What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-02-2018, 11:37 AM
RE: What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 11:31 AM)kim Wrote:  No in between - really Tomas? And who are you to decide this for another?

The dictionary, and common uses of the term decide what they mean, they provide the taxonomy, not me. Yours and other dislike of the terms, doesn't negate their meanings.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2018, 11:47 AM
RE: What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 09:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If morality is subjective, than a person who stated that it's morally right, is no more wrong, than someone who disagrees with me that Justin Bieber is a bad singer. Because morality is matter of personal taste. If you as atheists disagree that morality is a matter of personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, than you subscribe to objective morality, by definition whether you acknowledge this or not.

One huge problem with this conclusion is your line of thought examines only individuals. But morality is not defined by individuals. It's defined by whole groups of individuals. And morality can differ from group to group. Some groups find that killing in the name of a god, for example, is one of the most morally desirable things you can do. We, of course, in our group would disagree and would view that as immoral.

Fox News: Praying Preying on ignorance since 1996.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
01-02-2018, 11:50 AM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2018 11:55 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 11:47 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 09:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If morality is subjective, than a person who stated that it's morally right, is no more wrong, than someone who disagrees with me that Justin Bieber is a bad singer. Because morality is matter of personal taste. If you as atheists disagree that morality is a matter of personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, than you subscribe to objective morality, by definition whether you acknowledge this or not.

One huge problem with this conclusion is your line of thought examines only individuals. But morality is not defined by individuals. It's defined by whole groups of individuals. And morality can differ from group to group. Some groups find that killing in the name of a god, for example, is one of the most morally desirable things you can do. We, of course, in our group would disagree and would view that as immoral.

No, it doesn't have to be an individual thing. In fact I don't think none of subjective preferences are unique they're shaped by our society, culture, environment, etc... The reason I prefer spicy food probably has a lot to do with my ethnicity.

My parents community and upbringing, have a strong aversion to the idea of eating raw meat, the idea of eating a medium rare steak is disgusting, where as for me eating anything cooked more than medium rare tastes bad.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2018, 11:50 AM
RE: What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 10:38 AM)Rachel Wrote:  Any morality which relies on a god would have to be subjective. This god could change its mind about what is good or bad. This renders the morality arbitrary and nearly chaotic.
I think that Joe Pew Warmer has no issue with this because he thinks his god is immutable and so not only won't, but can't, change his mind. If Joe notices that god has evolved in scripture from late polytheistic to monotheistic, from authoritarian war-god to omnibenevolence, and in a bunch of other ways, he will ask his pastor and his pastor will come back with some hocus-pocus from his theological cemetery of choice, such as dispensationalism, to explain god's different "economies" or "tests" throughout "history". Or more often, just hand-wave it away with the difference between the OT and NT, betwixt law and grace, etc. All of which is just special pleading, which is the high-octane fuel that religious faith uses to burn people's intellect to the ground.

In any event, I'm not sure god's arbitrariness is any sort of argument, as a theist will just have the riposte that society (which we unbelievers generally allege is the ACTUAL source of morality) is also arbitrary. It has in the past 150 years changed its mind about slavery, indentured servitude, women's suffrage, gay marriage, skirt lengths, and a bunch of other things. Often in ways that induce pearl-clutching spasms in believers.

There's nothing wrong with having the flexibility to incorporate new moral insights and thus reduce human suffering. Moral evolution is a feature, not a bug. I understand that the arbitrariness you're citing for the Christian god is TRULY arbitrary, it's well into "because I said so -- and I can squash youse like a bug if you gotta problem wit dat or sumptin'" territory.

But that distinction is lost on fundamentalists, who so desperately want to be TOLD what is right and wrong, what is to be done or not done, as they must be spared the personal responsibility of FIGURING OUT those things and owning their own moral views. And, who have such a deeply pessimistic view of their fellow man -- that we are so bereft of moral judgment or perception that we would certainly pursue a race to the bottom without the "restraining influence" of the "holy spirit" and his church in the world.

In any case, actual, societal morality by definition is subjective and mutable, and I have no issue with that. It's intersubjective enough and stable enough to be extremely useful in spite of being a bit squishy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like mordant's post
01-02-2018, 11:50 AM
RE: What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 11:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 11:31 AM)kim Wrote:  No in between - really Tomas? And who are you to decide this for another?

The dictionary, and common uses of the term decide what they mean, they provide the taxonomy, not me. Yours and other dislike of the terms, doesn't negate their meanings.

Oh, I agree with standard definitions of subjective and objective.

It is your demand of "no in between" that I find juvenile and judgemental hilarious hilariously judgemental. Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2018, 11:53 AM
RE: What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 09:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
My go to example is torturing innocent babies just for fun is morally wrong.
...

Seriously? Blink

How many years and how many times have we been over this?

Four or maybe five times you've used your "go to" and I've explained what's wrong with it. One time you even apologised for not reading my reply even though you had responded to it.

Frusty

(01-02-2018 09:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
Either morality is objective or subjective, there is no inbetween.
...

As previous discussed (for what feels like the hundredth time) ... Metrics are objective or subjective. Morals relate to values/goals. Values/goals are intrinsic or contextual.

Regarding the process-model of morality, the event/alert mechanism is intrinsic (evolved) and the rightness or wrongness of a subsequent action (or inaction) is contextual.

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
01-02-2018, 11:55 AM
RE: What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 11:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 11:05 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Still avoiding my question, I see.

It is a matter of personal opinion, yes. Some people might feel that there's nothing wrong with it. People would tend to take morality more seriously than music, but yes, each person will differ in what exactly they find acceptable or not acceptable. It just so happens that, since we evolved together, there is generally quite a big overlap between our opinions, and often near-consensus on some matters.

Are you going to answer my question now?

You can disregard my last post, because I missed this response.

I went back through our chain of responses, and wasn't able to find the question you asked me?

Can you repeat it.

Sure.

If there is such a thing as "objective morality", whatever that may mean to you, and we discovered that torturing babies was objectively moral, would you update your own opinion on this matter? Or would you still say it is wrong, even though it has been objectively determined to be moral?

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2018, 12:08 PM
What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 11:50 AM)mordant Wrote:  I think that Joe Pew Warmer has no issue with this because he thinks his god is immutable and so not only won't, but can't, change his mind.
Billy Bob may not have noticed, but when his pastor claims that god is immutable and by definition can’t change, he’s putting limits on that god’s power. Baby Jesus cries when Billy Bob’s pastor says that there’s something sky daddy can’t do.

(01-02-2018 11:50 AM)mordant Wrote:  If Joe notices that god has evolved in scripture from late polytheistic to monotheistic, from authoritarian war-god to omnibenevolence, and in a bunch of other ways, he will ask his pastor and his pastor will come back with some hocus-pocus from his theological cemetery of choice, such as dispensationalism, to explain god's different "economies" or "tests" throughout "history". Or more often, just hand-wave it away with the difference between the OT and NT, betwixt law and grace, etc. All of which is just special pleading, which is the high-octane fuel that religious faith uses to burn people's intellect to the ground.
I like the way you put that. Snaps for creative writing!

(01-02-2018 11:50 AM)mordant Wrote:  In any event, I'm not sure god's arbitrariness is any sort of argument, as a theist will just have the riposte that society (which we unbelievers generally allege is the ACTUAL source of morality) is also arbitrary. It has in the past 150 years changed its mind about slavery, indentured servitude, women's suffrage, gay marriage, skirt lengths, and a bunch of other things. Often in ways that induce pearl-clutching spasms in believers.
During the time period you mentioned, the Bible bangers think that nothing has changed, so that means that slavery is ok, women belong in the kitchen while pregnant, gays should be killed as well as disobedient children. So it seems that modern human society is more moral than the Hebrew storm god YHWH. Go figure.

(01-02-2018 11:50 AM)mordant Wrote:  There's nothing wrong with having the flexibility to incorporate new moral insights and thus reduce human suffering. Moral evolution is a feature, not a bug. I understand that the arbitrariness you're citing for the Christian god is TRULY arbitrary, it's well into "because I said so -- and I can squash youse like a bug if you gotta problem wit dat or sumptin'" territory.
Yes, exactly. When Billy Bob tells us he’s fine with that threat, I have to think he’s praising a master/slave relationship.

(01-02-2018 11:50 AM)mordant Wrote:  But that distinction is lost on fundamentalists, who so desperately want to be TOLD what is right and wrong, what is to be done or not done, as they must be spared the personal responsibility of FIGURING OUT those things and owning their own moral views. And, who have such a deeply pessimistic view of their fellow man -- that we are so bereft of moral judgment or perception that we would certainly pursue a race to the bottom without the "restraining influence" of the "holy spirit" and his church in the world.

In any case, actual, societal morality by definition is subjective and mutable, and I have no issue with that. It's intersubjective enough and stable enough to be extremely useful in spite of being a bit squishy.
When Billy Bob and his followers say that there is no morality without god, I worry. If my (or you) arguments to them proved to be convincing, without baby Jesus to tell them it’s wrong, there would be nothing stopping them from falling into a life of hedonism, debauchery, and mass murder! I don’t want that[/B] on my conscience!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Rachel's post
01-02-2018, 12:11 PM
RE: What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 11:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 11:31 AM)kim Wrote:  No in between - really Tomas? And who are you to decide this for another?

The dictionary, and common uses of the term decide what they mean, they provide the taxonomy, not me. Yours and other dislike of the terms, doesn't negate their meanings.

Nope. Not true AT ALL. We interpret what something means, and while it may be similar for many words, in this case you're dead wrong. But thanks for your PP (Papal Pronouncements). If you stomp your foot, it help to make people think you're serious. We know you're not. You're here to insult and for the attention.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2018, 12:35 PM
What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 11:55 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 11:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You can disregard my last post, because I missed this response.

I went back through our chain of responses, and wasn't able to find the question you asked me?

Can you repeat it.

Sure.

If there is such a thing as "objective morality", whatever that may mean to you, and we discovered that torturing babies was objectively moral, would you update your own opinion on this matter? Or would you still say it is wrong, even though it has been objectively determined to be moral?


Remember the context was defined in my example. It’s wasn’t merely torturing babies, but torturing babies just for fun.

I have trouble imagining your scenario, I have no idea what it would look like to determine that this was moral.

The idea of objectively determining it to be moral, is incomprehensible in my view, and therefore I don’t know how to answer your question.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: