Is morality objective or subjective?

[Gary Childress]

I don't think there is either anything right or wrong with human beings; just as I don't think there is anything right or wrong with elephants, or shrimps.

Well, to be fair, the fact that we humans have moral sensibilities to begin with, I think demonstrates that we have right and wrong to contend with. Or maybe I'm not sure what you mean above.

[Harbal]

I don't think there is either anything right or wrong with human beings; just as I don't think there is anything right or wrong with elephants, or shrimps.

Well, to be fair, the fact that we humans have moral sensibilities to begin with, I think demonstrates that we have right and wrong to contend with. Or maybe I'm not sure what you mean above.

I mean that human beings are a species of animal, and they just are what they are, just like any other species.

[Gary Childress]

I don't think there is either anything right or wrong with human beings; just as I don't think there is anything right or wrong with elephants, or shrimps.

Well, to be fair, the fact that we humans have moral sensibilities to begin with, I think demonstrates that we have right and wrong to contend with. Or maybe I'm not sure what you mean above.

I mean that human beings are a species of animal, and they just are what they are, just like any other species.

We are what we are is true. And other species are what they are is true. I'm not sure what to make of the statement "I don't think there is anything right or wrong with human beings." It's kind of an ambiguous statement in some ways. I might look at it as meaning, anything is OK to do because there is no "right" or "wrong". Is that the case?

[Harbal]

Well, to be fair, the fact that we humans have moral sensibilities to begin with, I think demonstrates that we have right and wrong to contend with. Or maybe I'm not sure what you mean above.

I mean that human beings are a species of animal, and they just are what they are, just like any other species.

We are what we are is true. And other species are what they are is true. I'm not sure what to make of the statement "I don't think there is anything right or wrong with human beings." It's kind of an ambiguous statement in some ways. I might look at it as meaning, anything is OK to do because there is no "right" or "wrong". Is that the case?

Well that isn't a thought that I would have just put out there because people need to know it. It was a response to a specific comment.

All animals behave according to their nature, and that seems to be a principle that most people accept, except when it comes to human beings. Take wasps, for example, they frequently tend to sting people, but not many of us would say there is something wrong with wasps. We might say that wasps are a nuisance, or we need to do something about wasps, but we don't seem to regard the fact that wasps sting us as being some kind of malfunction in wasps. Neither would anyone other than a complete crackpot say that God created wasps to be friendly towards human beings, but they took a wrong turn somewhere along the line. If we want to avoid being stung by wasps, we have to find a way of getting round whatever it is in their nature that makes them tend to sting us. It's no good just saying, "there's something wrong with wasps".

Does that make my meaning any clearer, or is it as I suspect, and it just makes it more confusing?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think it's so much that atheism needs an "answer" to the problem of evil.

I do. Evil's very much a reality. Any ideology or belief system has to have some explanation of why the world isn't what we would wish it to be. Some are more realistic, and some less so, perhaps: but nobody's immune from the question. Evil's far too big a deal to be ignored, and one ignores it at one's peril.

And it's a question that presses on you every day, Gary. I've seen how often you ask, "Why me?" Well, in a rather self-focused form, that is precisely the problem of evil...why aren't things as we would wish or expect them to be? Since even you ask it, why shouldn't you expect an answer from the Atheists?

[Gary Childress]

I mean that human beings are a species of animal, and they just are what they are, just like any other species.

We are what we are is true. And other species are what they are is true. I'm not sure what to make of the statement "I don't think there is anything right or wrong with human beings." It's kind of an ambiguous statement in some ways. I might look at it as meaning, anything is OK to do because there is no "right" or "wrong". Is that the case?

Well that isn't a thought that I would have just put out there because people need to know it. It was a response to a specific comment.

All animals behave according to their nature, and that seems to be a principle that most people accept, except when it comes to human beings. Take wasps, for example, they frequently tend to sting people, but not many of us would say there is something wrong with wasps. We might say that wasps are a nuisance, or we need to do something about wasps, but we don't seem to regard the fact that wasps sting us as being some kind of malfunction in wasps. Neither would anyone other than a complete crackpot say that God created wasps to be friendly towards human beings, but they took a wrong turn somewhere along the line. If we want to avoid being stung by wasps, we have to find a way of getting round whatever it is in their nature that makes them tend to sting us. It's no good just saying, "there's something wrong with wasps".

Does that make my meaning any clearer, or is it as I suspect, and it just makes it more confusing?

I don't know. Maybe, IC is right. If there's no God then there's no morality or no "right" and "wrong". And if there is a God then whatever God thinks is right is right by virtue of being the Alpha being or something.

[Immanuel Can]

...we also have principles by which we can arrive at some evaluation of a moral situation.

Oh, I'm very interested in your exposition of these "principles" you say we have. What do you think they are?

I know what mine are, but those of others may well be different. Honesty is a principle I try to stick to, but it might sometimes be necessary to compromise on that if it happens to conflict with other principles. Without the assumption of honesty, communication is worthless. To try to avoid any action that seems likely to cause a negative change to someone's life is another. I wouldn't want to do something that resulted in someone losing their job, for example, unless there was a compelling reason why they should lose it. I always prefer to put more in than I take out, because I would prefer to feel taken advantage of rather than having it the other way round, so that is another of my principles. I don't suppose I always stick rigidly to my principles, but I try to, and doing so is my first impulse. The fact that there is no "objective" authority to which I can look for endorsement of my moral principles does not stop them from meaning something to me.

Well, those aren't "principles" you're describing, H. You're just talking about how you, personally, choose to make certain decisions; but you neither expect nor hope that others will be governed by these alleged "principles," so they provide no rule, instruction or insight for anybody -- apparently, even including yourself, since you both declare the "principle" of honesty, and then walk it back immediately. I don't see how that gives anybody any insight to what rule or "principle" you're actually committed to follow.

There is nothing in the definition of morality that demands it must be paid attention to. You don't have to pay attention to God and the Bible; you choose to, and I choose to pay attention to my own moral sense and conscience.

Actually, there IS something that says you do have to pay attention: the fact that all good is centered in God, and that God Himself will judge the world. One can decide not to pay attention: what one can't decide is not to face the consequences of that decision.

But that doesn't apply to me, of course.

I'm afraid it does.

There are situations when it can be difficult to know what to do, because it is not always clear what all the moral implications of a situation and your response to it might be, but that is a possibility that must be no less likely for you than for me.

In a sense, that's right: but in a sense, it's not.

If a person has a principle, "Thou shalt not murder," then he's got something. But he doesn't have everything. He still needs a much deeper understanding of the nature of that principle to know whether or not "murder" is going to be applied to, say, pre-born children, or combattants in war, or capital punishment cases, so he's still got work to do. But he does have something.

Not so the secularist. He's got nothing. He doesn't even have reason to think that "Thou shalt not murder" is obligatory at all, to any cases. So he doesn't even have the larger principle from which the particulars are to be deduced. He's totally at sea. And all the worst, because although his conscience may bother him, he has no way to tell if it's doing so legitimately, or illegitimately, or because he's a coward. A very sticky wicket indeed.

Your question seems to be based on the assumption that your sense of duty must be superior to mine, but I don't see how you could actually know that.

No, my "sense of duty" is not superhuman in any way. But I do have some things you don't, it would seem. One is revelation, of course...you don't even claim to have any of that. Another would be objective truth...you don't claim that any moral precepts are objectively true at all, do you? And there are others, but that will do for the moment.

In both our cases, the final decision about what we do is ours.

That much is true, of course, because we have free will. It doesn't mean that the decision we make is going to be right or consequence free.

Right relative to what?

Objective moral truth.

There is no such thing as ultimate right and wrong; there is only right and wrong in relation to preferred human outcomes.

Instrumental "effectiveness," you mean?

That won't do. If a person's "preferred human outcome" is the death of his neighbour, the fact that a kitchen knife is his most effective instrument to do it will not make it right.

I never said anything about effective instruments. If you wish to see your neighbour dead, the moral correctness of that desire must be judged by you. How it will be judged by others is a separate matter, and not really within your control.

You say it, but I don't think you believe it. If your neighbour comes over and stabs your daughter, I do not believe you'll stand by the claim that his desire must be judged by him. And I think you'll (rightly) feel that there is a way he ought to be judged, even if your other neighbours hold to your relativistic position. I think you won't just "personally feel" he's wrong. You'll be certain he is.

"Twinges" -if you must diminish and degrade them to that- are all we have.

I'm not diminishing them: but I'm afraid you are, without realizing it.

Your decision to dismissively call strong feelings and emotional compulsions "twinges" is intended to trivialise them, and create a false impression of their significance.

No. It's designed to point to the actual insubstantiality that you are assigning to them, even though you don't realize you are. And it seems to be working, I'd say. You don't like it, because you know that conscience NEEDS to be more than "twinges." But according to subjectivism, what "more" can they be?

No Christian believes that the deliverances of conscience are mere "twinges." But non-Theists would have to, in all honesty, admit to themselves that "twinges" are all that they are.

I am a non-theist who doesn't have to believe that, and who indeed does not believe that, so I, in all honesty, have to admit no such thing to
myself.

Well, maybe you should tell yourself what you're really implying. If conscience is strictly personal, then "twinge" is all it amounts to.

I'm quite able to rethink, and do it all the time. But I've spent a lot of time exploring Atheist responses...not just here, on this site, as you can see, but by reading the foundational works of the major theorists in the Atheist "field" or pantheon of alleged greats, like Nietzsche, Darwin, Marx, Freud,

I don't know why you bothered to read those theorists, but you could have just come straight to me.

Yes, of course. But I did want to do my homework. And I really did want to know if some of the smarter and more celebrated Atheists were being celebrated for anything they actually deserved to be celebrated for.

So I picked the heavyweights. I didn't want to leave myself open to the charge of not having stepped up to the Big Boys of Atheism.

And if any of these have better answers, I try to take them seriously, and figure out whether they've got a point. Consequently, I'm very, very interested in anything new some Atheist has to say about the subject of evil

I only recognise the word, "evil", as an adjective, describing something unusually malicious, and that's about all I have to say about it.

Okay. Why is "malice" also "evil," then?

If you found your capacity for thought was leaving you morally bankrupt,

Yeah, yeah.

No, it was Atheism's answers that were morally bankrupt. But you knew what I meant. Still, I'd actually consider it a great thing if you could give me some "principles" they so far have failed to think of. And I think they'd have reason to thank you, as well.

I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about the theory or practice of "Atheism".

No principles? I'm actually disappointed. No kidding. I was hoping to hear something new and surprising. If you come up with anything, please let me know.

I don't think there is anything wrong with human beings, or with the "order" of the world.

Sure you do. You think it's "wrong" that Christians sometimes show up and challenge people's self-comforting existing beliefs, don't you?

No, it is their attempts to get other people to share their own self comforting beliefs that I think wrong.

Then the point is well-taken. You do think some things are "wrong." That's one of them.

So why is it "wrong"?

[Gary Childress]

why aren't things as we would wish or expect them to be?

I guess that's a fair question. Maybe there is a God and maybe God did not intend for all of us to be joyful, happy beings.

Since even you ask it, why shouldn't you expect an answer from the Atheists?

They do have an answer. They say there is no God that created the world for our wishes or expectations. If wishes or expectations are met, then it's purely by accident or else by our own designs or efforts.

[Immanuel Can]

why aren't things as we would wish or expect them to be?

I guess that's a fair question. Maybe there is a God and maybe God did not intend for all of us to be joyful, happy beings.

Or maybe He did...but we chose not to be.

Since even you ask it, why shouldn't you expect an answer from the Atheists?

They do have an answer. They say there is no God that created the world for our wishes or expectations. If wishes or expectations are met, then it's purely by accident or else by our own designs or efforts.

That doesn't really answer the question, though, does it? To say, Gary, it's either fate, or it's all your own fault, and there's no way out of it, hardly gives you a story to go to bed with, does it? And it certainly fails to give you any warrant for objecting. How can one fight fate? If it's your own fault, you could ask, "Why am I not a better person?"

Not very satisfying answers, are they?

[Gary Childress]

why aren't things as we would wish or expect them to be?

I guess that's a fair question. Maybe there is a God and maybe God did not intend for all of us to be joyful, happy beings.

Or maybe He did...but we chose not to be.

Since even you ask it, why shouldn't you expect an answer from the Atheists?

They do have an answer. They say there is no God that created the world for our wishes or expectations. If wishes or expectations are met, then it's purely by accident or else by our own designs or efforts.

That doesn't really answer the question, though, does it? To say, Gary, it's either fate, or it's all your own fault, and there's no way out of it, hardly gives you a story to go to bed with, does it? And it certainly fails to give you any warrant for objecting. How can one fight fate? If it's your own fault, you could ask, "Why am I not a better person?"

Not very satisfying answers, are they?

What do you mean by "not satisfying answers"? What would be an example of a "satisfying answer". The question posed seems to be "why aren't thing as we would wish or expect them to be." How can there even be a "satisfying" answer to such a question? Either it's tough luck because Nature is just that way or it's tough luck because God is just that way?

[Will Bouwman]

...if your supreme god can't persuade me, what is it that you can do better that might change my mind?

Changing somebody's mind has to be voluntary, Will.

So you have to want to believe in God. QED.

[Immanuel Can]

Not very satisfying answers, are they?

What do you mean by "not satisfying answers"? What would be an example of a "satisfying answer".

How about, one you could recognize as any answer at all? To say, "that's just the way it is," is to say nothing. It explains nothing, gives you no direction, and would be something anybody could just say if they had no clue.

But more importantly, a satisfying answer would be one that fits with one's worldview, integrates the fact of the existence of evil (or "bad" or "unwanted" or "unfortunate" things) with an explanation of where it comes from and what we are to do about it.

Wouldn't you prefer that to the sort of "que sera sera" response?

[Immanuel Can]

...if your supreme god can't persuade me, what is it that you can do better that might change my mind?

Changing somebody's mind has to be voluntary, Will.

So you have to want to believe in God. QED.

In a sense, yes. If you don't, you never will, of course, even if God exists. Your antipathy to the idea will induce you never to accept anything -- even a miracle performed right in front of your own eyes, if such happened -- as "not evidence."

But it's very minimal enthusiasm that's required. Christ talked about "faith as small as a mustard seed," and faith as equivocal and dim as "a smoking flax." All that's required is some small measure of willingness to believe that "[God ]exists that He is the Rewarder of those who seek Him," as Hebrews says.

[Harbal]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id

Oh, I'm very interested in your exposition of these "principles" you say we have. What do you think they are?

I know what mine are, but those of others may well be different. Honesty is a principle I try to stick to, but it might sometimes be necessary to compromise on that if it happens to conflict with other principles. Without the assumption of honesty, communication is worthless. To try to avoid any action that seems likely to cause a negative change to someone's life is another. I wouldn't want to do something that resulted in someone losing their job, for example, unless there was a compelling reason why they should lose it. I always prefer to put more in than I take out, because I would prefer to feel taken advantage of rather than having it the other way round, so that is another of my principles. I don't suppose I always stick rigidly to my principles, but I try to, and doing so is my first impulse. The fact that there is no "objective" authority to which I can look for endorsement of my moral principles does not stop them from meaning something to me.

Well, those aren't "principles" you're describing, H. You're just talking about how you, personally, choose to make certain decisions;

I'm not particularly hung up on the term, "principles", So yes, I am talking about how I, personally, choose to make certain decisions.

but you neither expect nor hope that others will be governed by these alleged "principles,"

Sometimes I expect it, but not always; I do usually hope they will, though.

so they provide no rule, instruction or insight for anybody

No, but that's because I don't tell them it's what God wants.

apparently, even including yourself, since you both declare the "principle" of honesty, and then walk it back immediately. I don't see how that gives anybody any insight to what rule or "principle" you're actually committed to follow.

I don't see your point. All I am saying is that I have a sense of right and wrong, I have moral values, and there are moral principles that mean something to me. What anyone else thinks about that is up to them.

But that doesn't apply to me, of course. [God]

I'm afraid it does.

Okay, you say it does, and I say it doesn't. That didn't get us very far, did it?

There are situations when it can be difficult to know what to do, because it is not always clear what all the moral implications of a situation and your response to it might be, but that is a possibility that must be no less likely for you than for me.

In a sense, that's right: but in a sense, it's not.

If a person has a principle, "Thou shalt not murder," then he's got something. But he doesn't have everything. He still needs a much deeper understanding of the nature of that principle to know whether or not "murder" is going to be applied to, say, pre-born children, or combattants in war, or capital punishment cases, so he's still got work to do. But he does have something.

I have considered opinions on abortion, death during the course of military combat, and capital punishment, so it seems I have at least done some of that work.

Not so the secularist. He's got nothing. He doesn't even have reason to think that "Thou shalt not murder" is obligatory at all, to any cases. So he doesn't even have the larger principle from which the particulars are to be deduced.

I can only say that I don't find that to be the case.

He's totally at sea. And all the worst, because although his conscience may bother him, he has no way to tell if it's doing so legitimately, or illegitimately,

Yes, it is sometimes very difficult to know what is the right thing, I have never said otherwise.

Your question seems to be based on the assumption that your sense of duty must be superior to mine, but I don't see how you could actually know that.
No, my "sense of duty" is not superhuman in any way. But I do have some things you don't, it would seem. One is revelation, of course...

I suppose I could write down my moral principles, and get somebody to sign, "God", at the bottom of the page. That seems to have worked for you.

Right relative to what?

Objective moral truth.

I don't believe there is such a thing. I don't even see how there possibly could be such a thing.

I never said anything about effective instruments. If you wish to see your neighbour dead, the moral correctness of that desire must be judged by you. How it will be judged by others is a separate matter, and not really within your control.

You say it, but I don't think you believe it. If your neighbour comes over and stabs your daughter, I do not believe you'll stand by the claim that his desire must be judged by him.

I wouldn't even be interested in his judgement; I would be far too preoccupied with my own. I might hope my neighbour shares my moral values, and I might even try to get him to question his own, but he is ultimately responsible for them, not I.

And I think you'll (rightly) feel that there is a way he ought to be judged, even if your other neighbours hold to your relativistic position. I think you won't just "personally feel" he's wrong. You'll be certain he is.

Of course I'll be certain he is wrong, because that would be a real life situation, of a very extreme nature. This, however, is a discussion environment, where we are examining things rationally, and dispassionately. I might believe and say there is no such thing as objective moral right and wrong, but I have said on numerous occasions that we feel as though there is.

Your decision to dismissively call strong feelings and emotional compulsions "twinges" is intended to trivialise them, and create a false impression of their significance.

No. It's designed to point to the actual insubstantiality that you are assigning to them, even though you don't realize you are. And it seems to be working, I'd say. You don't like it, because you know that conscience NEEDS to be more than "twinges." But according to subjectivism, what "more" can they be?

If this is your honest assessment, I can come to no other conclusion than that you are emotionally deficient in some way. If you have never experienced what I have tried to describe about conscience, empathy, and the motivational power of certain emotions, then of course you will be unable to understand what I am talking about.

I am a non-theist who doesn't have to believe that, and who indeed does not believe that, so I, in all honesty, have to admit no such thing to myself.

Well, maybe you should tell yourself what you're really implying. If conscience is strictly personal, then "twinge" is all it amounts to.

Okay, if that is the level on which you want to conduct your argument, and you don't mind how it makes you look to anyone who might be following your comments, I suppose it is in my interest not to deter you from continuing to do it.

I only recognise the word, "evil", as an adjective, describing something unusually malicious, and that's about all I have to say about it.

Okay. Why is "malice" also "evil," then?

Are you asking me why malice is a bad thing? I suppose I consider malice to be a bad thing because it usually results in someone suffering pointlessly. Were it a particularly bad case of malice, I might forget myself and call it evil, but I would only mean that I considered it extremely bad.

No, it is their attempts to get other people to share their own self comforting beliefs that I think wrong.

Then the point is well-taken. You do think some things are "wrong." That's one of them.

So why is it "wrong"?

well it goes against one of the principles I described earlier; although you said they weren't actually principles. I don't think it is right to do something that could potentially change someone's life in a negative way. I regard religious proselytising as such an act. This is only anecdotal, and not meant to be evidence of anything, but it might help to illustrate what I mean. I used to work with a man whose wife got converted by the Jehovah's Witnesses, and it destroyed their marriage. I'm not saying that just believing in God can necessarily do any harm, but when people take it too seriously I believe it certainly can.

[Harbal]

We are what we are is true. And other species are what they are is true. I'm not sure what to make of the statement "I don't think there is anything right or wrong with human beings." It's kind of an ambiguous statement in some ways. I might look at it as meaning, anything is OK to do because there is no "right" or "wrong". Is that the case?

Well that isn't a thought that I would have just put out there because people need to know it. It was a response to a specific comment.

All animals behave according to their nature, and that seems to be a principle that most people accept, except when it comes to human beings. Take wasps, for example, they frequently tend to sting people, but not many of us would say there is something wrong with wasps. We might say that wasps are a nuisance, or we need to do something about wasps, but we don't seem to regard the fact that wasps sting us as being some kind of malfunction in wasps. Neither would anyone other than a complete crackpot say that God created wasps to be friendly towards human beings, but they took a wrong turn somewhere along the line. If we want to avoid being stung by wasps, we have to find a way of getting round whatever it is in their nature that makes them tend to sting us. It's no good just saying, "there's something wrong with wasps".

Does that make my meaning any clearer, or is it as I suspect, and it just makes it more confusing?

I don't know. Maybe, IC is right. If there's no God then there's no morality or no "right" and "wrong". And if there is a God then whatever God thinks is right is right by virtue of being the Alpha being or something.

Yes, Gary, maybe he is, but if it matters to you, you are going to have to work it out for yourself, unless, of course, you actually enjoy being in this no-man's-land of constant anxiety that you seem to inhabit.