Moral Values: Objective or Subjective (Christians, beliefs, belief, principle)

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

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.

For example: I would have to describe an objective moral that doesn't need me to be performed? Like a number that doesn't need me to count it? It counts itself or is counted by a mongoose? When I ask you to think about the number 1, is the number you think about the same as the #1 I think about? Or is the number in itself a subjective representation of a quality which is judged based on real comparisons?

The sense of moral objectivity is likely biological, when we think "subjective" we think "under our power as we decide"

you give philosophers too much credit. The objective-moral-atheists say reason itself is good for moral justification in the objective sense: just ask Sam Harris. Justifying sentiments instead of seeking truth is rather what Psychopaths do, for as Sam Harris points out, a mutually agreed-on social contract is the best of all possible worlds. If there is a stubborn dissenter that simply wishes to have everything his/her way then that is where BULLY POWER comes in, which protects the social contract for the rest of us.

[ArtieE]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

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.

I think you have it backwards. Evolution developed morals that are objective in the sense that they are not subjective sentiments but more or less embedded in most of us.

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.

Morals are objective. The Golden Rule is universal and objective. An individual can choose to follow those morals or not of course. That doesn't make them 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.

It arose when organisms started cooperating. There was no need or sense for it. It simply evolved. You might as well ask when the sense or need for two arms or five fingers arose.

Originally Posted by ArtieE

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.This makes no sense to me. Could you formulate what you mean differently?Those who live by the Golden Rule have a better chance of survival than those who don't. That makes it valid.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.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.If we evaluate their behavior we see that these people are less likely to survive because of anti-social behavior.No, it shows that it's bad not to obey the evolutionary moral codes.

You keep making declarative statments without any justifcation for them. People disagree with your moral sentiment as well as not practice it. Now what? You are appealing to reason to tell them that they should not do it because of odds?? Many people take their chances and risk those odds and succeed. Now what are you gonna tell them? Furthermore, you told me earlier that the objectivity did not rest upon reason - you are contradictiong yourself. Many people have survived without following the GR. This is just your moral value and you have not given any evidence that it is an objective one. All you do is describe it usefulness for a certsin type of peron in certain tyoes of situations.

If good is what is useful or what works then what are you going to say to the person who violated the GR and survived and was better off becuase of it?

I am willing to agree with you about it resonableness and its usefulness but that does not establish its objectivity. Unless you have a different idea of what objectivity is - I have an idea about such a soft objectivity not like the one that is spoken of when most people talk about moral values. I think this might be what you are thinking of but you have not defined it as such as your response was to my OP's defintion.

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

You keep making declarative statments without any justifcation for them. People disagree with your moral sentiment as well as not practice it. Now what? You are appealing to reason to tell them that they should not do it because of odds?? Many people take their chances and risk those odds and succeed. Now what are you gonna tell them? Furthermore, you told me earlier that the objectivity did not rest upon reason - you are contradictiong yourself. Many people have survived without following the GR. This is just your moral value and you have not given any evidence that it is an objective one. All you do is describe it usefulness for a certsin type of peron in certain tyoes of situations.

If good is what is useful or what works then what are you going to say to the person who violated the GR and survived and was better off becuase of it?

I am willing to agree with you about it resonableness and its usefulness but that does not establish its objectivity. Unless you have a different idea of what objectivity is - I have an idea about such a soft objectivity not like the one that is spoken of when most people talk about moral values. I think this might be what you are thinking of but you have not defined it as such as your response was to my OP's defintion.

All philosophy is a declarative statements without any justification. Nothing in philosophy is "real" or "objectively true"...

Originally Posted by ArtieE

I think you have it backwards. Evolution developed morals that are objective in the sense that they are not subjective sentiments but more or less embedded in most of us.Morals are objective. The Golden Rule is universal and objective. An individual can choose to follow those morals or not of course. That doesn't make them subjective.It arose when organisms started cooperating. There was no need or sense for it. It simply evolved. You might as well ask when the sense or need for two arms or five fingers arose.

Artie, let me be clear I do not hold to the idea that objectivity is outside of the human organism - my point was that other people do. That is - it is what most people refer to when they speak of objective moral values.

How are your moarl values (the one including the GR) not your subjective moral vlaues (what I asked in the OP)? You have not given any evidence that they are not your subjective moral values/sentiments. Just because others agree with you does not make it so. Nor does your reasoning. It is your reasoning - hence subjective. If you have evidence for its objectivity please give it.

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

All philosophy is a declarative statements without any justification. Nothing in philosophy is "real" or "objectively true"...

My point was regarding phiolosophers and the difference between descriptive ethics and normative ethics. I have a feeling we are really talking past each other particularly Art because he even said he does not read ethics or moral philosophy. That would help.

Morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meta-ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I got to go to bed - holy crickets it's 6 O'freaking clock.

[ArtieE]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

You keep making declarative statments without any justifcation for them.

Don't know what you mean. Which declarative statements?

People disagree with your moral sentiment as well as not practice it.

It's not my moral sentiment. They are universal morals as developed by evolution and practiced by many species of animals who've never heard of declarative statements and justifications. Animals don't need to justify acting morally. Why should we when we understand why they act that way in the first place?

Now what? You are appealing to reason to tell them that they should not do it because of odds??

No. I'm simply explaining what morals are and how they developed. Whether they choose to follow them or not is up to them.

Many people take their chances and risk those odds and succeed. Now what are you gonna tell them?

That of course depends on the individual situation.

Furthermore, you told me earlier that the objectivity did not rest upon reason - you are contradictiong yourself.

I am? I don't know your reference. If you use logic, reason and common sense you see how morals developed and why it is advantageous to follow them.

Many people have survived without following the GR.

Of course. We are talking about the human race here. Populations. To evaluate individual cases we would have to consider the implications not just for the individual but for his family and friends and the society around him.

This is just your moral value and you have not given any evidence that it is an objective one.

Evidence? Are you saying that all the animals displaying what humans call moral values are acting so because I have impressed my subjective moral values on them? Or maybe it's more logical and reasonable to assume that these are values common and therefore objective and therefore universally applicable to animals and humans?

If good is what is useful or what works then what are you going to say to the person who violated the GR and survived and was better off becuase of it?

I would of course have to evaluate the whole situation and analyze the impact his actions had on himself, his family, his friends, his immediate surroundings etc. You seem to constantly imply that this individual is alone on the planet while I am talking about cooperation and social contracts and populations.

I am willing to agree with you about it resonableness and its usefulness but that does not establish its objectivity. Unless you have a different idea of what objectivity is

I define objectivity as something based on logic, reason and common sense, something based on evidence no matter personal opinion. To be objective is to evaluate a situation without personal bias.

[ArtieE]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

How are your moarl values (the one including the GR) not your subjective moral vlaues (what I asked in the OP)?

Because they have been shown to be universal and applicable to everybody not just me? Even animals? So how can they then be just my subjective moral values if they are applicable to everyone? Is gravity also only subjectively applicable to me even though the rest of the planet also seems to behave as if it exists?

You have not given any evidence that they are not your subjective moral values/sentiments. Just because others agree with you does not make it so. Nor does your reasoning. It is your reasoning - hence subjective. If you have evidence for its objectivity please give it.

What do you consider evidence for objectivity then? Give us an example of such evidence.

[ArtieE]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

My point was regarding phiolosophers and the difference between descriptive ethics and normative ethics. I have a feeling we are really talking past each other particularly Art because he even said he does not read ethics or moral philosophy. That would help.

Morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I read this and think I see the difference between descriptive ethics and normative ethics. I use normative ethics then.

Meta-ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This went way over my head and seems way too complicated.

[stargazzer]

You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill and are going to wind up dangling about the universe arguing over how the heck galaxies can contain events which contradict, force's of gravity which exist outside of the specific galaxy. IOW order and asymmetrical features in creation which cannot be explained....by going backwards in an exploration.