Strong Atheism leading to Objective Morality
You cannot have morality without truth
The way to truth is an objective mind
Therefore morality has to be objective
This means not static absolute set of laws, or commandments, but values constantly applied but responsive to context. They are not just derived from empirical facts but evolve along with context and differ in their application. What makes it objective is that empirical reality defines the course of action or moral view. The highest regard for life, a person wishes and quality of life is a constant value, however it is differently applied to a healthy baby and a 80 year old man dying of cancer, in terrible pain who wishes relief through death. There is no "thou shalt not kill" blindly followed, in objective morality a value system designed to respond to circumstances.
This makes ethics considerate and responsible, but how are these values derived in the first place? Do ethics exist apart from humanity in a metaphysical sense? Or is morality simply the best attitude to life and reality we can find, and the objective part deals with how informed and responsive such an attitude is? Time to explore this issue. But first...
Three positions came under the spotlight mid 2005, strong atheism, objectivism and objective morality. We drifted from one to the other, and I felt I should keep a record here as I was taxed on this issue like never before, not exactly over my head but hard to articulate. It’s not sufficiently resolved so I hope to add to this subject. This is a compilation of several dialogues with multiple debaters, re-edited for easy consumption. I managed to get Francois Tremblay (FT) of strongatheism fame involved, (he and I agree on many things) and I include some of his contributions to a heated exchange. It was largely between freethinkers, on a complex issue, which makes a change from the usual massacre of a theists presumption.
This is also my first real attempt to grapple with empirical ethics, it becomes a lengthily two way with ME and a experientialist (Chef), and though unresolved at this point makes some serious headway on this subject. I include the questions asked by the many there that were new to the concept, as this will make this serve as an introduction. It is a preliminary collection from an unfinished thread, the first page contains a build up to the general themes, the meater stuff begins on page 2.
Ah...Strong Atheism....how I love saying that.
Any others who feel the same as moi?
ME
I've defended strong atheism here many times, I'm onto meta-naturalism now so it's getting easier to go on the offensive. The guys at http://strongatheism.net/ have been very helpfull, and have had some good talks with Tremblay, smart guy, he has given me greater confidence in logic, as he creams even the best apolagists with it.
Are the strong A's here also moral objectivists?
Asimov
I've been thinking about that...and I'm still wondering if there is moral objectivity even with God.
I border on strong atheism. I'm also a believer in the concept that there is no objective moral code, "morality" is purely subjective.
Asimov
Valgeir: but then we get into the whole "so hitler was right!" thing. I think there are only 3 things that should be considered immoral:
murder, stealing, abuse (both physical and mental).
Francois Tremblay
http://www.strongatheism.net is your friend. Consult it, love it, whisper sweet words into its ear at night.
Your question is reversed. You should first ask "is there moral objectivity with God" ? The answer is no. In the Christian worldview, every material fact comes from God's will, therefore they are all subjective, including morality. Also, you may have heard about Euthyphro's Dilemma, which is just another way of formulating this fundamental subjectivity. The logical consequence of the Christian worldview is a Cartoon Universe where the Sun can stop, donkeys can talk, and people can come back from the dead and rocket to the sky, because the universe is a subjective construct.
As for the rational-scientific worldview, it certainly can account for moral objectivity. There are plenty of causal facts which apply to human action. I discuss this in the Philosophy question, but since I know this is the hardest issue for people to understand, I am always ready to answer thoughtful questions.
Asimov
Well...that's difficult to digest that there is absolute morality. Morality comes from society, or animals living in society. It's just basically guidelines on how to behave within society so that we can survive together.
FT
I didn't state "absolute" morality. Morality is not an absolute. Certain moral facts - such as the necessity of values - are absolutes, but most are not.
You are confusing the origin (instinctual and pragmatic) of morality in our brains with the factual deduction of morality. Looking at the evolution of the brain tells us why people do the things they do, but not the nature of reality.
Asimov
So explain how morality is objective...I'd like to know, really.
FT
Well, it's a long story I'm afraid, which is why I pointed people on this thread to my web site first.
As I put it on an earlier post, morality is derived from causal facts that apply to human action. Causality states : THINGS CHANGE ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURE, and this includes the fact that HUMAN ACTION CHANGES ITS CONTEXT (one's body and mind, other people, the food we eat and the air we breathe, etc) ACCORDING TO THE NATURE OF THAT CONTEXT. Based on causality, we can deduce human needs and the conditions in which they are fulfilled. This is what we call VALUES.
Like I said, any overview of this sort can't really give it justice. I won't be able to help you grasp this fully unless you read the examples and concepts I explain in my articles (or in other explanations - for a book on the topic, I heavily recommend "Logical Structure of Objectivism", by David Kelley, or "Living Life" by something Biddle).
Asimov
But human needs evolve with humans. So our values change.
ME
Great to see u here Tremblay, they're some good minds here, and unlike arguing with a theist i think our position will be tested far better here.
FT
Why absolutely, people's values change. So does our knowledge grow as we gain more evidence. That's what progress is all about. Doctrines are the antithesis of rational thought.
(This agrees with my early essay on evolutionary morality)
Asimov
Ok, so how is that objective morality then?
FT
Not sure what your question "so how is that objective morality then?" refers to. Something is objective if it is based on the facts of reality. Values are based on facts of reality, thus they are objective. I trust you follow the logic ?
Asimov
Yes, that certainly does help, Franc. I guess I wasn't fully understanding what objective meant. I equated it with absolute...thus my problem.
(An error others make all the way through the debate)
FT
Presups try to equate "objective" and "subjective" with a lot of things (such as changing/unchanging, absolute/contextual), but the fact is, the sole criteria is whether something is based on reality or not. Pretty simple. And nothing in Christianity can be objective since it has its source in a creation of pure will (God), not any real standard.
Asimov
Cool, I like it, and I agree.
FT
Well, I'd be ready to debate any single one of them, provided that they are intelligent enough to understand multi-syllabic words like "induction", "objectivity" and "morality". If Gastrich can do it, I'm sure they can.
(On another thread FT got into a bother over the definition of Objectivism, I enclose my explanation as it bares on what is discussed here)
ME
Oh dear, time to clear things up again.
What an Objectivist does is acknowlage that the mind is easily biased, and prone to a subjective "translation" of reality, but that at least there is a reality, and the best you can do is reduce the subjective bias by having standards of proof for everything, such as logic, empiracism ect. We call a mind "objective" if is has ruduced bias to a low enough level to be able to function, act and comprehend in a way that reflects reality. I think it is possible to do so completely in a sense, not always but if your position on an issue is totaly dictated by logic or facts, then you have a right at least to claim so, and you're more likely to be right than anyone else. You could still be wrong, but you could not do more, we dig for truth, the trick is to dig in the right direction.
Its not an absolute state, just a goal to be strived for. What some people seem to want is a metaphysical certainty that can't be reached outside idealism, but at least there are ways to be sure enough to base important things such as ethics and gods on. We trust the method of science as the best way to get to the truth, as reality operates in a way that science can understand, its a presupposition that there is nothing "beyond" the reach of our minds, once we have come 2 trust logic, and empiricism, not blindy but due to its success and constant validation.
It would be irrational not to trust what generates results and is never contradicted. It is reasonable to beleive in a reality that every scientific result says is there, and operates according to logical standards, as all proofs are logical and empirical ones. These are the tools to use, and until someone demonstrates there are better ones, I'm sticking to them. I am an objectivist, and naturalist, I am because I want to know the truth, whatever it is, and not due to personal bias, I couldn't care a less if god exists. I have no vested interest, as knowing something is true gives me more satisfaction than whatever it is, i get a great sense of awe for evolution not because i want a sinful life but because it's an amazing thing that is real, it would still be an amazing fiction but of no interest to me, but the reality of it is what gets me, it took a lot of evidence to get me there, but once there I can let my emotions go. I love truth itself, knowing I've got there, I may prefure the book of exodus over the archiological facts, as a narrative, but the truth is what i need, and i can't get that sense of wonder if there's any doubt as to it's reality, and my doubt overides all else, show me empirical proof of god and i'd except it the same way as evolution. It is a bias, like we all have, but ones that eliminates bias, as I never stop digging, the moment you stop is when objectivism becomes dogma, and a love of truth means you're never afraid to test it..
I try to state facts not opinions, but I acknowlage by fallibility, but also the power of reason, I've experienced what it can do, and I can't blame FT for his certainty, we all just need patiance here, as its a tricky issue, we're into deeper stuff than just whether jesus was god or a puppet for the worst people who've ever lived. This needs to be dealt with, as the fundys have well thought out paradigms, and we need coherant positions as well.
QUOTE (FT)
Your question is reversed. You should first ask "is there moral objectivity with God" ? The answer is no. In the Christian worldview, every material fact comes from God's will, therefore they are all subjective, including morality.
QUOTE (FT)
Not sure what your question "so how is that objective morality then?" refers to. Something is objective if it is based on the facts of reality. Values are based on facts of reality, thus they are objective. I trust you follow the logic ?
Asimov, I think you let Francois off the hook too easily. He has argued himself around in a circle. By the above logic, if God exists then God is a fact of reality and God's will (values, morality) is a fact of reality. Since he says that any values based on facts of reality are objective, then God's morality (the Christian worldview) is also objective, not subjective.
I know this is not what Francois means, but it is what he wrote. This can happen in discussions when people don't have time to fully clarify their thoughts. ( I used to read a magazine called Harpers, but stopped after I saw that many of their articles were records of the discussion of a group a people sitting around a table for a few hours. Often these people would say thing they would never write in article submitted after careful reflection.) Of course internet debating can still be fun, even if flawed.
I don't believe there is any moral system that can be completely objective. Morality is based on the subjective and selective interperetation of facts (reality), and thus is always in part subjective.
FT
I'm afraid you're confusing propositions with their referents. Our minds are also facts of reality, but if we says a proposition is true without basing it on objective (non-willed) facts, we are being subjective. Anything that comes from a will alone is subjective. God's will is not based on any objective fact, since everything outside of it was created by it, therefore it is necessarily subjective. The Bible, source of Christian "values", is subjective as a construct of propositions since it is not based on objective facts.
Subjective simply means : product of one's will (emotions, imagination, desires, etc), not based on facts of reality. The interpretation of facts is based on facts of reality, therefore it is not subjective.
I just realized there is an even shorter way to explain your error. When you say "GOD EXISTS", you are assuming the primacy of existence. But the concept of God itself assumes the primacy of consciousness. Therefore "GOD EXISTS" is an equivocation and cannot be used to deduce that "God's will is a fact of reality".
But even if it was true, as I pointed out, it would be irrelevant since we are discussing whether the PROPOSITIONS are objective or subjective, and that depends on their support. The Bible is a set of propositions supposed to be originated from God, but God has no objective facts to refer to, therefore the Bible is necessarily subjective.
Northensun
I think this is just a difference in semantics. In my definition, "interpretation of fact" is a subjective act of deciding what input is a fact. I guess in yours its using only established facts to make an objective decision.
I offer this example: 1) A film maker shot a movie of something moving off into the wilds which he claimed was a real creature that he called Bigfoot. 2) Later, shortly before he died, he claimed that the film was staged using a man in a costume. So, does Bigfoot exist based on these two "facts of reality"? I can give you my answer, but it is a subjective one based on use of my logic, emotions, imagination, desires, etc. Of course my problem is that the man is liar, and I must decide in which case he is lying, or more specifically in which case is his claim a TRUE fact and in which it is a FALSE fact (a fiction). It would be nice if I only received TRUE "facts of reality", then I would have only had one case to interpret, and indeed I would agree with you that my decision could be objective. In "real life" however, I get lots of input, and I must first subjectively decide which of it is TRUE (a fact) and FALSE (a fiction), and then I must subjectively weigh the TRUE facts to make my decisions, moral judgements, etc. Thats why I define morality as a subjective act.
Asimov
Fortunately, morality isn't based on an individual, but individuals in a society.
FT
QUOTE(NorthenSun @ Apr 14 2005, 02:15 PM)
I think this is just a difference in semantics. In my definition, "interpretation of fact" is a subjective act of deciding what input is a fact.
But it's not - by any philosophical definition.
QUOTE
I can give you my answer, but it is a subjective one based on use of my logic, emotions, imagination, desires, etc.
If it is based on your emotions, imagination and desires, then yes it is subjective. But it's not interpretation either. It's make-believe. If you're talking about interpretation, you have to *interpret*, not impose your own prejudices (will-driven) on reality.
QUOTE
Fortunately, morality isn't based on an individual, but individuals in a society.
Wrong. In fact, morality is MOST important when the individual is disconnected from society. On a desert island, the requirements of survival are of vital importance. In society, we cooperate : that's how we make our lives better. Other people help us fulfill the material requirements of our lives.
Asimov
If an individual IS society, then of course.
Northernsun
One cannot separate reasoning from emotions, and remain a human. I don't impose my prejudices, but they are still there, and they will have an input on any moral decision. Azimov is right, since each preson has their own perspective, a workable common moral worldview can only be established through a compromise with other individuals. This give and take, discussion, argument,etc. , which is hopefully carried out in a free and honest but repectful manner, results in the moral basis of society, but it is subjective.
But, Francois, it you believe that you can write an objective code based on "just the facts, maam" then go for it.
FT
QUOTE
If an individual IS society, then of course.
That makes no sense. Society is the result of the interaction of individuals. An individual alone on a dessert island can only interact with his environment.
QUOTE (NorthenSun)
One cannot separate reasoning from emotions, and remain a human.
That makes no sense either. Reasoning and emotions *are* different things. When I make a deduction that leads to a proposition, that's reasoning. When I feel angry about that proposition, that's emotion. I'm not going to let my anger get in the way of the fact that I deduced it - that's called "objectivity".
QUOTE
it is subjective.
Well, all I can say is that you're wrong. Interpretation is not subjective, it is based on facts. If you don't think that's possible, you have to explain why.
QUOTE
But, Francois, it you believe that you can write an objective code based on "just the facts, maam" then go for it.
Why would I ? It's already been done by David Kelley in his wonderful book "Logical Structure of Objectivism". I don't feel the need to re-write the wheel, so to speak.
ME
QUOTE
One cannot separate reasoning from emotions, and remain a human
Why not? Stoics did it, logicians do it, I do it, emotions can be screened from reasoning using the scientific method, which is designed to remove all such subjective bias, if the result is free of emotion then we can use it even with emotion and it will be an application of the truth.
Northernsun
Star Trek Generations. Data. He wanted to be human, or at least understand humans, but he lacked emotions. One of the main sub plots of the series was his journey to understand what emotions are, and thus become human-like.
You can't have justice without mercy, and mercy is an emotional attribute.
FT
Oh geeze. Arguing from Star Trek now ? THAT's desperate.
Mercy has nothing to do with justice. Justice is to objectively give what is earned. Mercy is to subjectively give unearned pardon. They contradict - you can only be just or merciful.
Asimov
QUOTE (FT)
That makes no sense. Society is the result of the interaction of individuals. An individual alone on a dessert island can only interact with his environment.
I'm aware of that, Francois, but morality only exists within a social construct. If it's one man on a desert island, he is the "society" so to speak, therefore morality does not apply.
QUOTE (FT)
Oh geeze. Arguing from Star Trek now ? THAT's desperate.
Mercy has nothing to do with justice. Justice is to objectively give what is earned. Mercy is to subjectively give unearned pardon. They contradict - you can only be just or merciful.
Which is another problem for God, who Christians tout as the absolute Justice, but he's also merciful.
One thing I'd like to clarify... your belief is that morality is objective, yet changes depending on societal and individual scenarios? If I have this wrong say so. I've always equated objectivity to at least some extent with being absolute, which is why I've always been opposed to the thought of objective morality- there is, no matter what Christians say, no absolute moral code.
FT
QUOTE (Valgeir)
One thing I'd like to clarify... your belief is that morality is objective, yet changes depending on societal and individual scenarios?
What does that mean exactly ? Values do not change. They are applied to different contexts, of course. We always need to sustain our metabolism, but we can do it by eating all sorts of different things.
QUOTE
I've always equated objectivity to at least some extent with being absolute
No.. objectivity means based on the facts of reality, instead of our emotions, desires, whims, etc.
ME
Valgeir, A common missunderstanding, absolute in this sense is a theistic term, used to quite dissention or doubt, as it couldnt possibly be wrong. Moral or "Truth" absolutes are a product of tryanny, communism, Nazism, Islam and xtianity all have absolutes, they are wrong, intelectually, scientifically and moraly.
There are real absolutes, such as in maths, but abstract, and sometimes logic can prove one, just as the certainty of existance, but a absolute moral is a blind, unresponsive and made up lie. In other words subjective, so much so that it is proclaimed absolute to compensate, as subjective ethics are often impractical. There needs to be uniformity, so one set of rules only, but they are simply the product of culture and opinion, not based on a tentative and honest desire to find the truth.
Objective morality is derived not by decree but observation, the empirical method, i.e. science, and reason. It is subject to change as new information is added, and is dictated by the reality of human nature, and is modifed by experiance and success or failer of application. It is responsive, absolutes are blind. Take gays, thanks to empirical methods we know it is natural and positive, without that knowledge a incorrect declaration (such as the xtian one) would remain.
QUOTE
there is, no matter what Christians say, no absolute moral code.
Right, but objective morality is secular, theists may use the term to describe their absolute one, but only on the assumption that god is objective therefore so are his ethics. They miss-use the term, true objectivity is science and logic based.
We don't assume a set of ethics is objective, we search for it. Objective facts can change, like a chemical reaction, or metallurgical alteration, if our nature was differant our morals would be, and society as well as the individual are not constants, except that they are constantly objective.
FT
Listen to -AUB-. He has the patience to write more than I do ;)
Valgeir
I'm still a little confused. It seems almost as if the argument presented is for and against an absolute moral code simultaneously. My belief system, based on observation and logic, is that there is no "right" and "wrong" at all in a universal moral sense, only in an individual or societal sense. Like, with the "So Hitler was right?" thing brought up earlier, no, because there is no right. Also, as far as my particular moral code goes, I strongly disapprove of Hitler's beliefs and actions and take an opposing stance. However, despite the fact that he caused grievous harm to many, it can not be said that he was "wrong" on a moral standpoint because not everyones' morals dictate that (mine do, but obviously his moral code did not oppose his actions).
FT
Well then you are obviously confused. I never brought up the word "absolute" - other people did. I never argued for an "absolute morality". Only pointing out that morality is objective.
(See what I mean about absolutes?)
Valgeir
By the definition of "subjective" as "Particular to a given person; personal" I take the stance of morality existing in purely a subjective sense. Some of the things said have confused me, and I'm not certain if your stance is mutually exclusive to this or not.
If it isn't then I'm on board for your group.
Northernsun
QUOTE (- AUB -)
Why not? Stoics did it, logicians do it, I do it, emotions can be screened from reasoning using the scientific method, which is designed to remove all such subjective bias, if the result is free of emotion then we can use it even with emotion and it will be an application of the truth.
AUB, Of course I agree with you. The scientific method provides an immensely valuable tool for improving the lot of humanity. And certainly, society would be much better off if people acted more "logically", such as eliminating unhealthy or wasteful activities like smoking, eating excess fat, (arguing on Ex-whatever internet sites), etc. But we have evolved as a species with emotions. There must be some evolutionary advantage which is gained by this mode of thought process. People have a passion for different things, and when they get together to form a society (a moral system) the emotions inevitably come into play. The set of rules or laws is the result of compromise among people's subjective world views. A good example is the compromise between individual rights and the responsibility to society. We allow people the freedom to run their own lives, even though it results in some stupid behavior at times. How much is too much freedom, its subjective.
Francois
As for science fiction, why do you think the original Star Trek series is still shown on television. Its not for the cheesy acting and cheap props, its because almost every episode is a morality play which pits human intelligence, reasoning and values against an alien with some "alien" form of reasoning. SciFi allows the audience to examine what-if questions in a manner not ordinarily encountered in everyday situations.
In a way the people at this web site and atheists in general are "alien" to many other people, especially Christians. "You mean you don't believe in GOD?" Hopefully if they spend some time here they will come to see that we are friendly aliens.
ME
QUOTE (NorthenSun)
But we have evolved as a species with emotions. There must be some evolutionary advantage
Yes but not a truthseeking or rational one. Evolution is not about morality, it is descriptive not presciptive, we cannot determine truth or ethics logicaly using emotion, just because it is a survival tool. Ethics can be an interlectual persuit as it was for the cynics or stoics, they got better ethical standards through reason than any faith. Empathy is needed to start the process, but if we allow emotion to rule, we invite error. We must first pursue empirical facts, totally without bias.
QUOTE
the emotions inevitably come into play.
yes, but should they?
QUOTE
We allow people the freedom to run their own lives, even though it results in some stupid behavior at times.
A rational standard, defended by Pain and other interlects on pragmantic grounds, very few ethical principles that work cannot be derived from reason.
QUOTE
How much is too much freedom, its subjective.
No, do no harm, good enough for hipocrates, and for us. A objective standard once you determine and define harm.
Valgeir
QUOTE
By the definition of "subjective" as "Particular to a given person; personal" I take the stance of morality existing in purely a subjective sense. Some of the things said have confused me, and I'm not certain if your stance is mutually exclusive to this or not.
We have differant values, enjoyments, inclinations etc, these are the subjective elements, but when it comes to civil or legal rights, respect for life, responsiblity, one objective standard applies. Determining those values that are a person's individual right, (right to be gay, watch porn etc) and what must apply to all as a single humanity is easier with an empirical basis than any other way.
FT
QUOTE (Valgeir)
By the definition of "subjective" as "Particular to a given person; personal"
That's a bit vague. In a sense, everything is "personal" : only individuals think and act. But the laws of nature are the same for everyone.
QUOTE(NorthenSun)
One cannot separate reasoning from emotions, and remain a human. I don't impose my prejudices, but they are still there, and they will have an input on any moral decision.
I agree. Studies of brain damaged people that have had their abilities to emote damaged show that they can not make decisions at all or make the wrong decision even though they are still able to use facts logically to find the best decision.
See the work of Antonio Damasio.
(This little post proved to be a sign of things to come for me and chef)
FT
No chefranden, wrong. We never said that emotional assessments were not part of our decisional process in some way. Our only claim is that reasoning-events and emotional-events are clearly distinguishable, and that only the former must be used to arrive specifically at a truth-value. In short, I may feel like I need to believe in something, but that cannot be my justification for holding something as true.
Your burden of proof is to demonstrate that emotions are needed to justify something as true. For example, tell me what emotion is needed to validate the following syllogism :
1. Socrates is human.
2. Humans are mortal.
3. Socrates is mortal (from 1 and 2)
Asimov
1. Socrates is human.
2. Humans are mortal.
3. I hate mortals.
4. Socrates is mortal (from 1 and 2)
5. I hate Socrates (from 1 and 2 and 3).
:D
FT
LOL at Asimov.
chefranden : Interest ? Please explain in which step the emotion of "interest" is needed :
"1. Socrates is human.
2. Humans are mortal.
3. Socrates is mortal (from 1 and 2)"
Is it step 1, 2 or 3 ? Or more than one ?
Asimov
I think what Chef is saying is that you need to be interested in the syllogism in order to bother validating it.
hahaha
I'm laughing, even if it's not a joke.
Valgeir
Alright, I think I kind of get it now, maybe. Societies form objective moral codes, but there can be individual variances from the objective moral code, which is based on the societal context, as it is not absolute? Tell me if I'm getting warmer.
Asimov
From what I've learned from this thread, I'd say that you're doing pretty good.
you also need to add that proper objective moral codes are based on logic and science.
FT
QUOTE (Valgeir)
Alright, I think I kind of get it now, maybe. Societies form objective moral codes, but there can be individual variances from the objective moral code, which is based on the societal context, as it is not absolute? Tell me if I'm getting warmer.
What ? No. You don't get it at all.
Listen. Think of the law of gravity, maybe that will help you understand it.
Asimov
So if morality is based on logic and science, then it is objective.
FT
Yes. You are correct. (^_____^)
ME
Yay! the penny drops.
(I also think phycology is important, as I mention on the other thread, but it's harder to argue for, as its more esoteric)
FT
It seems like my simple example has been problematic, so let me explain it. There is NO EMOTION that enters into the justification of the syllogism.
(1) Humans are mortal.
This is a proposition arrived at by INDUCTION (the observation of instances and probabilistic extrapolation based on them), which involves no emotion.
(2) Socrates is human.
This is an observed (historically) fact.
(3) Socrates is mortal.
This is a logical deduction, which once again requires on emotion. It is of the form :
If P then Q. P. Therefore Q.
NO EMOTION is involved in the justification of (1), (2) or (3).
Asimov
Francois...let's take what you're talking about, and put it in the context of an issue,
abortion
could you explain why abortion is right or wrong under objective morality?
I'm just curious as to what you would say.
FT
You're assuming absolute morality when you ask questions like "is X moral". Morality is contextual and only applies to individual actions or values. So what you have to tell us first is the values that are being supported by the specific act of abortion you'd like us to analyze.
I think I get what Frac is saying . Basically morality is a result of natural selection like everything else , and thus is based on science/ biology which is an objective study that always is . Only our view of it changes as we gain more knowledge on it .
FT
No no no. I explained this before : evolutionary psychology tells us why people do the things they do, but they don't give us knowledge about reality. Our emotions are no more a standard of morality than they are a standard of quantum mechanics, how light refracts, or whether you should throw yourself off the fifth floor of a building.
You have to be careful not to confuse "why" and "what". "What is morality" is only answerable by objective facts.
Northensun
1. Sexual activity outside of marriage can result in disease (STD, AIDS).
2. Sexual disease is harmful to the body, costly to treat, and potentially fatal.
3. To prevent the spread of harmful disease, sexual activity outside of marriage should be repressed or banned completely.
Thus: Christian efforts to repress sexuality outside of marriage are a valuable thing for individuals and society, and we should support them. Or if you prefer, we should follow the Stoics, use our reason, and suppress our emotions, our sexuality.
All logical, no emotions needed, but not much fun.
ME
NorthenSun,your STD example shows there is a certain pragmatic element to church's obsession with "non sinfull sex" but it is still a cultural and taboo based position turning into a theological one, that in the light of recent discoveries has been shown partially correct, but more out of luck than anything.
Emotionless reason may come to the same conlusions but for differant reasons, besides, STDs may be cured thanks to science, and there's always condoms, you mistake a current situation, that objective morality will take into account, for a perminant absolute standard that the church will hold till doomsday for no other reason than habit. Thay may appear to coincide but only temporaraly and under limited circumstances.
The medical side of sex if a matter of wise practice, not all ethics, (it's unwise to smoke but not immoral). Reason dictates that sex can only be wrong if it is non-concentual or harmful mentaly or physically, that gives you lot plenty of room for "fun".
Northensun
AUB, I agree with you, there is no permanent absolute moral standard. There is a cutural relativism to everything.
As to STD, you are correct that they may be cured by science in the future, but since they are still a problem today and definitely were in the past, isn't it the logical thing to repress sex outside of marriage for the time being. Leave the Christians out, what would the Stoics advise?
Yes, it is unwise to smoke, to have unprotected sex, to eat too much fat food, etc.
Unwise means without wisdom, logic, reason. If we build a moral system based only on a rational sorting through of facts, how do we allow people freedom to persue these unreasonable activities?
ME
The way I said, through recognision of what is a moral matter and what it "wise" as in practical, pragmatic or open to choice, but nonetheless also open to a rational appraisal. Reason may dictate smoking is unhealthy but there is no moral compulsion to stop. Reason is an adviser, not a dictator. Only ethics overrides freedom.
If reason dictates one think and you do or believe another, you're not immoral, just a dumbass. If ethics, derived from reason dictates one thing and you do another, reason/ethics dictates one should then intervene.
There is leading a rational life, and a moral one, nice to do both, but only ethics is essential. I choose to live my life by reason and logic, I'd never impose my lifestyle on other, just point out when they have no respectable grounds for their opinions, but lifestyle is up to you. "I dont give a fuck" is one of the wisest things a person can say in relation to others.
Valgeir
I fail to see how the law of gravity applies to morality. The law of gravity as we have observed it is apparently absolute. Morality differs from person to person, typically based on the social structure of the individual's particular society. Hence subjective, NOT objective, morality.
FT
Oh geeze. If you're just going to ASSUME that morality is subjective, you're free to do so, but that makes no more sense than to say that the law of gravity is subjective.
You shouldn't fall from great heights without a parachute - that's a moral fact derived from gravity.
ME
An understanding of science would help.
First, the "Law of Gravity" is something we invented to describe a objective phenomina that so far appears to be universal, like humanity can be studied objectivly to see what universal principles apply.
Second. Yes morals tend to be based on social or personal bias, but that's the point, a descriptive tendancy not prescriptive, "is" is not "aught". They are all attempts to create the best set of values, the differance is with objective morality is we're using a better standard. Morals may be differant, but they're all after, or were created for the same purposes. Differant conclusions, differant aprouches, the trick is to come to the right conclusion, many tried to fly, many failed, that doesn't mean the wright brothers failed or where no better, not all attempts are equaly valid.
The way I see it is this: I define morality as what is good for humans in general. For something to be good for humans in genreral, it must also be good for most humans individually. So morality comes down to not harming people or restricting their freedom. This is objective, because something that harms most people is not good for our continued existence, no matter what anyone believes. The ambiguity comes with the definition of "harm", but this changes with a given situation. For instance, I am currently a civilian, and so not shining my shoes doesn't harm anyone (except maybe my chances of landing a job). When I was in the military however, not shining my boots makes them less water resistant, and if your feet are wet all the time you can get frost bite and other nasty problems. In this situation, I am not only harming myself, but the other people in my unit who depend on me for survival (if I slow down my squad, we could be overrun, if they leave me behind they are dprived of my firepower, carrying capacity, and specialized knowledge). So, morality is objective, but the tasks required to maintain that morality change with the situation.
Also, regarding Star Trek, I always saw that show as jerks flying around the glaxy imposing 20th century american christian morals on every alien they could find("our civilization has been doing this happily for thousands of years, but after your fifteen minute lecture, we suddenly see that we were wrong!"), and destroying anything that didn't look somewhat human.
Valgeir
Morality concerns an individual's beliefs concerning "right" and "wrong". I consider murder "wrong". Does a murderer? No. Hence moral codes that are not universal, but rather unique to an individual. In other words, subjective.
ME
Valgeir, you just don't get it, a murderer doesn't just think murder is ok, some are ill, some unthinking or apathetic, the rest invariably have motives that allow them to raitonalise their actions, such as, "they are not really human" or "he's going to hell anyway" or "he deserves it" or "he's evil" or "if I don't cut out this guy's heart, the sun won't rise" all such justifications are based on subjective bias, yes, but can be shown to be irrational and in conflict with empirical reality.
The key is STANDARDS, the standard of evidence or reasoning a crusader had for his crimes was a Papel decree, which is no reason at all, just amoral enslavement. If however they are defending themselves or others, or have good empirical grounds to kill, (such as a bomber with a dead-man's switch) then murder ceases to be so in light of the facts, their opinion that is was justified it objectivly correct.
If someone has no reason to kill but does so, that's not a subjective opinion, but just immoral action, they havn't got an alternative ethical philosophy, and even if they did, if someone has a relative and biased view that doesn't mean its valid. If its not based on any standards but just emotional or mental condictions it's indefencable, hardly proof against any other value system.
You keep thinking relativism is the norm and thusy prescriptive, it is not, I've already explained why. Repeating the relativist mantra and offering a crude murderer example doesn't counter all we've written If someone decides murder is right, they are wrong, not due to my subjective values but by objective ones that can demonstrate why murder isn't right. We're not just throwing opinions about, there's a reality to take into consideration, we are not living in a relative universe.
FT
QUOTE(Valgeir)
Morality concerns an individual's beliefs concerning "right" and "wrong". I consider murder "wrong". Does a murderer? No. Hence moral codes that are not universal, but rather unique to an individual. In other words, subjective.
No... not any more than the existence of Creationists makes evolution subjective.
Valgeir
Morality has very, very little to do with actions, it concerns belief. Actions only become "moral" or "immoral" when they are interpreted by people based on an individual's beliefs and emotions. Otherwise actions are just actions. Because the same action can be called moral by one person and immoral by another (e.g. the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube), due to differences in belief and emotion and so difference in interpretation, morals are not universal. Because they are particular to a given person, they are subjective.
FT
Oh geesh. Since you're not reading anything I explain to you, I'm just going to ignore you now. I'm talking to a brick wall. Differences of opinion do not make a scientific fact subjective - if you don't get this basic logic, then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do.
Valgeir
I understand what you're saying, but show me how a moral code can be scientiic fact.
I am reading what you say, but I can't seem to follow the logic from beginning to end. Morality isn't based around actions, but vice versa, actions are based around morality. Moral codes are derived from peoples' opinions concerning actions, which is why the reality of the situation doesn't play into it. When I gave the murderer example I said murderer because someone who murders obviously doesn't have moral issues with murder, but the example can extend to a person who isn't planning it or rationalizing it, but just doesn't see anything morally wrong with it. They obviously have a different set of morals than a typical person of modern western society. I'll return to the Terry Schiavo example. The left does not consider the decision to remove her feeding tube immoral. The right does. If there is an objective moral code, how can this be?
Edit #2: AUB- Since it seems Francois won't be returning to assist me here, and you understand where he's coming from, perhaps you could give me a hand here?
And so it begins...