Question for nonbelievers, atheists, seekers

[RobbyPants]

LuftWaffle, sorry about the double-post, but I thought about something after the previous post.

Lets say for sake of discussion that you were able to definitively prove that moral relativism is Bad and carries negative consequences, and a higher authority derived from God was Good and removed those consequences. Now, from there, you could have two logical conclusions:

• God, and thus, a higher authority exists, removing the negative consequences (good!)
• God does not exists, and we have to deal with those consequences (bad!)

Now, if you assume that the first stance must be true because the second stance is bad, that is an argument from adverse consequences. Just because position 2 is bad doesn't prove it logically incorrect.

That being said, I didn't stop believing in God because I wanted to embrace moral relativism (not that I'm saying you accused me of that), but rather, I opened up to other alternatives when I could no longer make myself believe in God. I'm hoping this post clears up my stance more than my long-winded post before! 

[LuftWaffle]

Hi RobbiePants,

 

What does your nickname mean, by the way? Or is it something randomly generated?
It's kinda funny sounding

 

Anyway, before I respond to your post, I just want to say thanks for your nice demeanor in your responses. So often debates between Christians and non-Christians involve a great deal of snarkyness and condescension. So this is quite refreshing for me. Clearly you've given this topic a lot of thought and I want you to know that it's appreciated.

I'd like to respond to your last point first.

Now, if you assume that the first stance must be true because the second stance is bad, that is an argument from adverse consequences. Just because position 2 is bad doesn't prove it logically incorrect.

This is a fair point, but I believe my line of reasoning is slightly different. If I lay out my argument formally it would look like this.

 

1. Morality is either objective or subjective
2. Objective morality best explains how human beings experience morality
3. Therefore morality is more probably objective

 

This is different from saying:

1. Morality is either objective or subjective
2. Subjective morality would lead to undesirable consequences
3. Therefore morality is objective.

 

The latter I agree is not a sound argument as it is, as you rightly put, an argument from undesirable consequences. The former argument is an inference from the best explanation which is a valid argument and I believe a sound one.

 

With regard to the inference from best explanation I assume you agree with premis 1. Morality is either objective or subjective.
So lets talk about premise 2 which I think is the one you're likely to take exception with, but before I do so, perhaps it'll be helpful if I define the terms objective and subjective morality.

 

Consider the statement "murder is wrong"
According to the objectivist theory of ethics this statement says something about the object in view, namely "murder". It says that "murder" has the property of wrongness.

 

According to the subjectivist theory of ethics the statement "murder is wrong" doesn't say anything about the object (murder) but instead is a statement about the observing subject. According to moral subjectivism "murder is wrong" simply means "I don't like murder" or "we in our culture prefer that people don't murder" or "ugh, murder!"

 

In other words, if moral objectivism is true then certain moral values and duties are true in a mind independent way, or for example, torturing babies for the fun of it, is wrong whether people believe it is wrong or not.

 

Now you might say that the fact that in some cultures raping your wife isn't considered wrong would disprove objectivism. This isn't necessarily so, but this is where it gets a little complicated so bear with me.

 

Consider two cultures:

Culture A believes that the body you die with, is the body that you take into the afterlife. They believe that you have to make a pilgrimage in the afterlife battling various monsters and facing various challenges. Once you've completed your pilgrimage you'll find yourself in a blissful place of feasting and singing songs with the ancestors that went before.
As a result of this belief, Culture A tends to kill their tribesman once they reach the age of fifty. At fifty, their bodies and minds are still in good shape so they can face the trials of the pilgrimage better. At eighty, they're too frail and weak and their chances are much worse that they'll make it through the pilgrimage.

As such this tribe believes it's morally right to kill anybody older than 50.

 

Culture B doesn't believe this. They believe that once you die, your spirit lives on, but your body remains. As such this culture takes care of their elderly, making their last days as physically comfortable as they can.

 

So, you might say, "See, morality is relative!", but the question here isn't a question of morality but epistemology(knowledge). It's not that culture A's morality is the opposite of culture B. Both cultures actually believe that one ought to take care of the elderly. Both cultures want what's best for their elderly. The difference is whether culture A's epistomology about the afterlife is correct or not.
The difference then isn't the nature of morality (since both groups believe that they're helping their elderly), but rather who's epistomology is correct.

 

To use an example for the physical realm: Some people believed the earth is flat, some people believe the earth is round. This isn't proof that the shape of the earth is subjective, instead it, like morality, is a question of epistomology. Those who believe the earth is flat is simply mistaken in their knowledge. Objectivists believe morality works the same way. If a person or group of people believe that torturing babies for fun is right, it's not that morality is subjective, but rather that they are mistaken in believing that torturing babies for fun isn't morally abhorrent.

This seems to comport with our moral experience. If a psychopath goes on a killing spree and shows no remorse, because the psychopath doesn't believe that what they are doing is wrong, we don't give them leniency. If the Nazis (yeah, I'm Godwinning the thread) believe that killing the jews is right, we say they are mistaken and what they did was wrong even though they belong to a different culture.

 

 

It is true that nothing would be right or wrong in the cosmic sense of the word, and you could substitute "fashionable" for "right", "moral", or "good", and you'd be largely right. That being said, society can still codify rules and laws based on what they feel is right and wrong (even it they aren't appealing to a higher authority to make that distinction), and those rules make the "morality" actionable, and that's the important part.

If you think about it, this statement in a way is more consistent with objectivism than subjectivism. The very fact that people behave as if morality is objective, despite their belief that there is no such thing as right and wrong(given subjectivism) seems to lend credence to the notion that subjectivism isn't the best explanation.

 

I think I'll leave it there and give you a chance to respond. This post is getting too long and it's a bit technical. Ethics is a very difficult subject and I'm already getting a brain-cramp, besides my other pains and aches...I ran out of talent on my mountain bike yesterday and had a massive crash so I'm pretty tender today.

 

Cheers

[RobbyPants]

Hi RobbiePants,

 

What does your nickname mean, by the way? Or is it something randomly generated?

It's kinda funny sounding

Short version: it's an inside joke between my friends and me. Longer version:

My name is Rob. I was once telling a friend about watching one guy jokingly tease another by calling him "Mr. Fancy Shmancy Pants". This lead to him calling me "Robby Pants". The nickname stuck within a group of friends. I would often get called variations like "Mr. Pants", "The Pants", or "Pantelones". When we were at my wedding rehearsal (the above-mentioned friend was my best man), the Pastor was asking how we'd like to be announced (Mr. & Mrs. ___, Rob & Katie ___, etc). The best man loudly announced "Mr. & Mrs. The Pants"). 

So, I tend to use the nick name on various forums.

Anyway, before I respond to your post, I just want to say thanks for your nice demeanor in your responses. So often debates between Christians and non-Christians involve a great deal of snarkyness and condescension. So this is quite refreshing for me. Clearly you've given this topic a lot of thought and I want you to know that it's appreciated.

I'd like to respond to your last point first.

You're welcome. Thank you, as well. It does make these conversations easier to have. Otherwise, I tend to get anxious, start speed reading, only respond to half the post, and return snark as well (which of course, only degrades things further).

With regard to the inference from best explanation I assume you agree with premis 1. Morality is either objective or subjective.

So lets talk about premise 2 which I think is the one you're likely to take exception with, but before I do so, perhaps it'll be helpful if I define the terms objective and subjective morality.

 

Consider the statement "murder is wrong"

According to the objectivist theory of ethics this statement says something about the object in view, namely "murder". It says that "murder" has the property of wrongness.

 

According to the subjectivist theory of ethics the statement "murder is wrong" doesn't say anything about the object (murder) but instead is a statement about the observing subject. According to moral subjectivism "murder is wrong" simply means "I don't like murder" or "we in our culture prefer that people don't murder" or "ugh, murder!"

 

In other words, if moral objectivism is true then certain moral values and duties are true in a mind independent way, or for example, torturing babies for the fun of it, is wrong whether people believe it is wrong or not.

My issue with this is that you are limiting the subjective view on murder to "I don't like it". While in the strictest sense of the word, this is true; however, there are a lot of pragmatic reasons for not allowing it, regardless of whether or not you can point to a higher authority.

Remember early how I mentioned that we get more if we work together? The only way to insure that society can function is if we all agree to work together. Anything that undermines our ability to work together is a threat to society. So, laws against things like theft, murder, assault, rape, and breaking contracts are all important to keeping society from collapsing.

 

It is true that nothing would be right or wrong in the cosmic sense of the word, and you could substitute "fashionable" for "right", "moral", or "good", and you'd be largely right. That being said, society can still codify rules and laws based on what they feel is right and wrong (even it they aren't appealing to a higher authority to make that distinction), and those rules make the "morality" actionable, and that's the important part.

If you think about it, this statement in a way is more consistent with objectivism than subjectivism. The very fact that people behave as if morality is objective, despite their belief that there is no such thing as right and wrong(given subjectivism) seems to lend credence to the notion that subjectivism isn't the best explanation.

Yes and no. Wanting a law actionable means that you want it to work. Now, you could say that objectivity provides a concrete reason to want enforcement, whereas subjectivity only provides a reason based on how people feel. I would agree with that just on the context of objectivity vs subjectivity, but I would object to it based on what I said about people wanting to make it possible to work together in large groups.

Now, you could say "but the desire to work in groups is subjective", and it is, but it's a decision that the vast majority of society seems to agree with, by and large. We may disagree on this law or that law as individuals, but by and large, almost all of us agree to play ball with everyone else.

 

I think I'll leave it there and give you a chance to respond. This post is getting too long and it's a bit technical. Ethics is a very difficult subject and I'm already getting a brain-cramp, besides my other pains and aches...I ran out of talent on my mountain bike yesterday and had a massive crash so I'm pretty tender today.

 

Cheers

Yeah, these things do tend to get long, don't they?

Ouch! Get better!

[Diatheosis]

very nice conversation going on here, my humble respect for all particiPANTS (sorry Rob, just could not help it coming  !)

 

It's kind of challenging to get beyond the veil of moral objectivity, as it leaves many questions unanswered. Sure, they can be left that way, but this thread tries to reveal some logic in seeing things in on way or another.

 

If we take it moral objectivity is not the right option, where does that lead us? Well, that has certainly been discussed here in length, which has been inspiring to follow, but not knowing any specific goal leaves the blanket empty, so to speak. A person not believing in universal moral values is still going to make choices according to priorities set by themselves. Is there, or is there not a set of values, ie. moral we ought to follow? Because if there is not, and this is the reason I suppose examples dealing with apparent wrongdoings like killing etc. are brought up when talking of this, how do we justify anything we do or don't do in life? Saying taking someone's life, when life is often considered something unique, makes the point better than saying drinking a cup of coffee in the morning is morally wrong.

 

Just because majority of people hold something ok does not clarify the subject, nor justify it. I find relativity does not carry to the end but leaves the question unanswered. I'd like to hear, though, how do you see this resolved. Because I am curious to hear how this can be answered.

 

God bless.

[RobbyPants]

very nice conversation going on here, my humble respect for all particiPANTS (sorry Rob, just could not help it coming  !)

 

It's kind of challenging to get beyond the veil of moral objectivity, as it leaves many questions unanswered. Sure, they can be left that way, but this thread tries to reveal some logic in seeing things in on way or another.

No, I know exactly how you feel. I used to feel the same way.

 

If we take it moral objectivity is not the right option, where does that lead us? Well, that has certainly been discussed here in length, which has been inspiring to follow, but not knowing any specific goal leaves the blanket empty, so to speak. A person not believing in universal moral values is still going to make choices according to priorities set by themselves. Is there, or is there not a set of values, ie. moral we ought to follow? Because if there is not, and this is the reason I suppose examples dealing with apparent wrongdoings like killing etc. are brought up when talking of this, how do we justify anything we do or don't do in life? Saying taking someone's life, when life is often considered something unique, makes the point better than saying drinking a cup of coffee in the morning is morally wrong.

I would argue that not whether killing a person is deemed wrong isn't just a decision someone makes on their own; it's something society comes up with, for reasons of protecting the cohesiveness of the group.

Now, that's not to say that society couldn't come up with the idea (for whatever reason) that drinking coffee was wrong. I would be super sad if they did! In this case, it wouldn't make sense, as it wouldn't be protecting the group, but it is certainly possible that it could deeply offend the majority of people for some reason or another. That being said, in the case of coffee instead of murder, this also seems like the type of social law that might eventually get overturned, if people gradually started accepting coffee or coffee drinkers.

This, parallels quite nicely American society's views on homosexual marriage. A couple of decades ago, it was completely infeasible. Slowly (and much more quickly in the past several years), public opinion has been changing on this. Of course, most of the opposition to gay marriage comes from people who believe in an absolute morality, so the analogy might start to fall apart at this point.

Still, issues like "murder" tend to stay taboo/illegal throughout generations of a society, but other issues like "wearing hats in buildings", "women voting", and "gay marriage" tend to change over time. I would posit this has a lot to do with the former being a danger to the group and the latter not.

 

Just because majority of people hold something ok does not clarify the subject, nor justify it. I find relativity does not carry to the end but leaves the question unanswered. I'd like to hear, though, how do you see this resolved. Because I am curious to hear how this can be answered.

 

God bless.

I would agree. I think a better metric is whether or not it's a harm to the group. Now, that distinction is also subjective, but I feel it's a better metric from a functional standpoint. Merely looking at group consensus is looking at people's feelings. Looking at whether or not something would harm the group ties the issue to something a bit more concrete.

[Diatheosis]

But what does it matter if something is harmful or not? If everything evolved for no meaning (reasons there are, but the meaning requires deeper perception) and we are on a drift, how do we justify doing harm etc. is wrong? The ultimate question of life. This of course does not mean I think all who do not believe in God etc. should not care what they do, I am just interested in how someone else sees the big picture because when I was an atheist I thought there's no meaning in life in that sense, than just to live it. Sure, that can offer you many beautiful experiences too, it's not about that. But if we don't believe it all has a meaning to it, that our life is not just a fleeting shadow in the blank universe, so to say, then why do we carry on except that we as human beings have a natural tendency to sustain our life activities to protect life. What is our goal? I am always very interested in hearing any other perspectives on this one.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Diatheosis

[RobbyPants]

But what does it matter if something is harmful or not? If everything evolved for no meaning (reasons there are, but the meaning requires deeper perception) and we are on a drift, how do we justify doing harm etc. is wrong? The ultimate question of life. This of course does not mean I think all who do not believe in God etc. should not care what they do, I am just interested in how someone else sees the big picture because when I was an atheist I thought there's no meaning in life in that sense, than just to live it. Sure, that can offer you many beautiful experiences too, it's not about that. But if we don't believe it all has a meaning to it, that our life is not just a fleeting shadow in the blank universe, so to say, then why do we carry on except that we as human beings have a natural tendency to sustain our life activities to protect life. What is our goal? I am always very interested in hearing any other perspectives on this one.

There are different reasons to not do harm. Many are subjective (for example, I'm not the type of person to want to inflict harm on others. Obviously, that's just me, and I can't speak for everyone). Some are objective. As I mentioned earlier, our quality of life, both collectively and individually increases when we work together. We cannot have an expectation of working together if we haven't already agreed not to hurt each other.

As for "the big picture", I don't really have any sort of big, universal picture, other than people working together better to achieve more and improve everyone's lives. As far as my own personal "meaning of life": basically, it's just enjoying the time I have here. I only have so much time, so I might as well spend as much of it being happy as I can. For me, this involves spending time with my wife, kids, and friends, working on the computer (writing software and Doom mods), messing around on the computer, listening to music, simply laughing, and a few other things.

I'll admit, it was weird getting used to a world view that didn't involve a grand plan that I couldn't understand and immortality in paradise. Still, for me, simply wanting it a lot wasn't enough for me to think I could make it real.

[Diatheosis]

Naturally, I agree with you on that we should not do harm and it's nice to know there's at least one more person in the world who gives his best shot for life. Living in the moment is also a skill to be appreciated and I really hope more people, including Christians figured that out.

 

The interesting issue is, if one can actually be in Christ in spirit, even though the mind did not conceive it that way. Probably there is a degree of relevance to it, but I'd like to think Christ was already preparing me before I got really saved. I certainly was looking for His presence too in my seeking period although so many other things obscured the vision I had.

 

Because of the idea of us having been created in God's image, one would tend to think God is doing things in our life before we get to know Him personally, which would be through Jesus who delivered us that revelation and offered His life for ours. I don't meant to preach here, just opening up the thinking and philosophy perhaps many believers share, for some comparison.

 

What does it take to make it real then? I agree hoping in many cases leaves some crucial flaws, although it's completely scriptural. But if one does not believe in the scripture it does not say that much either. Experience usually makes a difference but has to be profound one, something that cannot be explained by chance or any other logical way. And even that may fade away when life goes on. So we need to maintain and renew our experience on a daily basis.

[RobbyPants]

Naturally, I agree with you on that we should not do harm and it's nice to know there's at least one more person in the world who gives his best shot for life. Living in the moment is also a skill to be appreciated and I really hope more people, including Christians figured that out.

Thanks!  

 

The interesting issue is, if one can actually be in Christ in spirit, even though the mind did not conceive it that way. Probably there is a degree of relevance to it, but I'd like to think Christ was already preparing me before I got really saved. I certainly was looking for His presence too in my seeking period although so many other things obscured the vision I had.

I know some Christians believed that. My wife used to believe that in order to get into Heaven, all you had to do was believe something sufficiently "Christ-like". She figured many other religions were just following their own interpretation of God. I can understand that view point, given that despite Christianity being the largest religion world-wide, it still only counts 35% of the population as its followers. Thinking that, at best, two out of three people are going to Hell, mostly for the fault of being born in the wrong country is extremely troubling. So, if she can chip away at that number, I think it made her feel better.

Now, she doesn't even believe in Hell anymore, but that's a different topic entirely.

 

What does it take to make it real then? I agree hoping in many cases leaves some crucial flaws, although it's completely scriptural. But if one does not believe in the scripture it does not say that much either.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you explain it?

Experience usually makes a difference but has to be profound one, something that cannot be explained by chance or any other logical way. And even that may fade away when life goes on. So we need to maintain and renew our experience on a daily basis.

I disagree. A lot of people will claim something supernatural about an experience, even if it can easily be explained by chance or logic. I've had numerous conversations with my mother on this topic, let alone other people.

As a general rule, don't ever underestimate a person's psychological need to prove themselves right.

[LuftWaffle]

 

Hi RobbiePants,

 

What does your nickname mean, by the way? Or is it something randomly generated?

It's kinda funny sounding

Short version: it's an inside joke between my friends and me. Longer version:

My name is Rob. I was once telling a friend about watching one guy jokingly tease another by calling him "Mr. Fancy Shmancy Pants". This lead to him calling me "Robby Pants". The nickname stuck within a group of friends. I would often get called variations like "Mr. Pants", "The Pants", or "Pantelones". When we were at my wedding rehearsal (the above-mentioned friend was my best man), the Pastor was asking how we'd like to be announced (Mr. & Mrs. ___, Rob & Katie ___, etc). The best man loudly announced "Mr. & Mrs. The Pants"). 

So, I tend to use the nick name on various forums.

Anyway, before I respond to your post, I just want to say thanks for your nice demeanor in your responses. So often debates between Christians and non-Christians involve a great deal of snarkyness and condescension. So this is quite refreshing for me. Clearly you've given this topic a lot of thought and I want you to know that it's appreciated.

I'd like to respond to your last point first.

You're welcome. Thank you, as well. It does make these conversations easier to have. Otherwise, I tend to get anxious, start speed reading, only respond to half the post, and return snark as well (which of course, only degrades things further).

With regard to the inference from best explanation I assume you agree with premis 1. Morality is either objective or subjective.

So lets talk about premise 2 which I think is the one you're likely to take exception with, but before I do so, perhaps it'll be helpful if I define the terms objective and subjective morality.

 

Consider the statement "murder is wrong"

According to the objectivist theory of ethics this statement says something about the object in view, namely "murder". It says that "murder" has the property of wrongness.

 

According to the subjectivist theory of ethics the statement "murder is wrong" doesn't say anything about the object (murder) but instead is a statement about the observing subject. According to moral subjectivism "murder is wrong" simply means "I don't like murder" or "we in our culture prefer that people don't murder" or "ugh, murder!"

 

In other words, if moral objectivism is true then certain moral values and duties are true in a mind independent way, or for example, torturing babies for the fun of it, is wrong whether people believe it is wrong or not.

My issue with this is that you are limiting the subjective view on murder to "I don't like it". While in the strictest sense of the word, this is true; however, there are a lot of pragmatic reasons for not allowing it, regardless of whether or not you can point to a higher authority.

Remember early how I mentioned that we get more if we work together? The only way to insure that society can function is if we all agree to work together. Anything that undermines our ability to work together is a threat to society. So, laws against things like theft, murder, assault, rape, and breaking contracts are all important to keeping society from collapsing.

 

 

It is true that nothing would be right or wrong in the cosmic sense of the word, and you could substitute "fashionable" for "right", "moral", or "good", and you'd be largely right. That being said, society can still codify rules and laws based on what they feel is right and wrong (even it they aren't appealing to a higher authority to make that distinction), and those rules make the "morality" actionable, and that's the important part.

If you think about it, this statement in a way is more consistent with objectivism than subjectivism. The very fact that people behave as if morality is objective, despite their belief that there is no such thing as right and wrong(given subjectivism) seems to lend credence to the notion that subjectivism isn't the best explanation.

 

Yes and no. Wanting a law actionable means that you want it to work. Now, you could say that objectivity provides a concrete reason to want enforcement, whereas subjectivity only provides a reason based on how people feel. I would agree with that just on the context of objectivity vs subjectivity, but I would object to it based on what I said about people wanting to make it possible to work together in large groups.

Now, you could say "but the desire to work in groups is subjective", and it is, but it's a decision that the vast majority of society seems to agree with, by and large. We may disagree on this law or that law as individuals, but by and large, almost all of us agree to play ball with everyone else.

 

I think I'll leave it there and give you a chance to respond. This post is getting too long and it's a bit technical. Ethics is a very difficult subject and I'm already getting a brain-cramp, besides my other pains and aches...I ran out of talent on my mountain bike yesterday and had a massive crash so I'm pretty tender today.

 

Cheers

Yeah, these things do tend to get long, don't they?

Ouch! Get better!

 

 

Hi Robbie,

 

Apologies for taking so long to respond. I've been fairly busy lately so I haven't had a chance to think about your response.

 

In terms of what you said: I think one can grant the practical side of the matter, that there may be practical reasons behind certain moral preferences, but that only adds a new subjective criterium to our moral preferences. What's moral then,  isn't merely what we prefer, but is what we prefer and isn't impractical. Or put another way, "murder is wrong as long as it's impractical to commit it".

 

If you remember, my argument isn't so much that if there is no higher authority, then all hell would break loose, which would be an argument from undesirable consequences. Instead I'm trying look at our everyday moral experiences and make an assessment as to which moral theory best fits with our moral experiences.

 

As such it seems that humans being are ends in themselves, not mere means to an end. If morality is reduced to the view of preferences which have practical benefit for society as a whole then it appears that human beings are mere means to an end. The end being a certain societal ideal. If the greater number of people in a group determines that killing the rest will better society and is practically viable, then suddenly, such a goal would have to be considered morally good.

 

Moreover, what's better for society and practically viable depends on who you ask. The Nazis preferred and practically pursued a society where there were no people that they deemed inferior. The idea was to create a better society based on giving natural selection a hand. To them society excluded certain ethnicities which they deemed "live not worthy of life".

Some groups might prefer and practically pursue a different ideal, such as a society with a vastly reduced human population to reduce the strain on natural resources (think Georgia Guide Stones) To such a group society might refer to some wealthy elite.

Other groups may not even consider human beings as that important and that what's beneficial to the earth as a whole is more important than merely benefitting a single species of primate. Such people might refer to you an me as selfish speciesists. To them society means the entire planet.

A pro-choice activist might exclude foetuses of a certain age from "society" and thus view the ending of their lives as practically viable.

 

To summarise one can say that loving a child vs torturing a child becomes morally equivalent, the only difference being that the latter is of less practical benefit(whatever that may be) to the greater society(however one chooses to define it) and thus, shouldn't be preferred by the individual who ought to look out for their own long term interests.

 

I'm not so sure that such a view matches up to the way we look at our fellow human beings and the way we experience morality on a day-to-day basis.