Mochaloca

There have been several threads about morality or ethics recently that make me wonder whether the theists are right in saying there is no morality without god. (No, I'm not reconverting!)

There are already threads about whether or not morality can ever be objective, so I'm not asking that question here. My question is, if morality is always subjective, is there really such a thing as morality for atheists?

For example, there is currently a discussion on another thread asking about the moral implications of whether a biological father is responsible for a child that would be carried to term against his wishes. (I'm not raising the issue here, I already put my 2cents in over there). What I observed were a lot of responses that indicated the father should not be responsible.

Most of the people who responded that way seemed to be considerding only the interests of the father in making their decisions about the moral responsibility, or lack thereof, of the father. I disagreed with this, feeling that the interests of the child should also have been considered. As I stated, I'm not looking to re-debate that issue here. What I'm wondering is how is the person who asked the question going to decide whose advice to follow? Whether he chooses to take responsibility or not, how does he know he's made the "right" choice?

What if I don't agree that he made the right choice? What if the majority of the people on this board don't think he made the "right" choice? According the view that morality is subjective there is no objective basis to judge what is "right" or "wrong." So, what is the point of even trying to be moral? I don't mean that in an argumentative way. I really would like people's views on whether it's even useful to talk about morality if morality just means whatever you want it to mean?

In Reason,
M.

DRFseven

You have just described how morality actually works in practice; people disagree and try to convince each other to reconsider their views. If people can agree (in a democracy, the majority of people) on a common goal, such as for the "good of society", then they can start talking about objective ways of achieving that end. Of course, people are going to argue over whether specific means actually further certain ends or not, whether one way is superior to another, etc. Usually, the goal is going to have to be more specific than "for the good of society", such as "to lower population growth" or "to promote jobs", and, even then, there will be, in a complex society, a lot of bickering and disagreement, and, eventually, assessment of results, which could result in a pervasive feeling that one means IS superior to another for a certain goal.

JL

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There's a lot people can agree on. You're taking a specific instance and projecting the discord on the whole of morality.

DRFseven

Are you addressing me? I don't argue against this point, at all, which is why I said we can reach a point in time where there is a pervasive feeling that one means is superior to (more moral) than another at achieving an end. In a complex society, while the majority are agreeing on a moral issue, there is a continuous dissent of minority opinions which, in a democratic society, may reach majority opinion someday. Morality needs to be fluid so it can work.

Mochaloca

DRF Seven & JL, thank you for your replies. Actually, I share your views, but what I was really trying to do was show that there has to be some "objective" standard involved.

In other words, to discuss whether you've achieved an agreed upon goal, you must use words like "true," "right" or "correct" to determine whether you've reached that goal. I still have problems with the concept of defining morality as whatever a majority of people accept.

Having said the above, I just noticed that this point is being discussed on the "Apologists" thread. So, I don't see a reason to continue it here.

Thanks,
M.

tronvillain

Oh, objective morality again. Sorry, there's no such thing.

Jamie_L

It might be wonderful if there was an objective moral standard. It might make life easier, clearer, etc. It might solve all the world's problems.

None of that makes it true. Even if human beings absolutely need an objective moral standard to avoid doing bad things to each other, that doesn't mean we have one.

And, sure enough, we don't have one.

Fortunately and unfortunately, we are all individual people with our own individual free wills and our own wants, desires, etc. At any given moment, anybody can do anything they are capable of, consequences be damned. Morality is just a set of guildlines and agreements that we all try to put together to protect ourselves and each other. Our human penchants for emotion and empathy weave in and out of that. It's complex and entirely subjective. Maybe that isn't the best way for things to be, but that's what we're stuck with.

Jamie

DRFseven

Well, it can be other than that of the majority. The individual has a moral code that corresponds to one degree or another to the societal norms of moral opinion. Just because you are in the minority doesn't mean you don't have a moral code, and even if you have a moral code, it doesn't mean that your code works toward your goal. Societal norms might not work, either; we have a hard time judging many moral opinions until after they have been implemented for a length of time.

Mochaloca

Jamie L.: I don't believe having a moral standard is the same thing as abiding by the moral standard. I'll give you a personal example.

I was shopping once and accidently forgot to give a lipstick I wanted to buy to the cashier. It was on the seat of the shopping cart, and I completely overlooked it. I guess it was too small to trigger the alarm when I left the store, so I made it all the way to my car before I noticed it.

Anyway, I had a choice of just keeping it or taking it back to the store to pay for it. Now, I believe that stealing is wrong. I "knew" the "right" thing to do was to take it back. However, I rationalized not doing so because my back was killing me, my car was a long way from the store, etc., etc.

Does that mean I changed my mind about what was morally right. Absolutely not. I just didn't act in accordance with my principles on that particular occasion. Did I feel guilty? Absolutely. But I haven't abandoned my moral principles. It just means I that now I check my cart thoroughly before leaving any store. I do my best never to make the same mistake.

That's where I think people get confused in thinking there is no objective standard for morality. Not every action that human beings make has moral implications.

However, after so many years of human history, it is to be hoped we have learned that there are a few standards that should not be abandoned. And every once in a while we have to include a new concept to our basic standard.

IMO, the ideal of morality is just that...an ideal. If, (and that's a significant if), a person accepts the concept of morality, then what they are doing is trying to apply specific human behavior to that ideal. Will there ever be a time when all humans live up to the ideal? No, because we are all fallible. Does that mean we shouldn't keep trying, again IMO, no.

Again I believe, having an objective standard of morality is the not same as abiding by it. Therefore, merely having an objective moral standard will never be the solution to the world's problems.

Thank you for sharing your views,

M.

Mochaloca

I notice you were one of those on the other thread who thought the bio. father should have no responsibility for the unwanted child. Actually, this thread was started because I was curious about what your views (as a person who believes in subjective morality) are as to the purpose of morality. In other words, when facing a question as was posed on that thread, what factors & whose view point do you consider of paramount importance? Actually, I think this question has been asked on other threads, but from what I could see no subjective moralist has ever given an direct answer.

M.