Sunday School

[Mcc1789Participant]

_Robert_: Why does it make no sense? If the human race went existed, it might mean no morality. If other creatures like us exist though, who knows? I’m not making a religious argument for morality. I too am an atheist.

Simon Paynton: Complexity can just mean that it’s complicated, as in what’s moral in a situation isn’t always easy. It doesn’t have to mean conflicting (though opinions on what’s moral do obviously conflict). Many judgments can be based on facts, as in they are taken into account. That isn’t the same as saying their judgments are factual themselves though.

Yes, that is moral realism. I’m not sure why this is strange though. Not thought through how? It is not a uniquely religious view-there are many secular types of moral realism. In my view it’s based on things which are properties of the universe, like pain and pleasure, which is different.

Do any of the people in those situations not want happiness, etc.? No. Rather, the problem is they are denying others’ right to it.

[_Robert_Participant]

My point is that our “objective” morality would  necessarily become absolute and universal and not of our minds if we obtained it from a god. So a theist really can’t have objective reality.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@mcc1789 – if “objective morality” is that which is based on facts, or a response to facts, then can you name a situation where morality is not objective?

@tom sarbeck – ““dead” is metaphor. What say you to the hypothesis that every word in a language is metaphor?”

– I don’t think that words and metaphors are the same.  A metaphor is when one thing can be used as a model or analogy for another because it shows the same features or structure in an accessible way.  A word is a simple label or name for something, an arbitrary string of letters that could be changed to any other arbitrary string of letters and still mean the same thing.  A metaphor has to be specific, and it has features and a structure; a word is an arbitrary atom of meaning.

Steven Hawking seems to be saying that philosophy is dead because it has not kept up with the latest science; however, philosophy is not all about science, so I think this is a limited point of view.  What’s more, he’s being philosophical when he makes his points, so the idea seems like a bit of a blooper.

[Mcc1789Participant]

Simon Paynton: Divine commands come to mind.

[Mcc1789Participant]

_Robert_ : Divine command theory is actually a form of ethical subjectivism, because it is still based on a mind-God’s. Even if in effect it could also be universal and absolute. You’re right that a theist can’t really have objective morality using it.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 3 months ago by  Mcc1789.

[NoelParticipant]

@ Reg: Plato’s Cave tattooed on your back… That’s one of the most awesome things I’ve ever heard. My son was stuck on this for a Philosophy 101 assignment. Asked me to read the chapter and help him out. About the only thing about philosophy I’ve ever read. Read it again recently and come to find out my understanding of the “Allogory of the Cave” was completely wrong. Having it tattooed to your back, where you can’t see it, is just great!

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@mcc1789 – “Divine commands come to mind.”

– but this kind of morality is still based on facts (i.e. the fact that something is written in the Bible, Qu’ran etc.).

The most convincing explanation of objective morality that I have come across is that “objective” means the opposite of “subjective” – i.e. it doesn’t depend on the point of view of any one person, or small group, but instead is held by the entire “universe” or world of the individual.

This is the “view from nowhere” or equivalently, the “view from everywhere”.  In effect, this means a homogenous group-wide morality that the individual is born into (it’s pre-existing) and (human psychology being what it is) subscribes to and internalises as being completely natural.  So, to the individual, this morality is universal, and already exists before they were born.  It’s also impartial: all like people are treated alike: a moral system cannot be arbitrarily applied otherwise it is not much of a moral system.

So Judge Judy is a good example of objective morality, because she is impartial, and she represents the homogenous morality of the individual’s universe or group: the US legal system and US ethics.

From here, if one’s group has a monotheistic God set up as a cosmic policeman, it’s a natural next step to say that God’s objective morality (the moral laws of the universe) is that of your group.

[Mcc1789Participant]

The Bible or Quran is just the medium where it’s recorded, not the course of the morals themselves. Judge Judy could be an example of applying an objective morality, assuming you feel US ethics and laws represent moral facts. I know some theists do think God simply passes on an objective morality, but isn’t the source, which escapes the Euthyphro Dilemma. Their position isn’t the most popular though, likely because it diminishes God. All this is pretty confusing though, and I’m likely not explaining it well. Here’s some links to a site that explains moral realism/anti-realism in philosophy.
http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_realism.html
http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_anti-realism.html

[_Robert_Participant]

I agree Simon, that is the way I typically use the terms. What is interesting too me is how a theist can claim anything about moral values based on the very poor holy books they quote. You can pretty much make anything be bad OR good.

Is it “Honor thy Father and Mother”, or is it as in Luke 14.26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple”   ???

So theists will undoubtedly put a spin on the message in Luke, well then immediately it is subjective.

These books were just capturing the morals of the day or were even worse trying to control people for political gains.

 

 

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@mcc1789 – “The Bible or Quran is just the medium where it’s recorded, not the course of the morals themselves.”

But when religious people do their moral reasoning, it’s based on the fact of things being recorded in the Bible or Qu’ran, or the fact of what their priest of imam has said.  There is nothing else for them to go on: whatever they go on is a fact to them.

“assuming you feel US ethics and laws represent moral facts.”

– so what is a moral fact, in this context?

@_Robert_ – I actually think that under this definition, religious morality is in theory an example of objective morality, since it’s handed down from an impartial objective judge.  However, in practice, as you say, this idea is laughable, since what we get is so confusing and contradictory, at least when we get to the details.  I think it’s interesting that the fundamental moral framework of Christianity (as given by Jesus) is “love God, and love your neighbour as yourself”.  This is actually a statement of “second-personal morality” or the interpersonal morality which evolved when our ancestors lived in small groups, and hey presto, this is also one of the few elements of human morality that is universal, and therefore, by the definition I just gave, objective.

It’s very unfortunate that this power structure can so easily be hijacked for other purposes.  Apparently one of Isis’ recruiting tactics is to appeal to ordinary Muslims’ deeply ingrained sense of moral shame for (… you name it) – joining Isis is made out to be a way of purifying the individual so that they get to heaven, kind of like the Final Solution.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@mcc1789 – “moral realism”

– I’d say that this idea, which I consider preposterous, has grown up because of the psychological effects of the kind of moral objectivity I have described.  In times gone by, i.e. before the late 20th century, it felt to people that their morality was a natural part of the fabric of the universe.  Even now, most people just assume that the one they were born into is the one true morality.

[_Robert_Participant]

The golden rule is simply a statement of empathy that occurs naturally in man or beast from time to time. I know the xtians like to claim the idea, however the notion of shu (empathy) is an important virtue in Confucius’ moral philosophy almost 500 years before jeebus.

The early humans living the 150K years or so BC (before Confucius)…well I am pretty sure they employed empathy as well.  I agree this would fall under the definition of objective if only there wasn’t thousands of moral exceptions to that rule, Personal survival can conflict directly with the golden rule and that is your ultimate obligation in most cases.

[Mcc1789Participant]

Simon Paynton: Sure, but ultimately it comes from God, they think, and thus his mind, not something that’s independent of him.

As for an example of a moral fact, perhaps “Murder is wrong, no matter what you think of it”.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Thanks Noel. Not everyone gets the irony of me not being able to see the reality of it. I suppose I should start another “Atheist Tattoo” page…….and post the tattoo with the story behind it…..the back story if you will 🙂

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@_Robert_ – I wouldn’t say that’s exactly the Golden Rule.  I’d say it means, rather, that everyone in a given situation, including yourself, is to be treated as they deserve.  Be fair to everyone.  It’s a definition of fairness, which means sharing out the “love” in a just and generous way – a balance between one’s own interest and that of others.  So if one’s personal survival was threatened – it would be fair to take appropriate action.

All mammals and birds have evolved empathy (apparently convergently) for the purpose of looking after their young (we assume).  It’s interesting that crocodiles are the only reptiles to look after their young, and they’re also much more socially advanced than other reptiles.  They display empathy-like traits such as a communicative repertoire, and they congregate in peaceful groups.

@mcc1789 – I think you’re dancing on the head of a pin now.  For a religious person, the universe is not independent of God – it was made by God, and according to them, God is all around.  And surely the mind of God is the very definition of “objective” for a religious person.  You said that Judge Judy was objective – so God must be Xtra objective.

“an example of a moral fact, perhaps “Murder is wrong, no matter what you think of it”.”

– but what makes “murder is wrong” a fact?  In what sense is it the case, that murder is wrong?  How can this fact be discovered, made visible, or tested?

[Author]

Posts