| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 11:51 AM | Reply with quote #16 |
|
Hello ST, I'm reading your posts and can, in a way, very much understand where you're coming from and where you've been. I also understand what you're looking for with regards to the ontological reality of objective moral values, and the problem of Hell which has been discussed here on this forum several times.
With regards to Objective Morality, the discussion as to whether or not something is objectively evil, or objectively good, often times comes down to appeals to either obviously moral evil acts, or good acts. It's not because these are the only reasons to believe in objective morality, it's simply because this is the most straightforward and simple way to do so. Each one of us has an internal moral compass which tells us when something is right or wrong, and I'd like to take a moment to appeal to what you said in your first post to show that this internal compass exists.
I can understand anger due to abuse, I had a hellish childhood myself filled with events which should have permanently traumatized me, and it was this anger that led me to understand that these objective moral values do exist. I found that objective moral statements such as "murder is wrong" or "attacking someone is evil" were quenched in lakes of despair and anguished and the view of objective moral good and evil was blurred because of this pain. It's when I stopped for a second and thought about it that it became clear, if my anger was clouding my vision of something, doesn't that imply that that something exists?
If morality was truly subjective, then why do people who violate these rules always come up with reasons to do so? Why need to explain it, and why work your way up to it through anger and sadness? If morality was truly subjective, then shouldn't those people be able to simply let go of it altogether and live guilt free? And yet when people do this, as was noted in your OP, they're looked at as having a disability. Why do other people instinctively know that if someone cannot acknowledge the objective existence of moral values that there's something wrong with their brain? If I hold my hand over a burner I can subvert my pain reaction and hold it in place, but doesn't the fact that I have to make an effort to keep my hand their imply the heat is real? And if I felt no pain, and didn't need to move my hand, wouldn't people assume I had nerve damage?
I don't want to appeal to your moral intuition in order to support the existence of objective moral values, but rather appeal to your ability to look at the behaviour of those around you and note that everyone on the planet operates under the unspoken understanding that these objective moral values exist through their actions and responses to certain behaviours. We can't provide you physical proof of a non-physical ontological entity, however I can easily point you towards how others react to this entity. People will perform evil actions, but always offer up excuses, reasons, and justifications for denying these moral intuitions. People do shirk these moral truths, however require mitigating factors such as abuse, despair, and anger to do so. Mentally, they're all reacting to these moral values as if they were objective, not subjective, and I point to that to show you that these things are real. Even those who espouse subjective morality eventually hit a wall and cannot follow the true train of subjectivity to its' final destination. I have never met an atheist who's been able to follow that to its' logical conclusion.
Suppose you and I stood in a room where people were getting hit in the face with invisible baseball bats. I told you I couldn't show you the bat, as it's invisible. And you could say that only people who believed a bat was hitting them would flinch. But suppose someone swung this invisible baseball bat at someone else's face who didn't at all believe it was real, and that person's nose became broken and bled even though you couldn't see anything hitting him. Suppose his body reacted as if there was something truly solid and real hitting him. I would point to that fact, as opposed to your own intuition, to show that objective moral values do exist as we can see them working in the world as if t were truly objective and not subjective.
You can even test and experiment with this. My wife once made chilli that was so hot I thought my insides were a cavern of boiling lava. She's shy about her cooking so I told her it was fine, but she watched the sweat and redness gradually appear and called me on my BS. She watched me react to the objective reality of the heat. So if you want to see for yourself, find someone who believes that morality is subjective. I mean truly subjective, they're a pure moral relativist. Now sit them down and start explaining about how you've discovered that rape isn't morally evil, but rather is a morally good act which will improve the species. You see, all you do is get genetically superior humans to forcibly copulate with any female they see in order to improve the species in general, murdering those who are genetically inferior. Despite being a moral relativist, you'll notice something, they'll respond to your explanation as if it was an objective moral evil. They'll likely espouse you as a horrible human being, evil, and morally abhorrent, despite preaching the subjectivity of morality. |
| Loading... | |
| Matthias |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 01:19 PM | Reply with quote #17 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SeekingTruth
@Matthias: Thanks. I'll be sure to read through that thread both you and Chris mentioned. For me, the "if you want to believe you will end up believing" does not work. While I would want to, I can't hold a certain belief for too long if I even have the slightest doubt. My problem is that I have doubts concercing both world-views.
I think it may help to think in terms of quantifying or rating possibilities, rather than "holding" beliefs - knobs, rather than switches. I'm not deductively certain that my girlfriend isn't plotting to murder me, but it seems unlikely enough to not bother with. Other things are more dubious, but it's ultimately a sliding scale from very slightly more than zero to very slightly less than one.
I think it should also help to separate out questions that can be separated. Enumerate a list of each of the questions that this worldview crisis consists of and consider how many different combinations of answers to them you can find to be compatible, and what you would expect to see if one were true or another.
If you have been weighing Christianity and atheism and finding them both increasingly plausible, that's because you're more familiar with the inner workings of each. You may want to look at some other frameworks until you can grok their internal logic. As an Eastern European it shouldn't surprise you that the two worldviews tugging at you are the ones that are, but you also shouldn't expect that to line up with the truth. Modernist Theravada Buddhism is pretty much designed to be culturally accessible to Westerners, so you may want to take a look at, say, Daniel Ingram or Gunaratana or Steve Bachelor or Pema Chodron (or even David Chapman, who's taken on the rather ambitious project of making Tibetan Buddhism culturally accessible.) |
| Loading... | |
| Ivaj |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 03:11 PM | Reply with quote #18 |
|
| Lawlessone777 are you under the impression that someone who believes in subjective moral values and duties like me don't make any moral claims based on their emotions? Emotions are after all subjective by nature. |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 03:32 PM | Reply with quote #19 |
|
Quote: Lawlessone777 are you under the impression that someone who believes in subjective moral values and duties like me don't make any moral claims based on their emotions? Emotions are after all subjective by nature.
It's not about reacting via emotions. I would expect someone who was a moral relativist to be upset if their mother was murdered. What it is is responding to morality as if it was objective, not subjective. You see when I justify and rationalize a moral evil that you are directly responding to you have no reason to respond emotionally to that justification. If I justify rape intellectually there's no reason to get emotional since morality is subjective. It's the response which indicates objective morality that I'm interested in. The moral relativist response as if the action is objectively evil, even if he's talking out of both sides of his mouth by saying that he truly believes all morality is subjective. I've found that this is almost universal in moral relativists.
Basically since morality is subjective on your view, and relative, if my stance on morality is different from yours then I merely hold a differing opinion. As such if I craft a different set of moral values surrounding, say, rape and torture, even if you are intellectually required to admit that my morals and values are not evil because on your view morality is relative, you will invariably crack and not support acts which are objectively evil. |
| Loading... | |
| Matthias |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 03:59 PM | Reply with quote #20 |
|
The subjectivist stance isn't "torture? Oh, not really my cup of tea, but if you indulge in it I suppose that's your right," but "torture?!?!? I hate torture!!!"
I'm a moral realist, sort of, but expecting people to not care about what they in fact care about is a bit strange. If I subjectively value Beethoven over Brahms I'm not going to be indifferent between them because, duh, I subjectively value Beethoven more. A subjectivist who subjectively hates people being tortured is going to be indifferent to it because, what, they think there are no objective ethical laws except the one forbidding imposing your subjective morality on others? |
| Loading... | |
| Ivaj |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 04:05 PM | Reply with quote #21 |
|
Don't see why I should support anything that I subjectively disagree with. Also if morality is subjective you have every reason to be emotional since emotions are by it's very nature subjective.
It's irrelevant anyway since the only way to prove objective morality is to demonstrate that there is an objective framework from where you can derive correct answers to moral claims. You can't prove that by appealing to peoples moral behavior because those are dependent on people. Objective morality is independent of what moral conclusion people arrive at. Actually we humans could agree on every moral claim in the world and it would still not mean that morality is objective or we could disagree as much as possible on moral claims and that would not prove that morality is subjective. The only thing that matters is the existence or non existence of the moral framework.
Usually theists play this games saying that someone with subjective morality must think that rape isn't really wrong and the reason for that is to try to put a high intellectual price tag on those who holds the view of subjective moral values and duties (apparently that is the moral christian way to discuss). But it's really not intellectual. It's an emotional appeal. |
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 04:22 PM | Reply with quote #22 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SeekingTruth
@CrashTestAuto: The reason is simple, really. Of course, the general fear of absolute obliteration plays a huge part in it, but there is also a longing for something more than what life as we see it has to offer. Due to my past I more often than not feel burnt-out and see life as unbearably plain.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to everyone. Good couple of posts so far 
I can sympathise with what you are looking for (though perhaps not to the extent you feel it). There are alternative routes to finding the kind of comfort and fulfilment you want without having to delve into theism. Try meditation, or philosophy, or charity work.
If theism is truly calling to you, then that's cool, but I think trying to reconcile the Christian God with any moral understanding of the world could cause you more emptiness and confusion. Don't wrestle with things too much, just let yourself fall into the beliefs and worldview you feel comfortable. That's my (unsolicited ) advice. |
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 04:27 PM | Reply with quote #23 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by BeefEraser15
Why would the two issues he raised justify atheism? If objective morals do not exist, then there may still be a god, but he isn't the Christian God. Similarly, if it would be unjust for God to punish your partner, then the Christian idea of a God who saves and turns away is incorrect, but there may still be some sort of deity who created the universe.
True, but I take atheism to be a lack of belief. The only reason he has to be anything other than an atheist is positive evidence in favour of theism. Given he is leaning towards Christianity, two defeaters for Christianity count as reason for him to be an atheist.
Quote: Originally Posted by CTA
It depends on what or whom you're living forever with. If I were trapped in a room with only my own thoughts to keep me company, then eternal life does indeed suck, and I'd probably just prefer to stop existing. But if I were in communion with an infinitely good and loving God, then living forever isn't so bad.
As I, and others, have said before. First year, sure. First decade,okay. First century, getting long. First millennium, starting to get a little samey. First hundred thousand years, pushing it. First million years, maybe this was a mistake. First billion years, its all a horrible blur. First billion, billion, billion, billion, billion years... that's just inconceivable, and you haven't even scratched the surface. |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 04:50 PM | Reply with quote #24 |
|
Quick response, Matthias. Again I'm not talking about an emotional response, but an intellectual one based upon either the material being objective, or subjective. In your response you state that the more subjectivist would of course hate torture, but that's speaking from the stance of a moral realist. If morality wastruly subjective then I can rationalize rape, torture, or genocide and the relativist would need to reject it on logical grounds, not on the stance that you present wheretorture is obviously objectively evil, because on their view it isn't.
On moral relativism if I can logically justify rape, torture, or genocide then there is no objective foundation from which the moral relativist can deny my logical claims. |
| Loading... | |
| Ivaj |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 05:00 PM | Reply with quote #25 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lawlessone777
On moral relativism if I can logically justify rape, torture, or genocide then there is no objective foundation from which the moral relativist can deny my logical claims.
Yeah if there are subjective moral values and duties then they don't have an objective foundation. Well duh. |
| Loading... | |
| Matthias |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 05:35 PM | Reply with quote #26 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lawlessone777
Quick response, Matthias. Again I'm not talking about an emotional response, but an intellectual one based upon either the material being objective, or subjective. In your response you state that the more subjectivist would of course hate torture, but that's speaking from the stance of a moral realist. If morality wastruly subjective then I can rationalize rape, torture, or genocide and the relativist would need to reject it on logical grounds, not on the stance that you present wheretorture is obviously objectively evil, because on their view it isn't.
On moral relativism if I can logically justify rape, torture, or genocide then there is no objective foundation from which the moral relativist can deny my logical claims.
This is precisely backwards. If you can, in fact, logically justify rape, torture, or genocide then you have indeed trounced the subjectivist, who denies that there are strictly logical justifications to be had for such things (and for that matter, love, charity, and honesty.)
Now, I do think torture is objectively evil, for certain meanings of "objectively" (my reasons why being in the other thread.) But I do not see how you read my post in this thread as presupposing that. The subjectivist I supposed hates torture, and so gets angry when she hears of it, and is motivated to stop it, and detests people who engage in it. We can imagine her being this way even if torture was objectively good. Her position is to deny that it is objectively good, or objectively evil, because those terms are confused. She must deny that someone who feels good about torture and likes when people engage in it or says "torture is (subjectively) morally good" is by necessity irrational or factually mistaken, but on those same grounds she has no reason to suppose herself irrational or factually mistaken for hating such a person. If you give her an argument for torture and she gets angry, well, duh, it's because she hates torture and isn't afraid to say it.
If someone says "the word 'I' is indexical," and also (supposing he is black) "I am black," you cannot refute their position by saying (supposing you're not black) "I am not black" and then mocking them for having no objective basis for which one of you is "I" and thus undercutting his original claim to be black. When a black person says "I am black," it is true, and when a white person says it, it is false, because the referent of "I" depends on who is speaking. Subjectivists hold that moral language is indexical in this way.
Now, again, I think there is (typically) more to justification in calling something evil than whether the speaker feels it is evil. But this makes me more vulnerable to arguments in favor of torture, not less. If you can convince me of certain facts about the external world, about how people respond to torture, what its effects are, and so on, then I can be forced to concede that though I may subjectively feel that torture is evil, these intuitions are misleading, and actually torture is good. The subjectivist is not vulnerable in this way; you can convince her of all the external facts about torture that you like, and as long as she feels it is evil, she will hold that "torture is evil" is a true statement when spoken by her. The only way to convince her over to your "logically" grounded pro-torture position is to convince her of moral realism first. You could also make an emotional appeal in favor of torture, and if you changed her values, she would admit that torture is good. But if you told her that you were going to modify her values over the course of the next few hours to morally approve of torture, and asked her now whether torturing someone tomorrow would be morally wrong, she would not be inconsistent to hold that it would be - for the same reason that, if I am in the lumber yard and tomorrow will be at the beach, and if you ask me today (in the lumber yard) "tomorrow, will you be here?" I would reply negatively. |
| Loading... | |
| Matthias |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 05:45 PM | Reply with quote #27 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by IvajQuote: Originally Posted by Lawlessone777
On moral relativism if I can logically justify rape, torture, or genocide then there is no objective foundation from which the moral relativist can deny my logical claims. Yeah if there are subjective moral values and duties then they don't have an objective foundation. Well duh.
You're misreading his claim. It is true, as you say, that on moral relativism there are no objective foundations for one's subjective moral values and duties.
But he's claiming that in fact, on moral relativism, there is no objective foundation to deny the logical claim that rape, torture, or genocide are morally good. But this is false. On moral relativism, it is objectively true that all strictly logical (as opposed to e.g. emotional) justifications for a thing's being good or bad fail. |
| Loading... | |
| Lion_IRC |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 10:27 PM | Reply with quote #28 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lion_IRC1. Objective morality.
Like two tennis players both referring to the same umpire to see if the ball was objectively in or out, if you’re asking whether objective morality exists (or in what objective morality consists,) aren’t you conceding that the answer lies at some point beyond your current reach?
In order to help the tennis players by providing an objective ruling whether the ball was in or out, an objective Umpire has to exist, objective rules have to exist – and most importantly, the rules have to be subject to enforcement.
A law which is never obeyed or enforced is redundant And the victim of a crime who sees the lawbreaker go unpunished/unrepentant would be entitled to question God’s morality.
Of course, if one of the tennis players owned the actual tennis court, bribed the umpires, used a bigger racquet, bullied their opponents, cheated whenever nobody was looking, reserved the right to change the rules as they saw fit and decided who could and couldn’t play on their court, that would be their prerogative as owner.
...But we aren’t talking about the creator of a tennis court.
Quote: Originally Posted by SeekingTruth
First of all, thanks for replying! I've read the posts a few times and appreciate all of them. I will now be going through them again one-by-one and writing replies....
@Lion_IRC: "aren't you conceding that the answer lies at some point beyond your current reach?" Maybe I did not understand you correctly, but the answer to that question depends precisely on whether morals are objective or subjective. If morality has a naturalistic explanation, then it should be in the reach of humanity to understand it. Naturalistic theories have also been proposed and I find them just as (if not more so - due to my personal experiences) plausible as the theological one...
I'm sorry, I thought you were proposing that the existence of objective versus subjective morality was still unresolved by humans.
You asked ...On what grounds should one believe in them being objective if we exclude wishful thinking?
A natural theory of morality would be based on freely observable empirical evidence all around us, all the time. It should be a slam-dunk for non-theism to show an evidence-based, objectively true scientific morality. Why havent we ALREADY resolved the questions like euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment, teaching religion to children, vegetarianism...etc.
Why not? Why the delay?
It's not because we are ignorant of human biology. (We know that embryos respond to external stimuli from as early as 4 weeks gestational age.)
It's not because we are ignorant of political science. (We know about the territorial imperative and how large the enemy's army is.)
What we dont know is something that an objective, transcendent moral authority (with the power to enforce that objective morality) DOES KNOW and that is...
the future.
|
| Loading... | |
| Lion_IRC |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 10:36 PM | Reply with quote #29 |
|
If you think a naturalistic basis of morality (relativism) exists, I agree. I just dont think you can demonstrate that it is objectively the right morality.
I like to use the example of two people stuck on a desert island with only 1 loaf of bread.
If they share the loaf 50/50 they both live for a week.
If one kills the other and eats the bread themself he/she lives for two weeks.
Neither one of them knows that the rescue boat will arrive in 6 days.
|
| Loading... | |
| Lion_IRC |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 10:42 PM | Reply with quote #30 |
|
SeekingTruth,
Can you tell me (on naturalistic morality) whether they should share the loaf 50/50 irrespective of the arrival date
of the rescue boat and objectively, why that ought to be the case? |
| Loading... | |
