|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 03/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#1
|
|
|
Okay, this comes up a LOT in these forums, so I thought I'd start a thread to try and deal with it once and for all. I'm happy to edit this first post with any additions and changes suggested, but it is intended to eventually be linkable to whenever these types of objections come up.
I'm aiming to keep sections separate so that they can be responded to and discussed individually, and no one has to read the whole post.
Not all atheists are subjectivists
Now, I am a subjectivist. But this is not a result of my atheism. I would be a subjectivist if I thought God existed. But many, many atheists are not.
I don't think some theists appreciate how big a statement it is to say that objective moral values require a deity. If you study an ethics course, God will almost never be mentioned. In fact, pretty much the whole field of philosophical ethics goes out of the window with this statement. It is a HUGE claim, and it is not one that you can demonstrate simply by repeating it.
From the Preface of the atheist philosopher Kai Nielson's Naturalism Without Foundations, Prometheus Books, 1996:The method of wide reflective equilibrium...as has been argued by Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnam, enables us...to dispense with a search for Absolutes...without ending up with relativism, subjectivism, nihilism, or skepticism (p. 19).
Theism does not imply objective morality
Say God exists, and He is has an innate moral system. Why should we care? The fact that a supernatural being thinks something is good does not make it good unless you believe that the only definition of good is that which is liked by a supernatural being.
The Euthyphro dilemma is a big deal. Defining good by what God likes makes the whole thing meaningless. Moreover, even if it wasn't meaningless, we have no objective reason to agree with it. We can only subjectively decide that we think that being in accordance with God's nature is good.
It isn't an argument against atheism
This seems to me to be the most striking problem with the charge that atheists can not have objective morals. Say that atheism does entail subjective morality, so what? Unless you can prove that morals are objective, this does absolutely nothing.
Now, let me stress that intuition is not evidence that morals are objective. Intuition looks a lot like subjective reasoning, and thus in no way can the fact that you REALLY think Hitler was objectively wrong be evidence for the fact that he was.
The divide is completely irrelevant to moral discourse in most cases
Say God exists and is the objective source of morality. Do atheists lack a moral code? No, they have exactly the same moral code as you do, they just don't recognise the source. If God's law is printed on our hearts and minds then my reason for disliking rape is identical to yours. The fact that I also lack a belief in God is irrelevant to any discussion over whether rape is wrong, or what should be done about it.
Conversely, say that God does not exist. Do your morals suddenly cease to have existed? Is your commitment that Hitler was wrong stifled by the lack of a deity telling you this?
Whoever is correct we have the same source of morality, so it is completely unhelpful to dismiss atheistic input on morality just because we don't believe God gave us the intuitions we all adhere to.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
tak
|
|
Posted 03/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAutoNot all atheists are subjectivists
There have been, and always will be, attempts to find an ontological grounding for morality apart from God. You don't seem to find these attempts persuasive either, since you remain a subjectivist.
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto
Theism does not imply objective morality ... The Euthyphro dilemma is a big deal.
Why is the false-dilemma response inadequate?
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto
It isn't an argument against atheism
This seems to me to be the most striking problem with the charge that atheists can not have objective morals. Say that atheism does entail subjective morality, so what? Unless you can prove that morals are objective, this does absolutely nothing.
Now, let me stress that intuition is not evidence that morals are objective. Intuition looks a lot like subjective reasoning, and thus in no way can the fact that you REALLY think Hitler was objectively wrong be evidence for the fact that he was.
It's a premise in an argument for theism. You object to this premise because it appeals to intuition, and you hold that intuition is subjective.
The argument is not exactly that morality is objective because it is intuitive, but rather that we already know morality is objective - this is a basic belief.
We can recognize that it is objective, and this may be accomplished through intuition. This is the same method we employ when trusting that past events have occurred, that our memories are real, that the physical world exists rather than a simulation, that other minds exist, etc. The conclusion is more obvious than any premises one could bring forward. In that sense it's something you can't not know.
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto
The divide is completely irrelevant to moral discourse in most cases
Say God exists and is the objective source of morality. Do atheists lack a moral code? No, they have exactly the same moral code as you do, they just don't recognise the source. If God's law is printed on our hearts and minds then my reason for disliking rape is identical to yours. The fact that I also lack a belief in God is irrelevant to any discussion over whether rape is wrong, or what should be done about it.
Interestingly, it isn't that simple. The law is printed on our hearts, but our hearts are malleable. That is, if we persist in doing something we know to be wrong, we can convince ourselves that it is not actually wrong.
How we handle this is either by denying that morality is indeed objective (and defining our own), or attempting to ground objective morals in such a way that our behavior is justified.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Ivaj
|
|
Posted 03/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
|
tak can you give an example of something that is subjective?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
skeptic88
|
|
Posted 03/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
|
It's a premise in an argument for theism. You object to this premise because it appeals to intuition, and you hold that intuition is subjective. The argument is not exactly that morality is objective because it is intuitive, but rather that we already know morality is objective - this is a basic belief.
Our intuition is not a measure of truth. Of course our intuition is subjective, different people have different intuitions. And we certainly do not know that morality is objective on the scale that Craig suggests it is, i.e. that moral actions should be wrong or right on an absolute, universal scale.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
rsmartin
|
|
Posted 03/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
Crash, thanks for an excellent topic. I have read about half of the OP--down through the part about not all atheists being subjectivists.
I've been thinking a lot about this. Since there seems to be no objective evidence for the existence of this supernatural being whom the Christians say bestows objective morals on believers, it seems fair to conclude that God himself is a subjective concept. By extension, any morality deriving from God must then of necessity be subjective.
The Judeo-Christian God's inconsistent value system for ethics and/or morality is a strong case in point. The argument that "God's ways are higher than our ways" hardly works to explain why God can delete entire populations with impunity. According to the Bible, God promises to punish the evil-doer and protect the innocent. Also according to the Bible, God never changes.
In light of all this, no one can argue for both:
- advanced societes in which humans can differentiate between innocent civilians and military combatants during wartime
AND
- an in-dwelling Holy Spirit who knows everything and teaches believers right from wrong.
In other words, if it is wrong today during wartime to kill innocent civilians and children--and if we know this because morals of necessity come from God, then it was also wrong three thousand years ago when God supposedly commanded Joshua to kill every Canaanite man, woman, and child.
As stated, the Bible claims God does not change, and knows everything. Christians claim God communicates with them via the in-dwelling Holy Spirit. The OT says God spoke directly with Moses and Joshua.
One cannot use the argument that God has to start where society is at because God supposedly created humans, i.e. society. He supposedly talked directly with Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, etc. If God is objective, and if objective morals come from God, this merciful and righteous God who wants his children to love each other would have taught these early ancestors of human society how to be an "advanced" society--if not technologically, at the very least, ethically and morally.
However, society--along with its moral and ethical codes--advanced at the speed one could expect if God were subjective. Therefore, I think it is fair to conclude that God himself is subjective and that it is therefore impossible for objective morals to derive from God.
All the same, objective morals do exist. Shelly Kagan's common sense guide for morals "Do not harm; do help" is an objective system. It is wrong to senselessly harm people or other sentient beings. It is right to help.
Not even non-human species kill members of their own species except for sex (another steals your partner) or food (another trespasses on your territory), and that only when challenged beyond the bounds of endurance (the other does not back off when confronted). The lion killing a zebra for food is the same as a human killing a cow to feed the family--it is cross-species killing and not murder.
Yes, it is specie-ism, as WLC says. However, all predetor species practice it. Some humans have become vegans to get beyond it.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
antybu86
|
|
Posted 03/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
Here's an older thread I made about this: http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post/Does-Craig-simply-redefine-objective-morality-5189836
In short, I think Craig simply re-defines the word "objective" in order qualify his version of morality and disqualify others.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
rsmartin
|
|
Posted 03/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto Do atheists lack a moral code? No, they have exactly the same moral code as you do, they just don't recognise the source.
I think atheists recognize the source of morals. Subjectively, if it hurts, it's wrong. Things like rape, fisti-cuffs, and being yelled at hurt/feel uncomfortable physically and/or emotionally. Objectively, if it is harmful, it is wrong. Same source: the physical and emotional damage that is measurable and demonstrable.
That's a very general and broad definition. For example, when we go to the dentist and need to get a needle jabbed into the oral muscle--yikes! Sometimes it has to hurt before it can feel better. But it has been proven so many times to serve the good of the individual that we accept the pain in the service of gain.
For that reason, even though I am a secular humanist, I accept that children and animals will need to endure the comparatively minimal pain of needles being stuck into various parts of their bodies at various times of their lives for various health reasons even though I hate needles. We must make the best of a bad situation, once in a while.
The "no pain, no gain" maxim holds true for many things in real life. But any adult should be able to differentiate between painful procedures required for medical reasons (which are helpful and therefore good) and pain inflicted for supernaturally prescribed reasons such as male and female circumcision or the emotional pain of shunning.
The same applies to constructive criticism. It may not feel very good at the moment but it can eventually improve one's life. However, it must be possible to demonstrate that--and in what way--the criticism is required, i.e. why the current situation is not good enough, what improvements need to be made, how they should be implemented, etc. That I should not bring in the harvest on a sunny day just because it is the Lord's Day is not good enough unless you can demonstrate that there is a "Lord" who can have a "Day," and that it will in any way harm this "Lord."
As for killing people because it serves a dictator's personal whims for power--all human instincts shout that this is objectively wrong because it hurts and damages.
So I think atheists do have a recognizable "source" for their morals, whether they are objectivist or subjectivist.
For more on the meaning of subjective versus objective, I recommend: Thinking Critically About the "Subjective"/"Objective" Distinction, by Sandra LaFave of West Valley College, an essay for those of you who want to understand a basis for meaningful morals without God. (Originally posted here.)
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
rsmartin
|
|
Posted 03/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
Thanks for that! I hadn't seen it. I was almost afraid to post the idea that God himself is subjective because I didn't know anyone else said it. Good to know I'm not alone. 
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 03/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
|
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
Quote: Originally Posted by tak
There have been, and always will be, attempts to find an ontological grounding for morality apart from God. You don't seem to find these attempts persuasive either, since you remain a subjectivist.
No, I don't find them persuasive, but that doesn't mean I can ignore huge sections of ethical philosophy, as well as countless atheists who aren't subjectivists. This thread is not intended to establish that objectivism can hold on atheism, but rather is a response to several posters who seem to dismiss the possibility out of hand.
Quote:
Why is the false-dilemma response inadequate?
Again, this is not a thread for defending the Euthyphro dilemma. I would take personal issue with the false-dilemma response, but I feel it would be a long discussion that may not lead to a resolution (hence the Euthyphro dilemma still comes up). My point was, again, directed at theists who throw the subjectivist charge at atheism without acknowledge the huge amount of philosophical debate this ignores.
It's a premise in an argument for theism. You object to this premise because it appeals to intuition, and you hold that intuition is subjective.
The argument is not exactly that morality is objective because it is intuitive, but rather that we already know morality is objective - this is a basic belief.
We can recognize that it is objective, and this may be accomplished through intuition. This is the same method we employ when trusting that past events have occurred, that our memories are real, that the physical world exists rather than a simulation, that other minds exist, etc. The conclusion is more obvious than any premises one could bring forward. In that sense it's something you can't not know.
Sorry, that was not my point. I was arguing that intuition is subjective, I was arguing that it looks a lot like subjective reasoning. My point is that we can not know that morality is objective, even if it is. So it is impossible to take the conclusion that atheism is inconsistent with objective morals and then disprove atheism with it.
Also, we have a great deal of methods for checking whether the past is real, that do not rely on intuition. Moreover, there is no debate over whether or not the past is real in the way that there is over morality. These aren't comparable beliefs. Regardless, as before, these are big debates and the point is that the charge that atheism necessitates subjectivity is not one that can simply be thrown around casually.
Quote:
Interestingly, it isn't that simple. The law is printed on our hearts, but our hearts are malleable. That is, if we persist in doing something we know to be wrong, we can convince ourselves that it is not actually wrong.
How we handle this is either by denying that morality is indeed objective (and defining our own), or attempting to ground objective morals in such a way that our behavior is justified.
I'm sorry, but I really don't see how that is relevant to the point I was making. Either way, we all have the same source for morality.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 03/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#10
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartinQuote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto Do atheists lack a moral code? No, they have exactly the same moral code as you do, they just don't recognise the source.
I think atheists recognize the source of morals. Subjectively, if it hurts, it's wrong. Things like rape, fisti-cuffs, and being yelled at hurt/feel uncomfortable physically and/or emotionally. Objectively, if it is harmful, it is wrong. Same source: the physical and emotional damage that is measurable and demonstrable. That's a very general and broad definition. For example, when we go to the dentist and need to get a needle jabbed into the oral muscle--yikes! Sometimes it has to hurt before it can feel better. But it has been proven so many times to serve the good of the individual that we accept the pain in the service of gain. For that reason, even though I am a secular humanist, I accept that children and animals will need to endure the comparatively minimal pain of needles being stuck into various parts of their bodies at various times of their lives for various health reasons even though I hate needles. We must make the best of a bad situation, once in a while. The "no pain, no gain" maxim holds true for many things in real life. But any adult should be able to differentiate between painful procedures required for medical reasons (which are helpful and therefore good) and pain inflicted for supernaturally prescribed reasons such as male and female circumcision or the emotional pain of shunning. The same applies to constructive criticism. It may not feel very good at the moment but it can eventually improve one's life. However, it must be possible to demonstrate that--and in what way--the criticism is required, i.e. why the current situation is not good enough, what improvements need to be made, how they should be implemented, etc. That I should not bring in the harvest on a sunny day just because it is the Lord's Day is not good enough unless you can demonstrate that there is a "Lord" who can have a "Day," and that it will in any way harm this "Lord." As for killing people because it serves a dictator's personal whims for power--all human instincts shout that this is objectively wrong because it hurts and damages. So I think atheists do have a recognizable "source" for their morals, whether they are objectivist or subjectivist. For more on the meaning of subjective versus objective, I recommend: Thinking Critically About the "Subjective"/"Objective" Distinction, by Sandra LaFave of West Valley College, an essay for those of you who want to understand a basis for meaningful morals without God. (Originally posted here.)
Oh yes, of course. That sentence began with the premise that God existed, I am not denying that atheists have a source of morality. I am saying they have the same source of morality as theists, regardless of whether or not God exists.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 03/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#11
|
|
|
Yes, as I've said, this isn't a thread for establishing any strong philosophical doctrine, or even disprove WLC. The reason I posted it is because a LOT of theists on this board throw out the 'atheism is subjective' claim in the middle of a huge range of discussions. My point here is that it is 1) unfounded (though I am not trying to disprove it), and 2) irrelevant even if true.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
skeptic88
|
|
Posted 03/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#12
|
|
|
WLC defines the word "objective" to mean one thing and one thing only: "getting moral orders from God."
It's question-begging nonsense, and ignorant theists eat it up.
Not to mention that grounding morality in God isn't even a solution to the problem WLC puts forward. There's no reason as to why we should think God is all good, or that his commands are morally justified. WLC simply accepts what God says as truth, but cannot extend this same acceptance to a much more justified and logically based principle like the basis for consequentialism.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
rsmartin
|
|
Posted 03/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#13
|
|
To support what Crash said in the OP about many ethics philosophers being atheist:
From the Preface of the atheist philosopher Kai Nielson's Naturalism Without Foundations, Prometheus Books, 1996:
The method of wide reflective equilibrium...as has been argued by Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnam, enables us...to dispense with a search for Absolutes...without ending up with relativism, subjectivism, nihilism, or skepticism (p. 19).
Several points:
- Here we have three names of atheist ethics philosophers who subscribe to objective morals.
- They have a solid method with which to arrive at objective morals--or intersubjective, as Neilson also calls it, since absolute objectivity is impossible.
- They avoid not only subjectivism, but also the Christian charge that atheism necessarily leads to relativism and nihilism.
NOTE: The skepticism mentioned here does not mean religious skeptics; it is a philosophical term though I have not yet had time to read up on exactly what Neilson means by it...Maybe people who doubt the existence of other minds or of the historicity of the universe (that it didn't just pop into existence five minutes ago) or that anything at all can be known.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 03/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#14
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartinTo support what Crash said in the OP about many ethics philosophers being atheist: From the Preface of the atheist philosopher Kai Nielson's Naturalism Without Foundations, Prometheus Books, 1996: The method of wide reflective equilibrium...as has been argued by Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnam, enables us...to dispense with a search for Absolutes...without ending up with relativism, subjectivism, nihilism, or skepticism (p. 19).
Several points: - Here we have three names of atheist ethics philosophers who subscribe to objective morals.
- They have a solid method with which to arrive at objective morals--or intersubjective, as Neilson also calls it, since absolute objectivity is impossible.
- They avoid not only subjectivism, but also the Christian charge that atheism necessarily leads to relativism and nihilism.
NOTE: The skepticism mentioned here does not mean religious skeptics; it is a philosophical term though I have not yet had time to read up on exactly what Neilson means by it...Maybe people who doubt the existence of other minds or of the historicity of the universe (that it didn't just pop into existence five minutes ago) or that anything at all can be known.
Thanks, edited that quote into the OP.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
tak
|
|
Posted 03/11/12
|
Reply with quote
#15
|
|
|
Crash, I guess you don't want to discuss any argument. Rather, you'd like people to acknowledge that there are discussions going on about arguments?
With that I think we can agree.
With regard to morality being objective, I think most people find this obvious. As Crash has stated, most of the real discussion seems to be where these morals find their ontological grounding.
Let me know if you make a thread discussing that ...
|
|
Loading...
|
|
