness, final good, etc. Psychology, sociology, neuroscience, etc. can explain why and how we adopt a moral behaviour. They also can explain if our factual assumptions combined by the moral imperatives are true or false. And science also can evaluate the coherence of our system of moral beliefs.

The problem with science (rationality) and moral lies in the properties and the justification of the sentences. Scientific sentences are justified by truth value. But moral principles are justified by the force of an imperative (orders, commandments) “You ought to do X” is not true or false; it is imperative or it is not.
 
Last edited:
Pup said:
If you mean because I couched the reasons in sociological rather than cultural terms, I'd say the same thing about things in my own culture. Circumcision for men, whether Jewish or not: an ingroup-outgroup marker, social control by either a Rabbi or physician, etc. Various food/drug prohibitions among social groups whether religious or secular, same thing. Yes, I know people will state other reasons and sometimes the other reasons are also legitimate, but I see no reason to pretend a great deal of arbitrary social pressure doesn't go on in every culture, whether my own or another.
Click to expand...

1. Note that Nadifa never refers to social pressure. She is feeling responsible for her moral assertions.
2. The social pressure against ablation is as strong in our culture as the contrary pressure in Somalia. Note that in Somalia there is not any political or legal pressure in favour as in our Western countries exist against. Why is the social pressure in Somalia “arbitrary” and not in our Western countries?
 
Belz... said:
Genetic programming and social upbringing?
Click to expand...

Social upbringing was the answer of Stuart Mill.

Genetic programming is a futurist answer. It is not feasible now and we don't know if it is possible.

In any case they are hypothetical answers.

Dostoevsky's mistake is a factual one. There are a lot of intelligent atheists that are good. And it is impossible to determine if there are percentually more good atheists than good believers. Therefore, we can only establish that Dostoevsky assertion is false.

But this doesn't explain what is the root of moral behaviour. I think we have to investigate in the field of natural moral emotions and social learning.
 
phiwum said:
ETA: Sorry, you asked simple questions and my answers are wordier than perhaps they should be.

I never said that behavior is something outside the scope of science, but normative questions are outside the scope of science. Behavior can be described. It is a feature of the world as it is. But moral claims are about how the world ought to be, and this cannot be discovered directly by experiment and observation alone.
Click to expand...


OK, well first of all "normative" is a very strange word ... if you ask people in the street what that word means, or more specifically perhaps what any particular philosophers mean by "normative", then I doubt if many people will know what on earth you are talking about. And I'm not sure they should be bothered to know either. But, if by normative in philosophers language you mean how anything"should" be, "ought" to be, or how we should "value" personal preferences or personal ideas as either "right or wrong", then I don't think we are talking about anything real at all, are we?

That seems to be a discussion about what anyone claims to be their own personal subjective preferences, ideas or interpretations of anything - i.e. what they personally think they "ought" to do, think they "should" do, or what they think is "right" for them & what "values" they think should hold (whatever they might mean by their "values"). And that just amounts to their own personal set of subjective personal beliefs.

So I don't think that is any way outside of or beyond the scope of science at all. If you just say "this is what we ought to do" or say "this is what I think we should do" etc., then statements like that are incomplete and fail to say what the purpose or aim is. That is - the statement should say "this is what I think we should/ought to do, providing we want X to be the outcome" ... but that's where science clearly does come in to it ... if you complete your sentence by saying what your actual aim is, then science can very easily tell you what you "should" or "ought" to do.

It would be the same if we were talking about personal "values". You have say what the aim or expectation is when you talk about such "values". In which case it's perfectly obvious that you can make a scientific study to tell you what values you should adhere to or pursue.

IOW - I think that's just an incomplete semantic ruse or deception to talk about "should", "ought", "values" etc. in that way without stating what you are actually talking about as your aim in anything you "should" or "ought" to do.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom