muppeteer wrote: » You are correct, I have no means to say it is objectively wrong to go human field shooting. I do have the means to say it is subjectively wrong, as I have a human mind with which to do so. I and many others operate on this basis so it isn't nobody. On what basis do you make the assertion that "It isn't subjective" other than your own opinion? Most who do have subjective ethics are not raving nutters so we don't go human field shooting or differ too much from the normal social norms in our societies. We'd be hard to identify on the street from anyone else from our behavior or personality without getting into a heavy philosophical discussion. You are making an appeal to how you yourself see ethics in the world as evidence of how ethics in the world work. You will see why that won't be convincing to me or others. I would also point out the irony in using an appeal to how you subjectively see ethics as evidence of objective ethics:)
muppeteer wrote: » Mathematics is based on axioms and logic. There is very little that could be called subjective when anyone or anything could arrive at the same mathematical conclusion completely independently provided the same chosen axioms are used. The same is not true for ethics and morals as the very axioms themselves are the important part. OK I'll pretend a god exists for a moment. If a god is directly informing you by beaming it perfectly into your brain what is the objective moral standard then perhaps you can know the objective moral standard. If that same perfect information is shown to you/read to you from a book then you will inevitably interpret it in your own mind, and in that instant it has become subjective. The fact that an objective moral standard could exist if a god exists does nothing to solve the problem of you subjectively interpreting it just as much as I subjectively interpret my own ethics.
muppeteer wrote: » There is also a problem in where the god derived the objective moral standard. We may or may not want to go down this rabbit hole:) I'm unsure how this analogy fits with what you were saying. Lucy subjectively thinks she is not a dog. Lucy nor a god get a free pass if they themselves have decided what the moral standard is.
muppeteer wrote: » You are appealing again to how people appear to operate to you. Even if ALL people appeared to operate on objective morals it lends no support to this matching reality. For example people appearing to operate on the assumption that Hindu gods are real gives no support to the proposition that Hindu gods are real.
muppeteer wrote: » They are useful because they help us be nicer to each other. To have respect for human life as one day I may depend on another human having respect for my life. They are absolutely not meaningless as the rights help us build the society we wish to build, a farer, more humane society. Just because we choose this for ourselves without a god to dictate to us does not lessen the achievements of human rights in any way.
muppeteer wrote: » If a state denies these rights and liberties they are just as wrong to a human with a subjective ethical outlook as the human who thinks he has an objective moral outlook, who in practice has chosen his morals subjectively. You have this absolutely correct but I don't see this as a problem in the slightest. Can you help me understand why this is a problem for you?
John 3:16-21 wrote: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
muppeteer wrote: » It is possible to have subjective morals and apply them pretty absolutely without compromise. But this isn't trying to apply an obsolete morality though. This may be where you gain the impression that humanity operates on objective morals. Hell, if you met me in the street you could easily assume I operate on objective notions of right and wrong when I'm crying because somebody stole my ice cream. As an example, sex with a child was mentioned. I would view this as absolutely wrong and as presented this can never be justified as being an ethical choice. I make this judgment using my subjective assessment of what causes harm to other sapient beings. I make no appeal to a god or a natural universal morality of the universe.
muppeteer wrote: » I've only claimed that evolution explains our common empathy and much of our baser ethical behavior. It explains why we are somewhat uniform in our assessments of what is cruel and what is wrong. Culture plays a huge role in our ethical norms too though, so much so that our evolved base can be warped and diverted into all sorts of ethical positions, both good and bad.
muppeteer wrote: » I made no appeal to our evolved ethical abilities being any kind of objective standard. Can I have my cake back now?:) I'd consider myself a big old teccie but I'm afraid this analogy hasn't helped explain things.
muppeteer wrote: » Correct, I do have limited jurisdiction to claim anything is wrong. I have limited jurisdiction to enforce my ethical outlook on others. Generally this is fine and dandy as others don't bother me and I don't bother others. The only problem occurs is when we consider society as a whole. As a member of a society we do impose our ethical outlook on other members of that society. Usually for the protection and benefit of society. We do not have to appeal to an objective moral giver to give ourselves the right to do this. It is a form of self protection. We choose it for ourselves and when we deem it appropriate we use a big stick to get our own way.
muppeteer wrote: » TL;DR You assert that a human, subjectively appealing to an objective moral law, is somehow superior/different to a human subjectively appealing to a subjective ethical stance without showing why. You assert that humans operate under an objective moral law but have not shown this to be the case. You assert that having humans operate under an objective moral law somehow shows that an objective moral law exists, but you have not shown why this must be the case. You assert that an objective moral law must have a law giver, but have not shown why that must be the case. You assert that a moral law giver must be a god without showing why this must be. Even if you assume all the above is true, despite all the counter points, you still run into the Euthyphro dilemma.
muppeteer wrote: » I suppose I could clarify suspension as being something occurring that has never before been verified in an independent manner. Something that actually goes against all that we currently know/have verified, about the natural world. It isn't to say that our knowledge is complete or that such a thing could not conceptually happen if you have an extra universal god.
philologos wrote: » Thanks again for your response.
Ethics breaks without objectivity. That's precisely my point. If your opinion is just something in your head, it should have no bearing on how other people behave. If ethical truths are mind-independent reality, that is the point where we can actually begin to rebuke someone. What happens when one is rebuking someone saying "you should know better" is in fact an appeal to an objective standard of ethical behaviour between both parties. If you're claiming that right and wrong, good and evil are simply subjective, then we give up doing ethics, we might as well live in anarchy and allow everyone to do as they deem appropriate without curtailments.
I don't make the assertion that it isn't subjective. I've actually presented a number of arguments as to why it isn't subjective. Ethical subjectivity simply put does not make any sense given how humans actually behave and how things actually work in respect to right and wrong, good and evil.
And ethics works on the basis of utilising the conscience. I don't see what can be called subjective about ethical behaviour either given what I've already said about how humans really operate and on the basis of how humans really behave. The subjectivist approach, the one that atheism essentially by and large compels you to adopt, simply put doesn't conform with what is real in the world around us. I never said that an objective moral standard could exist. I'm saying that given the evidence around us, one does exist. The question as far as I can tell, is how do we account for it? The reasonable approach seems to be that there is an objective moral standard, and ultimately there is some reason as to what that standard exists. Or we could take the approach that there is no such thing as objective morality which as far as I can tell is a walk into denial.
Also, the analogy fits in in so far that although people might claim things about Lucy. Ultimately Lucy has the right to defend herself. Likewise, God has the right to tell mankind about Himself, and ultimately that is more authoritative than someone else talking about Him. Just as much as someone else talking about Lucy in a slanderous manner is less authoritative than Lucy defending herself. It is only fair to allow Lucy to defend herself, likewise it is fair to allow God to defend Himself against the slanderous comments that many make about Him. Of course there are limitations to this analogy. Lucy is a human. God is not a human, therefore there are some differences, but the general point stands.
No, it's not on how people appear to operate. It's on the basis of how people actually work in respect to ethical disputes, in this post, and my last two posts in fact. Also, I've not said that people work on the assumption that any gods are real. What I am saying is that people work on the basis that there is an objective standard of good and evil, even if many people want to run away from fully acknowledging its author.
Do they? By the by, doing what is good doesn't always mean being nice. In fact sometimes the doing the right thing can be construed as being nasty or indeed can work to the detriment of the person who is standing up for the right thing. There are countless examples of such situations in history. The thing is these principles (which were called universal by their proponents) are of zero value if nations ignore them. Indeed, the same problem in respect to objectivity arises in this. Who are the United Nations to say that Iran for example is failing in its human rights obligations? Why is their subjective moral opinion any better than what Iran has to say? Unless, that is that the United Nations are appealing to an objective standard to compel Iran to do the right thing. Economic sanctions are another way that the UN and other countries appeal to objective standards of ethical behaviour concerning human rights. In this case, it doesn't seem that world diplomacy even works on a subjective level. If it did, the UN would probably cease to exist and each country and indeed each constituent person in those countries would do what they felt was best. Probably countries would have no sufficient grounds for existence either if people were eager to be the core authority of what they should or should not do. Ultimately, if there is no means by which humans appeal to objectivity in ethical decision making, ethics goes out the window entirely.
Read what I've said above and you'll get a flat out picture of what I'm talking about. If people really subscribed to subjective morality, they would follow its principles. I.E - I have no grounds for claiming I am any more right concerning what is good and evil than you are. Likewise, the same is true of nations, oppression and anything else under the sun. If ethics were not based on anything mind-independent, we wouldn't give a damn about things that are evil in the fallen world around us. Each to their own, who is to say that is wrong? Simply put, it doesn't work, and it isn't real. Ultimately the assurance is that the author of the objective standard that we appeal to will judge on the basis of what these tyrants have done throughout their lives. Likewise, for those who do evil, God will judge. If we repent and acknowledge our evil through Jesus' death and resurrection then we can begin to live as God desired us to. Accountability from beginning to end. Atheism in so far as it denies an objective moral law giver is fundamentally stuck on this issue. Essentially moral subjectivism takes the lazy option and says, there's no such thing as right and wrong, make up whatever you like. It is an obvious form of denial about the truth. It assures me that Jesus really did tell the truth about man when He spoke about it:
It's logically inconsistent. One can't claim that things are objectively wrong when they are referring to subjectivity. Ultimately as far as you're concerned, when push comes to shove your opinion is no more valid than the one who disagrees with you, because you can't claim to an objective standard that gives it credence.
If someone stole your ice cream, even in that basic situation yes you would be. You'd be appealing to the notion that stealing an ice-cream from a child is objectively wrong. The know that that is the case, and that's why they are upset. Ultimately, I'd suspect that the thief knows it too. Humans can choose to do what is evil, it doesn't mean that they actually think it was the right thing to do. That's also a reason why our conscience can on occasions compel us that we've done the wrong thing. Guilt is a profound teacher of ethical truth. It can be suppressed, ignored and denied though unfortunately. However, just because you happen to run from something doesn't mean that it isn't there.
You're having your cake and eating it too. You claim to be a moral subjectivist, but you're actually appealing to objective morality in making that very point.
I don't think it does. Again, I don't even know why you're mentioning "common empathy". You're arguing for moral subjectivism, I determine what I think is good, I determine what I think is evil. Other people do too. That philosophy is like herding cats. By and large in terms of ethical decision making, it isn't like herding cats. People by and large have an intuitive notion of what is good and evil by means of their consciences. Also I agree that culture can play a role, but ultimately irrespective of culture people generally know about what is good and what is evil.
You have numerous times already in this post alone I'm afraid. Let the others read this and see what they make of it.
This is the key difference. I don't think ethics is about enforcement. I think intuitively human kind appeals to an objective ethical standard in terms of behaviour, but you think that people have to enforce subjective ideas onto other entities so that they subscribe to the same subjective ideas. Ultimately, we already know what is good and what is evil in so far as we haven't chosen to ignore it or deny it on the basis of mere selfishness. People can choose to do evil, but ultimately they can't hide from the truth that what they are doing is evil.
The Euthyphro dilemma isn't really the most convincing. I'm quite happy to say that God has determined what is good and what is evil simply on the basis that He created the universe and as a result He knows how best to live in it. He knows how it functions better than we do, and ultimately He knows how we function better than we do. By the by, I suspect that it has been lifted out of context from Plato. I've read a fair bit of his work in my time but I haven't read that dialogue. I'm going to have to read that dialogue to determine what exactly is going on in it.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Yes, well in that case the universe as described by the heliocentric model was a suspension of the geocentric model. We can apply this same logic to any scientific orthodoxy that has been overturned and the result is wordplay. I don't know what you mean by an "extra universal god". God, as described by Christianity, is the greatest conceivable being. To talk of God (I know certain atheists have a problem with capitalisation but the "G" is actually a meaningful distinction) being extra universal is like saying an orange has the properties of being an orange.
Your and everyone else's ethics are subjective as you have no way of determining what is the absolute without falling back on your own subjective opinions and assessments of what the absolute is.
philologos wrote: » muppeteer: I'm going to need a fair bit of time to get my teeth into that. At this point though I'm wondering if you're ignoring what I'm saying. I've demonstrated rather clearly that there is are a number of things that make it evident that humans work on the basis of objective ethics. I also explained quite a bit as to how you fell into the trap of doing it yourself. I'm going to give it a last try later, but I suspect that it may go around and around in circles if you're not going to appreciate what reasons I've already given you.
muppeteer wrote: » It was a suspension but the important thing is that it was a verified suspension. It could be tested and recreated. There have been no verified claims of this resurrection type so far.
(I use big G for God/Yahweh and little g for a god or gods)
philologos wrote: » As for the Lucy analogy you should go back to the post where I mentioned it first and read it in context. I was replying to this section in one of your previous posts: In mentioning the absolute it seems that you are referring to a subjective assessment of what God is. I replied with the example about Lucy to show that although people can have differing notions about who Lucy is, ultimately Lucy's opinion about who she is is most authoritative. The same is true for God. People can have many opinions about Him, but if He Himself speaks about who He is, then His opinion is authoritative. That section was about who God is, it wasn't about subjective or objective ethics. It was about what we think the absolute is. Please correct me if I misunderstood your previous argument so that my next post will be more accurate.
OK I'll pretend a god exists for a moment. If a god is directly informing you by beaming it perfectly into your brain what is the objective moral standard then perhaps you can know the objective moral standard. If that same perfect information is shown to you/read to you from a book then you will inevitably interpret it in your own mind, and in that instant it has become subjective. The fact that an objective moral standard could exist if a god exists does nothing to solve the problem of you subjectively interpreting it just as much as I subjectively interpret my own ethics.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » The resurrection of Christ - or the supposed resurrection of Christ, if you prefer - is an event that happened once in history. How do you propose going about testing this claim or any other historical event? That the heliocentric model is "verified" is besides the point I was making. Do you understand my point? Fair enough.
ISAW wrote: » You use "evolved" in an unscientific way too! Evolution of a species and evlution of a society are different used of the word! the idea that authoritarians believe in conforming to authority and may thwart an objective moral has no relation to whether that moral is absolute. for example in an authoritarian State when the state do not say it is unacceptable would an adult having sex with a child be right?
muppeteer wrote: » Certainly not ignoring. I just do not see what you see as obvious. Each of your explanations, as I read them, gave no reason as to why objective morals operate to the exclusion of subjective ethics. I tried to give examples of why they are just a valid and evident in a subjective ethical world. If you have a problem with a specific example you can point me to it and I will try to expand/clarify if you want. It might save on getting to the bottom of the issue without going through big posts.
lmaopml wrote: » Muppeteer, I don't believe that morals and ethics are mutually exclusive, one seems to inform the other, the forerunner of which seems to be morality - but that still doesn't point to anything other than the existence of what we ought to do? Unless you are saying the reason why we 'ought' to do anything (which is in essence morality ) is because it could have the boomerang effect of coming back on us and causing us pain and this is the motive for formulating 'ethics'? Is this what you are saying? Sorry, just skim read through the chat - Whereas in the real world people really do say something is 'right' or 'wrong' regardless of whether it has a boomerang effect, that causes pain to the society, or person, and I think this is what Phil is inferring. Very interesting points of view on both sides here though...
Fanny Cradock wrote: » The resurrection of Christ - or the supposed resurrection of Christ, if you prefer - is an event that happened once in history. How do you propose going about testing this claim or any other historical event? That the heliocentric model is "verified" is besides the point I was making. Do you understand my point?
muppeteer wrote: » The terms are pretty interchangeable as I see it. I wouldn't really have a problem saying I have subjective morals or subjective ethics.Here's a little article on the two terms. I do have a tendency to use the word morals when relating to theistic/objective type reasoning and ethics for subjective type reasoning. Its more for clarity more than anything as I find the word moral is used more in religious contexts. That "ought" can indeed be justified by appealing to a boomerang type reciprocating ethics. Causing "pain to the society" is boomerang based too as you are part of human society. It would be a good reason to be nice to others but there are many other good reasons too. How we decide something is right or wrong is not simple and, in my view at least, not something we can leave to some divine arbiter.
lmaopml wrote: » Ok, but the law of ethics which we form from our sense morality for common good or for a boomerang effect or survival - is in effect and effective, specifically because the 'ought' to do good, or what is right, is in very many cases not part of our nature but also very contrary to it?
However, the 'ought to do' is still a reality outside of the material world either way for to achieve what we consider good and healthy things, like love and justice and mercy etc.
If it's only a construct of our material nature, and random survival of the fittest, to form 'ought to be unselfish' rules for example, than why do we as animals recognise it as a 'good thing to be unselfish' even when that very same nature is geared towards being selfish and accumulating individual wealth too? I think I agree with you that the boomerang effect doesn't quite fully explain the existence of morality, but it really is all that evolution can offer.
We see in the real world both scenarios, human beings who act according to what they 'ought' to do, or striving to, and also act according to what they 'should not' do - so it doesn't seem to be something that is inscribed by evolution to be kind to others etc., but rather something quite different and outside of a material animal - the 'ought' is more a striving after what we recognise as 'good' - but it's 'there' it has a presence if you like, but is not a 'law' moreso a foundation we look to when making those laws?
lmaopml ; if right and wrong don't in fact exist,
tommy2bad wrote: » But they don't, their is no right or wrong except in relation to someone else. If their was no one else in the world but you what could you do that would be wrong? What would be right? We are not so far apart on this, athiests and christians in as much as all morality is based on the presence of others and how we deal with them. The only difference is we christians put an other in the equation, God.
ISAW wrote: » what about morality with respect to non humans? e.g. animals? I might add if you take "God" or "nature" as the "someone else" in the "relative to someone else" then you have absolute morals and not relative morals.
lmaopml wrote: » It's like saying that we sense these obligations, things like loving our children, treating others well, not causing harm etc, but they don't in fact exist, and are only a biological construct in order for the survival of our species. Doesn't this sound just a tad off? Is it satisfactory?
Originally Posted by lmaopml It's like saying 'right and wrong' do exist, but they don't at the same time, which is impossible. It's like saying that we sense these obligations, things like loving our children, treating others well, not causing harm etc, but they don't in fact exist, and are only a biological construct in order for the survival of our species. Doesn't this sound just a tad off? Is it satisfactory?
muppeteer wrote: » This is a decent description of part of a relativist/materialists ethics. The part that may be "off" to you might be the adding of our own values on top of our biological emotion to love our children.
You possibly would prefer something more solid/external to your own opinion? I can see how this would be appealing.
I suppose I find it satisfactory as I like the thought of humanity being responsible for our own ethics.
We can commend ourselves for our ethical triumphs and we must take responsibility for our own failings. This view may help the arbitrariness of subjective ethics seem a little more acceptable.
Of course there is no viable alternative from my atheistic point view so noble ethics or not I'm stuck with them:).
lmaopml wrote: » Is love of our children something that can be adequately described as building on biology, are we saying that love doesn't exist too? Nothing truely good exists, for the sole reason of goodness?
tommy2bad wrote: » Yeah I getcha, I think they don't exist outside of us but dose that matter? Dose it make them less absolute?
lmaopml wrote: » So too does Christianity make one responsible, but they recognise that ethics didn't just devolop randomly - where in fact, you seem to.
tommy2bad wrote: » I might have worded it better, 'Other' then; an acceptance that your not the only one. Morality is neither absolute or relative its relational.
muppeteer wrote: » If I understand you you wish to understand the nature of an absolute. Should you wish to use your God as the ultimate author of the objective anything, then what we think of as the absolute/God is important. I would say that it still does not matter if it is about morals, Gods will or his wishes as we still cannot know in an objective manner what this absolute is, as we are still just subjective beings.
muppeteer wrote: » Considering you believe in a god it is somewhat reasonable from your position to think what he says goes. I have already dealt with how this is still a problem for objective ethics because you yourself are not a god you cannot know the objective moral standard. And as such you use your subjective assessment to determine what the objective standard is. Here is how I explained it previously in regard to ethics:
muppeteer wrote: » Assuming a god exists means you can more easily assume an objective morality exists. But you still cannot claim that because an objective morality may exist that any human can operate on objective morals as we are not gods. The Lucy analogy fails when applied to humans as we and Lucy subjectively think she is not a dog. It also fails when applied to a god as we can only subjectively interpret the gods will, because we are not gods ourselves. Hope this makes things clearer.
