Moral Values: Objective or Subjective (atheist, contradiction, verse, exist)

[ArtieE]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Yes, I agree but I am not sure that the defintion you are using for morality is the same one that applies to moral philosophy.

I haven't studied moral philosophy. I see moral behavior as behavior that is beneficial for the individual and the society and by extension humanity as a whole.

You seem to have a very broad definition that includes 'actions' per-se. Mongooses do not apply a value like 'good' or 'bad to their actions.

No they don't. Why would they? They behave instinctively in a way beneficial for them individually and as a group. That's why that behavior inherently is "good".

The realm and experience of our moral values are completely different.

In what way?

I agree that the grounding for our moral values are nature and bilology but that only grounds each of our individual moral values not the totality of human moral values. As such the goal of stating that human moral values are objective is hardly reached. They are still very subjective to each person although that subjectivity does not arise from reason but the underlying organisms biology. And since each person has similar yet different biology, environmnets, and culture - all experiences that get instantiated within the nervous system they can not be objective in the standard sense of that term.

They are objective because they transcend the individual. The validity of the Golden Rule does not rely on biology, environment or culture.

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

But I explained a bit jumbled, Great Philosopher!

"something outside" could include little Mickey's pet mongoose.

For the values to be truly objective they would have to be grounded in the objective sense: "In and of themselves."

"something outside" simply makes them subject to whatever particular thing they are grounded upon.

The Problem of Morality is as strong as the Problem of Evil when arguing against particular God concepts.
Most pro-objective-moral-theists find it troubling that they can't explain whether "objective morals" are based on God's subjective wishes or if God is a messenger of objective morals which stand in and of themselves. The Abrahamics usually stand of the side of bowing to the Power of YHWH's subjective wishes, So what they usually mean by "Nature of God" is 'Bully Power.'

The whole point I brought up "demons" is because "Evil Demon" is a common possible God talked about in philosophical discussions of morality.

One objective moral value is that doing good is good, doing bad is bad, by the law of definition. O.k. that's kinda a joke. And sorry about that first post, I didn't keep my audience in mind, I sort of just wrote down whatever I could regurgitate out of my internal dialogue... It's obvious now that its probably gonna go way over people head's, and probably way to the side as well.

So you don't believe in objective moral values?

[sayulita]

Originally Posted by ArtieE

I haven't studied moral philosophy. I see moral behavior as behavior that is beneficial for the individual and the society and by extension humanity as a whole.No they don't. Why would they? They behave instinctively in a way beneficial for them individually and as a group. That's why that behavior inherently is "good".In what way?
They are objective because they transcend the individual. The validity of the Golden Rule does not rely on biology, environment or culture.

Exactly! The Golden Rule is all that is necessary to have morality. If you would not like to have something done to you, then it follows that you should not do it to another. I don't want to be lied to, cheated or cheated on, hurt or killed etc., so I assume the same applies to you. It's innate and common to all humans.

[stargazzer]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

OK!



OK!



OK! And this answers the OP - how? IF you think that our moral values are objective then what is your evidence?

Man prompts nature-morality because he does not behave instinctively. Morality is one thing, administration-management is another....if you care to graph administration-management and recognize as you already have that ...all moral behavior implicates morality, together with charity and self denial where morality is effected yet not within usual human experience, something else is required...That something else is man's endowment of infinity within the mind. Man cannot even process a thought without this value...it is not a value which is reasoned for or developed, but a given. A representation of spirit or soul.....there is your something else The act of self denial in charity by expression represents an infinitly more real value to good will itself... All behavior is implicated and emerges out of morality, this has already been agreed to in your entry.

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

So you don't believe in objective moral values?

No, just like I don't believe in objective numbers. There are models that work, and then there are models that don't.
Right and Wrong are completely based on desires, and are dependent on them. It can never be the right thing to do the wrong thing, that is all I can tell you. Theists put the desires of a Deity they imagine above themselves as a template for thinking such imagined values are not simply subjective to a being that thinks it should rule simply because it came first, created us, and is most powerful... those are all pretty evil excuses for tyranny if you ask me.

What sort evidence will you accept as a proof of objectivity?

Originally Posted by ArtieE

I haven't studied moral philosophy. I see moral behavior as behavior that is beneficial for the individual and the society and by extension humanity as a whole.No they don't. Why would they? They behave instinctively in a way beneficial for them individually and as a group. That's why that behavior inherently is "good".In what way?
They are objective because they transcend the individual. The validity of the Golden Rule does not rely on biology, environment or culture.

I think we are now getting into moral definitions (A Part of Meta-ethics) - what is morality, good, bad, objective, etc. If you want to define them please do. You are also doing descriptive vs. normative ethics. If morals are just what they are as a description of behavior then you cannot say that it is objective - what one ought/should do - the reason is that there is nothing normative about our behavior at any one moment (all peoples do not value the same things in the same way) let alone 50,000 years from now. And certainly the social behavior of humans is different from that of mongooses.

What does the validity of the Golden Rule rely upon then? And why should I care and obey it? What do you appeal to as the standard to make such a declaration? Many people do not follow the Golden Rule - if we evaluate their behavior what moral will you then adopt? Is it then good to not obey the Golden Rule? Behavior falls really short of establishing a ground for objectivity.

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

What does the validity of the Golden Rule rely upon then? And why should I care and obey it? What do you appeal to as the standard to make such a declaration? Many people do not follow the Golden Rule - if we evaluate their behavior what moral will you then adopt? Is it then good to not obey the Golden Rule? Behavior falls really short of establishing a ground for objectivity.

The basic appeal of the Golden Rule is that it makes sense as a Social Contract. Which uses people's desires to form some sort of order out of them. The short point is that breaking the Social Contract is "bad" for everyone, therefore "wrong." I don't know how much that says about objectivity... but are you trying to tell us that you are a psychopath and don't wish to stick to the social contract? Because WE HAVE BULLY POWER which is greater than yours. subjective morals are good enough... if it ain't broke don't try to fix it. It would be perfectly meaningless to be an ******* and influence others to be like you. Its all about preference, if there is no social contract there is likely chaos.

Thinking about Objective Immorals is much easier, Sam Harris has lots to say about those. The worst possible suffering for everyone vs... you get the picture.

Is happiness good Shilo?

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

No, just like I don't believe in objective numbers. There are models that work, and then there are models that don't.
Right and Wrong are completely based on desires, and are dependent on them. It can never be the right thing to do the wrong thing, that is all I can tell you. Theists put the desires of a Deity they imagine above themselves as a template for thinking such imagined values are not simply subjective to a being that thinks it should rule simply because it came first, created us, and is most powerful... those are all pretty evil excuses for tyranny if you ask me.

What sort evidence will you accept as a proof of objectivity?

The kind of objectivity that people usually look for would have to have evidence that shows that our moral values are seperate from the human organism - otherwise they are just subjective sentiments that are grounded in our biology and experience. In one sense I think a case could be made for another type of objectivity - a soft objectivity - based on the similar biological and experiential aspects of each individual human. As such the more each individual is similar to us the more 'objective' / normative the moral values become - but at the end of the day a persons moral vlaues are his own and therefore by definition subjective.

Furthermore, we must ask why we even have the sense of moral objectivity to begin with - where does this sense or need for it arise. I think this has to do with a few different factors - one main one is the difference between our sub-conscious and conscious mind. The conscious mind is the place or seat of the 'I' or 'self' but our moral sentiments arise from the biological and subconscious levels given us a sense of outsideness - objectivity. On the level of moral justification reason is a post-hoc action in order to justify those sentiments not to seek truth or point to it - unless you are a professional phiolosopher trying to reason your way to reality.

[ArtieE]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I think we are now getting into moral definitions (A Part of Meta-ethics) - what is morality, good, bad, objective, etc. If you want to define them please do.

I just did. "Good" morals are those that benefit the individual, his family, friends, the society around him and by extension the human race as a whole. "Bad" morals are those that don't.

You are also doing descriptive vs. normative ethics. If morals are just what they are as a description of behavior then you cannot say that it is objective - what one ought/should do - the reason is that there is nothing normative about our behavior at any one moment (all peoples do not value the same things in the same way) let alone 50,000 years from now. And certainly the social behavior of humans is different from that of mongooses.

This makes no sense to me. Could you formulate what you mean differently?

What does the validity of the Golden Rule rely upon then?

Those who live by the Golden Rule have a better chance of survival than those who don't. That makes it valid.

And why should I care and obey it?

Because those who adhere to it have a better chance of survival in a social context. Those who don't care to obey it are less likely to survive.

What do you appeal to as the standard to make such a declaration?

Standard? Evolution developed moral codes. Those who adhered to those moral codes survived. The standard was set automatically since those who didn't adhere to those moral codes died off.

Many people do not follow the Golden Rule - if we evaluate their behavior what moral will you then adopt?

If we evaluate their behavior we see that these people are less likely to survive because of anti-social behavior.

Is it then good to not obey the Golden Rule?

No, it shows that it's bad not to obey the evolutionary moral codes.

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

The basic appeal of the Golden Rule is that it makes sense as a Social Contract. Which uses people's desires to form some sort of order out of them. The short point is that breaking the Social Contract is "bad" for everyone, therefore "wrong." I don't know how much that says about objectivity... but are you trying to tell us that you are a psychopath and don't wish to stick to the social contract? Because WE HAVE BULLY POWER which is greater than yours. subjective morals are good enough... if it ain't broke don't try to fix it. It would be perfectly meaningless to be an ******* and influence others to be like you. Its all about preference, if there is no social contract there is likely chaos.

Thinking about Objective Immorals is much easier, Sam Harris has lots to say about those. The worst possible suffering for everyone vs... you get the picture.

Is happiness good Shilo?

Look, I am with you. I am trying to get people to think about objectivity and its relation to their moral sentiments and values and to justify that objectivity if they believe in it. I do not think that the absence of objective moral values necessitates relatvism or nihilism. Nature has given us the clues as to what works but that is not the same as saying 'our' moral values are objective. The benifit of a social contract maybe nice and great but that does not justify nor ground its objectivity. People need to think before they attach that term to their statements.