I did not disagree that we can have morals, people clearly do. I disagree that they are objectively true. I disagree with your definition of morality in that, you seem to imply that what is moral is what is serves us best. If there is such a thing as right and wrong, which exist regardless of their consequences to us (which some people clearly believe exists), there is no objective basis in determining what it is. I agree that there may be biological or sociological reasons for us accepting certain actions as "right" or "wrong". That does not mean that they actually are. Again this is the distinction between our definition of morality. That is just not true. You imply that the definition of a moral act is an act that benefits us. People do not use moral to mean this. Since this debate started, I haven't been able to help taking particalur notice at the way people speak of the terms "right" and "wrong". They clearly use it to imply an objective principle of "right" and "wrong" that trancends out needs or desires. For example yesterday I came across the wikipedia entry for the "argument from morality" for God's existence. This is how most people view morality. I would argue that an objective morality is impossible in a godless world. ^^^^^^
Objectivley true? I just believe some morals have an objective basis. There may infact be a better system to suit our nature than the system we have now. I find morals either serve a purpose or they don't, making them "right" or "wrong" based on the present reality of things. ("Right" as in, correct, they achieve the goal and conform to facts. "Wrong" polar opposite of the former.) (I disagree with your definition of moral as well...) I believe the big ones do serve us best, and untill shown otherwise, I will continue to. I mean, can you tell me why I'm wrong in my use of moral? If you say because that's not how most people use it. I have to ask, why are they right? There are lot's of ideas on morality floating around, why do I have to except yours as the only outlook? I mean, if majority equals correct, then at one time the world really was flat. There really is a god of some sort...etc.... I think those people are wrong, there is no cosmic reason. You keep telling us what some people think, but not why they have the absolute say on the way a moral has to be held. I agree that the outlook you describe has no objective reasoning, I disagree that it is the only outlook to be had. I don't see why someone can't hold a moral for objectively based reasons. Outside of us, I would have to agree, we define and apply the words with a intellectual understanding. But, even if the word didn't exist, it doesn't mean the definition of the word wouldn't apply. For example, you will never bake a ham and get a boiled egg. Here "we" would apply the word, right and or wrong, for it's definition. Even if words weren't applied, it wouldn't change the outcome of baking a ham. You will not achieve your goal of getting that boiled egg. It's not the correct action, in other words, it's the wrong action. With that said, right and wrong would still exist, it just wouldn't have a name. So I geuss, I agree and disagree? (What a thing to say....) It can, take murder for example. Come on, I posted the link to the dictionary and to wiki, I didn't make it up. You are talking about Moral absolutism, and nobody is arguing for that. I don't think anyway...... I haven't, I don't think strafio has, to be honest, I don't think anyone debating this side has. (Atleast, not recently.) I just use the words for it's defined definition, nothing more. If this is how you see the words "right" and "wrong", I don't think you and me, are on about the same thing. There are various flavors as to what morality is, or could be, or should be. So, I don't see why anyone has to adhere to this being the true nature of morality. I dissagree, I don't see why an objectively based morality can't exist without god. I'm atheist, I find reason, so do others on this thread. So, why would being godless play a role one way or another? Why would god make it anymore objective? Are we humans not object enough? As to your snipit of morality from wiki, there are lots of views that don't go hand in hand with your view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism ...etc... etc... Plenty of ideas out there, to many to list. Not all of these agree with what I say. I just thought I would point to the fact that your version isn't the only one...... vvvvvvvvv --------------------------
Well that is how people use the word, whether you like it or not. The fact that things that people consider moral can serve us best doesn't imply that the definition of moral IS what serves us best. Cars can be fast, not everything that goes fast is a car. Why are they right? A word means nothing more than how people use it. If people use it to mean a particular thing, then you then use it to mean something different, you are wrong. If a child said a red bus was blue, you'd think he didn't know what the word blue meant. You would not say, "why is our definition of blue any better than his?". It is not a matter that the majority decides what is true, but that the way people use words defines what they mean. I don't beleive there are objective reaosns that make things right and wrong, it is just up to how you feel about them. Imagine that on your way to work you were to fall over and hit your head today. Then when you got back up you felt no desire for water, food, heat or continuing your life. Would it then be moral to do all the things that allow you to fulfill those needs? It wouldn't according to you and Strafio, but then surely morals are subjective, because they depend on how you feel towards certain situations. There is no universal guiding principal that decides what is right and wrong, it is just what you happen to want. There may be very good reasons determined by evolution for what you want, that doesn't mean they are objective though. There is no objective reason why the universe would be better if the atoms are aranged so that you exist or that you don't. You can only choose that through subjective intuition. Only if you want a boiled agg. The want of a boiled egg is subjective. As I said earlier "The fact that things that people consider moral can serve us best doesn't imply that the definition of moral IS what serves us best. Cars can be fast, not everything that goes fast is a car.". Since when was the dictionary definition of morality "the course of action which serves our needs best"? The definition you have did not even imply that. Becuase he could have created an undisputable guiding principal of right and wrong, instead of us just doing as we feel. Any interpretation of what is right will be subjective. Subject to our desires and emotions.
Actually there is one type of atrocity that is bought on by religious fervour. This is a twist on another atrocity which is far more common. The common type is forcing someone to do something (via mental or physical coercion) for their own good. (This is basically the notion of positive freedom.) The religious twist is that the 'good' is not even real. The religious version, made famous by the inquisition, is that people should be coerced into repentance so that their soul will be saved from eternal damnation. There is no way to establish proof that there is in fact an eternal damnation to be saved from, yet such is the faith in that completely absurd suggestion that the coercion is carried through anyway.
Why not? It might be that many people you've spoken to have a different idea of what morality is. In this case it could just mean that they are wrong. What most people seem to agree on is that: 1) Morality is about what we should do, regardless of our current desires. 2) The truth of moral facts are objective - independent of personal viewpoints. The disagreement is how this should be explained. Some religious folk claim that we need a 'God' for there to be morality. Some Philosophers believe that there is no possible explanation so explain our moral practice in socialogical terms. e.g. we express social norms. The explanation that makes the most sense to me is doing what is good for society. It is why some morals the religious folk preach are taken seriously (e.g. thou shalt not murder and steal) while others are ignored as superstitious and irrelevent. (e.g. the ones against homosexuality, condom use and fornication) Going back to the 'relgious morality vs nihilst' point, the religious person will do what good for society, maybe for the wrong reasons but the practical benefits are there. The nihilist doesn't see the point in doing what's right for society and will be happy to break the rules where they think they can get away with it. We depend on the moral practice of our fellow people more than you realise.
It's not defined that way, they are wrong. Rather you like it or not. You are describing where a moral derives from, not what a moral is. A moral, quite simply, has to do with various held beliefs of what is right and what is wrong, why they are right or wrong, or how they are derived, is not fixed in the definition of what a moral is. As far as morality goes, there are lot's of systems to be looked at, ethics has plenty of theories and studies going on..... The definition of moral hu? A moral is just something you consider right or wrong, we are discussing where they derive from. As in, why they are right and wrong, and that isn't fixed in the definition of moral. Even if they don't hold a moral for the same reasons I do, there would still be a correct way of achieving our goals, even in the absence of their particular reasons. I'm not saying that deep down these people all share the same view. I'm saying that regardless of the view, there could be a logical and objectively based reason to take that stance. 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL A moral is a belief of what's "right" or "wrong." Ethical theories are what your debating, and there is more than one. For example: I think murder is wrong. My cousin thinks murder is wrong. His friend thinks murder is wrong. We all have a moral position, murder is wrong. Just because we don't all have the same view as to why it is wrong, doesn't mean my view is not a moral. I think murder is bad for the reasons that have been stated all over this thread. My cousin goes by what god says. His friend holds to it because it just seems right. So, how are their positions a moral, but my position isn't? Funny, I thought words were defined so that they couldn't be miss used, but it's good to know. Or they are wrong. You are combining two different concepts, what a moral is, and where it comes from. One has a fixed definition, the other doesn't. What??? Because it's the right definition. But then again, it's also a fixed subject, why morals are held is not.. (It's not along the same lines as moral.) Good then, the dictionary should work as a reference... See top of post for said reference... I disagree...... How you feel about how fast light travels, makes no difference, you would either be objectively right or wrong. Same goes for actions, there is a right action, and a wrong action, depending on the goal. They are contextually objective. (I believe some goals are inherent in humans, like survival. I don't see why a moral couldn't be built on that objective fact.) You are clearly talking about where a moral derives from, not what a moral is. To be honest, it looks like this guy derived his moral position from brain damage. I don't know, you don't seem to be convincing me. He would be going against human nature do to extraordinary circumstances. Strafio already adressed such situations..... Or need. There are inherent needs in humans, that would be an objective truth by definition, there is a right way to achieve this and a wrong way. They aren't subjective, we didn't choose to be born with said need. It is a part of what we are, it's objective in reference to the human species. Nobody said it would be better one way or the other, I still fail to see why this matters...... Or through it being part of our make up, how we exist is up to us. Good, bad, wrong, right..etc... We didn't choose to exist, I know I didn't, I am just rolling with the punches so to speak.... Yes, that want of an egg is subjective, the need to eat isn't, and there is a wrong way and a right way, to achieve that goal. But anyway, back to that egg. So, do you admit that baking a ham is the wrong way to get a boiled egg????? (I would say it's objectively wrong.) (Depends, does everyone consider every thing that goes fast a car. By your logic, if the majority use the word that way, that must be what the word means....) We aren't even talking about what a moral is, we are discussing where they derive from, and why we should carry them. This is not fixed by the definition. That's my point, a moral is just something you consider right or wrong, why they are right or wrong, is not fixed by the definition of moral, and is up for debate. So, how am I using the word wrong again? You mean, a subjective opinion based only on how god wants it to be? (Sounds real objective to me...) Hell, I could do that, you are wrong because I say so. Not all desires are subjective, infact, I would say some of those "desires" are needs. (As in, they are inherent in humans. Not chosen. Not simply because I want to.)
What I believe in. Hey guys, Some nice posts i've read here. Upon quickly scanning over the thread, It's always good to see people taking a sceptical approach to religious based topics. First i'm going to start off with what I believe in: I don't follow maths or science. Many people who argue that they believe only what can be scientifically verified have never taken the time to take into consideration how inconsistent their views are. The most important things in life, after all, aren't things that can be proved or disproved scientifically. Science can't prove that love for family and friends is genuine, nor can it assure us that our emotions are real in response to listening to beautiful music, or walking through a place of natural beauty. There are obviously many things that cannot be verified, evaluated, proved, or disproved by science. Reality has levels that go beyond science and must be understood in different ways. I'll break it down a little: Spiritual Reality: Ultimate values like beauty, ugliness, good, evil, Jesus, Satan. Emotional/Personal Reality: Personal experiences like joy, sadness, love, pride, pain, pleasure. Scientific Reality: Physical things that can be tested in consistent experiments. I might add more content later on. This will do for now. Look foward to seeing further replies. Cheers Matt--
Hi, I haven't read through all the posts, so I applogize if this has been suggested before, but the arguements you raise have been raised before, and, I hate to say it, are not really any good at all. I highly suggest you read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins. He goes into all the arguments for God, including the ones you bring up, and better ones. The order you see is the product of billions of years of evolution, giving the illusion of design, when it's really simply natural selection. Please, read the book and let us know what you think.
Well your whole idea of morality is based on what we should do in regard to our desires. I guess you are suggesting that we anticipate some future desire. I would still say that falls under the category of current desire, unless by current desire you mean, a desire that is to be fulfilled immediately rather than a desire you currently hold. Most people seem to have the idea that morality is what is right or wrong regardless of our desires. That doesn't seem to be any different from the definition you gave, in fact it seems to be far closer to that definition than your idea. Why do you believe that what we should do what is good for society? Because you desire it? There is nothing objectively good about a stable society, it is only something we desire subjectively. If we disconnect ourself from a human viewpoint, a stable society is in no way preferable to eternal nothingness. You seem to be attaching human desires to logic. "It must be right, because it gives us what we want". You said yourself that the morality by definition is independent of our desires, so it surely cannot be justified on the grounds of desires. There is no difference between desires and needs. Separating them into two distinct ideas is a false dichotomy. A need is nothing more than a strong desire. If you rationalise doing good for society on the grounds that it is good for yourself, then isn't the nihilist's behavior closer your ideal than Christian morality. Do what suits you best. If that happens to mean acting "morally", so be it. If you can "cheat", go for it.
It's a recognition that some desires are more important than others. Unfortunately, these more important desires are complex and more difficult to work out that simpler, more trivial desires, so they are more difficult to understand and satisfy. We can tell when they are being satisfied because life is good. We can tell when they aren't because we find ourselves missing something, or even depressed. What you might point out here is that bad people sometime ride the gravy train, but I think you'll find that in every case, such honeymoons are short lived and then it all goes wrong for them. Breaking the rules of morality will at most give you a temporary gain that you have to pay for in the long run. That is why I am calling it irrational and short sighted. My definition of morality was what is good for society, so in that respect it is separate from desire. The fact that we ought to value society and morality was a separate claim. It was that claim that brought in our needs/desires on why we should act morally. Really? This sounds like a large assumption to me. A false one at that. Morality is doing what's good for society, which in itself isn't necessarily what we desire. However, when justifying what we should and shouldn't do, what is rational and irrational, our desires are what count. You seem to assume that all desires are subjective. That is a grand assumption. Some desires are definately subjective, like tastes in food. It is not subjective that we desire some kind of food. The whole point in the distinction is to separate a need, like food to eat, from a more trivial desire e.g. which particular food is eaten. The whole point is that needs are desires, but not what the layman usually associate with the term 'desire'. (we usually use the word for trivial desires rather than more important needs) Needs are the strongest of desires and out-rank more trivial ones. The subjectivity of normal desires doesn't necessarily apply to needs. E.g. a trivial desire of which food a person desires is subjective, but the fact that they need food is not. Even in the cases where someone doesn't desire food, it's not simply that they have different desires, we know that there's some extraordinary reason why they have lost the will to eat, likely down to some kind of illness. Another important fact about needs is that we can know that a person has certain needs because they are a human and all humans have these needs, but they might not be aware of said needs. Kids don't see the value in education but their parents know that it will benefit them in the long run so force them to it. Needs aren't necessarily present desires. Because of our human nature being as it is, we rely on good society, whether we realise this or not. It is therefore in our best interests to look after society, i.e. act morally. Some people don't desire to act morally but this is a short-sighted decision as they don't know what is good for them. In theory, the nihilist has the right idea - do what is right for number one. However, they are extemely short sighted in realising how to this. In practice, the Christian is closer to the real ideal as their practice is actually more beneficial to themselves and those around them. The whole point is that cheating doesn't suit you best. It seems to in the short term but it damages society and that gradually comes back to you. That's why I'm saying that nihilism/amoralism is short sighted.
You seem to have a different idea of what is objectively good than me. The fact that something helps us does not make it objectively good. The fact that we'll die if we don't recieve something doesn't mean we objectively need it. We decide that things that help us are good because we look at them from a human perspective. It feels right that something should happen, so we decide that it is right. It is not objectively right though. It is not objectively preferable for us to exist or not, it is just something that seems right from human perspectives. From an endangered species perspective, if it could be so aware, the right thing might be for us to commit mass suicide. Either way, it is a subjective preference, based on your personal feelings and desires rather than a universal truth.
I am not speaking on strafios behalf, I just took issue with your reply... On down I speak about this...... Yes it does.... It's an absolute fact, if we don't have food, we will die. It's an objective truth that humans need food. As in, (That's right, I'm going to say it.) We objectively need food.(Oh, how original of me...) It's not down to independent thought. It's just part of being human... Could you please illustrate how the need of an entire species is subjective, this need exist regardless of independent thought. I don't care what someone thinks, if they don't eat, they will die, they need nourishment. Look, the word good has a definition, it is only applied where it belongs. In the context that it is being used, I take it to mean usefull to the human species. So in this way, if it's an objective truth, that is also usefull, it would become objectively good in context and per our understanding. On the side and out of context, yes, good only applies if you understand its definition. (Which we do.) "Good" is not objective alone, no, but, in context, it is used to illustrate a meaning and help along an understanding. In this case, it would be describing an objective fact about humans in corralation to it's effect on us. Why our actions should lean on this, is then placed in line with the facts. Like with the ham and egg example, in context his action was objectively wrong in baking the ham to get a boiled egg. Out of context, baking that ham wasn't wrong. Context matters, we can't speak objectively about anything if we don't know the facts. This is why it's important to look at things contextually, without this, nothing being said makes any difference, or sense for that matter. To be honest, this goes for either side. Your statements would hold no more objective truth than ours if you ignore the context. If you aren't happy with the medium being used to illustrate the points, as in language, this argument is pointless. The concepts right and wrong are going to lose all meaning in both arguments. In turn, neither argument has any footing, we are just talking for the sake of tallking. If you mean "right" as in correct and going in line with facts, or it being justified, then I dissagree. Your just ignoring the meaning of the word "right." Existing is just the hand we have been dealt, nobody has made an argument for or against this statement, other than you. It's an objective truth when refering to humans having a survival drive though. That is the reality at hand. If you look this isn't only true in humans, it's prevalent throughout the animal kingdom. If you want an instance of moral like behavior out side of humans, and language, look to primates...etc... --------------------------------------------------------------- I noticed throughout this thread, and in this very post, you keep saying we don't need to be here as your argument. But the reality is we are here, needed or not. Rather or not the universe needs us, makes no difference. There are objective facts pertaining to the living organism that we are. This is starting to sound more and more like an argument against the meaning of life. Not morality. To be honest, the infinite regress argument you are using makes no difference, the foundation of the argument is humans. Humans do have inherent qualities, in other words, they have objective qualities. Rather our lives have any cosmic meaning, doesn't change the nature of this argument. You say maybe another species would like to see us gone, if it were to understand that concept that is. Well I have to ask, what would that matter? Unless one is more important than the other, I just don't see the issue. I see no objective reason as to why it would make a difference... Well, that depends, is it universal? Is survival a choice or an instinct? You yourself referred to it as preprogrammed. It's inherent in our species, it's not merely an independent thought, it's part of what we are. It's not down to how I feel about it, or you, or strafio, the drive would be there even in the absence of language, and regardless of the understanding of the idea. We aren't even the only creatures that this could be applied to. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is going in circles. I mean it's not even a debate at this point, just one repeat after another. As far as I can tell, there isn't even an agreement on the premiss, so I'm done.... But anyway, it was nice discussing this with you, but I don't see it going anywhere... Have a good one.... Blind..
Ok. If we say that due to man's actions we are causing a certain species of tiger to go extinct (whether this is true or not is not really important). Now we would consider our survival to be a true need and anything that helps that "good" . From the perspective of the panda, it is not "good" as it infringes on their needs. What would be good for them is different for what is good for us. The view and basis of what is right and wrong changes with perspective, so it clearly is not objective. I disagree that "moral good" means what you think it means. Even Strafio admitted that it is generally agreed that: It is a fact that we exist, but it is not a fact that the world would be somehow worse if we weren't to exist or if we suddenly disappeared. You cannot then justify any action on the objective basis that it sustains human life, as there is no reason to think that it is better than any other outcome. This only applies when "moral good" is defined as something other than an action which fulfills human needs. You seem to think it is, but I would argue that most other people disagree and it is simply an incorrect definition. There may be objective needs that certain organisms must fulfill to function, but my point is that any value placed in their function is subjective. It does if morality isn't defined as "what helps the human species", which I don't agree that it is. It shows that what we consider a universal truth, is actually only true for one perspective. It is sort if like considering what is fair. You could say sending a man to prison is fair if he robs a banks. But imagine if he is the only relative of his son. It would not be fair to the son. There is no universal "right" or "wrong" and "fair" and "unjust". There are different subjective perspectives that events apply to, instead of an absolute truth. I think you may have a point. Goodbye.
Some people clearly believe that morality isn't connected with desire. They believe that it deals with issues of right and wrong that transcend human desire. There are many things that people would consider wrong, even if it had no tangible effect on the rest of the world The common good is such an arbitrary distinction. Do we all have equal right? Is there a hierarchy of who's rights are more important? Are our needs the only ones with any value, with everyone else just being a tool to reach an end? You seem to have randomly decided that everything in the world has some right to live with happiness and that working towards that goal is what is morally right. How can you justify that? Yes. I understand that. In order to maintain life, we must act in a certain way. Never the less, the reason why life should be maintained, is based on a subjective desire. A world where we are dead is not objectively worse than one where we are alive. The only thing that makes it worse is our subjective desire to live. We may not choose the desire. It may be set into us by our DNA. It is still subjective, as there is no objective, humanly detached, value in anything. You seem to just be choosing what is and isn't moral at random. Why should we protect or environment, other than it makes it a nice place for us to live? If there is no reason, then the good of society is really a misnomer, for the good of yourself. That completely misses the point. Change endangered species to lamb. Most people find it morally acceptable to eat meat, yet from a lamb's perspective, it would be terrible. Make it even more obvious. If a person and a pig are stuck somewhere with no food. The person would be forced to eat the pig. From his perspective it would be fulfilling a need, yet from the pigs perspective it would be denying a need. There is no objective right or wrong, only right and wrongs based on subjective needs. The need is only valid to the subject.
The point is there is no panda saying it's not good is there? There is no panda based morality unless humans make one up for them because pandas cannot understand morality as it is an essentially human construct heavily dependent on human language. Is there any species in the world today capable of discussing or having any concept of morality beside humans? And I'm not talking proto-morality of the 'I will not kill other monkeys in my group variety' I'm talking about a bona-fide moral system? If not then morality is a human construct... therefore to talk about human morality as non-objective morality makes no sense as the only kind of morality in the world is the human variety making it objectively the best morality out there (since it is the only one!). From the point of view of a duck human morality is not great given that most of us are happy enought to eat them but then ducks have no concept of morality just like every other species on the planet so this imbalance is unlikely to cause too many problems at least until ducks get to the stage were they can propose a duck centred morality system. Human morality seems to be moving further and further towards being a universalistic morality anyhow so ducks and the like may have a brighter future to look forward to thanks to human morality aka the objectively best (and only!) morality out there! As blind pointed out your trying to remove morality from the context in which it is expressed i.e. human language and human society but then unfortunately the concept would make no sense. No-one is arguing that human morality exists objectivity what we are arguing is that it is objective in the sense that it is shared in at least a basic form by all of humanity making it objective in the context in which it makes sense!
The fact that morality is human construct lends more credence to the idea of it being subjective. The fact is that we have made it up to suit our needs. If there was an objective morality, it would be right or wrong regardless of whether we had considered it to be so, or even had an idea of what morality is. We may be the only species this an abstract sense of morality, but that does not make it objectively true. I guess a while back you could have said that Ptolemy, or at least the human species, had the best understanding of the structure of our universe. They clearly were not objectively right though. I would argue that it is impossible to be objectively right on moral matters, because they can only be spoken of in necessarily subjective terms such as desires and needs (which may be objective in the context of sustaining life, but do not lead to an objectively better world; only one which we judge to be better through our own subjective experience).
