Malaclypse the Younger

[quote]Originally posted by Samhain:

Well, I'm a subjectivist, but I'm not the best person to ask. However, my impression is that they're held to be facts. It is logically possible for facts to just exist.

Well, again, I'm a subjectivist. Until I can somehow observe a moral value fact, I will go on believing that morals are subjective.

As a subjectivist, I don't believe that anything is "truly" (objectively) wrong. There are merely things I approve, disapprove, or have no opinion of.

it is obvious that rape and pedophilia are indeed acceptable to the rapist and pedophile, so it is not only possible, it is (subjectively) factually true.

Well, I don't think so (hence my subjectivism), but I could be wrong.

My apologies. You would have to ask an atheist objectivist for his opinion. For me, I would need to be convinced that objective moral facts could be observed directly, and there was some objective method to explain why people apparently have very different observations. Alternatively, I would need to be convinced that there was a sound evidential argument for objective moral facts.

Indeed, in some cases, majority rule can have some consequences that shock my own conscience. But overall, for solving quotidian moral issues, it has a good track record.

copernicus

What most people seem to mean by an "objective" basis for morality is an external authoritarian basis that can conflict with one's own personal sense of right and wrong. That comforts those who worry about people who have a personal sense of right and wrong that deviates wildly from social norms--e.g. that it is inherently "right" to kill anyone that annoys you. In theory, an objective basis for morality could lead such people to refrain from killing people that annoy them. The authoritarian commandment "Thou shalt not kill" supposedly inhibits pathological killers who are devout believers.

The problem with external authoritarian values (i.e. "objective moralities") is that they can override one's personal judgment that killing is wrong. For example, the September 11 atrocities seem to have been facilitated by an "objective morality" that contradicted the otherwise normal inclination of people not to commit mass murder.

I think that the interesting question is that of how personal moral feelings arise in individuals. What is the basis for the rather common perception that it is wrong to commit mass murder or to lie about everything or to steal other people's property? I believe that morality is ultimately grounded in that which is good for the survival of the species--of genes and memes. We may attempt to ground our moral codes in an "objective" religious code, but most modern religions tend to converge on the same imperatives--don't kill, don't lie, don't cheat... We get these values from our childhood experiences, and it is no coincidence that moral codes tend to be those that strengthen the survival of family units. (For example, the imperative not to cheat on one's spouse preserves the security of the family unit by keeping the father and mother together to support children.) Morality has a pragmatic grounding, and "objective" moral standards can be good when they strengthen survival and bad when they threaten it. Atheists do not believe in arbitrary religious codes, but they do acquire morality the same way everyone else does--from childhood experiences.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: copernicus ]</p>

Guillaume777

[QUOTE]Originally posted by copernicus:
Atheists do not believe in arbitrary religious codes, but they do acquire morality the same way everyone else does--from childhood experiences.
QUOTE]

You are right : people acquire morality because they are told ( by parents, friends, society ) what is "right" and what is "wrong". Of course they don't need a justification ( Why is it right or wrong ? ), they just blindly accept it. People are sheep and can't think for themselves. This doesn't only apply to morality, but to everything else ( fashion, values and yes, religion ). Why do you think almost all women are extremely preoccupied on how they look and how fat they are, even if they have no reason to do so ? Because society told them that women must look nice and slim. Society told us that happiness can be created by consuming. Why the hell do you think adds work ? If people could think for themselves they would say : "there nothing in this add that prove me this product will work/make me happy/make me cool, so I won't buy it" and adds would terribly fail. Heck, "coolness" is just another useless thing our society created. Society also taught people that the only way to be happy and to have a meaningful life is to get a good job, marry someone and have kids. Society also told us that it's completely normal to believe in something like religion without a single proof. After all, if everyone say so it must be true...

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Guillaume777 ]</p>

Samhain

I'll accept that morals are socialized, since it is pretty much the truth, but after a certain time in one's life they do tend to start thinking for themselves (if they are fortunate enough). My purpose is not to focus on the norm of society, that matters not to me. We are socialized as children, yes, but free-thinkers grow out of this "social morality" theory just like anyone grows out of their diapers. It just takes more time. When you are confronted with the absurdity of life (ok, so I am partial to existentialism, so what ) many begin to realize that many of the morals set down upon people are ridiculous and we grow out of those, making up a new fashion of rules and morals based upon what we think of as right or wrong. A person who does not grow out of the stage of being moral because someone told them to be is undeveloped as a moral being. While there may be many who just "do" because they are told, it does not pertain to the original question. Socialized morals shows nothing about objectivity.

Jayhawker Soule

I know that the following is simplistic, but it seems to me that the transition from "Do whatever you wish so long as I'm not harmed." to "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour ..." serves as a fairly natural and reasonable transition toward a social contract.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

Either morals represent some scientific fact about the world, or they do not exist.

Morals must, somehow, fit into the causes of human action. Else, how does morality fit into the fact that a person told the truth, or voted against slavery, or walked past money he could have easily taken without taking it?

(Either that, or morals represent some sort of spiritual non-physical 'thing' capable of interacting with the physical world -- which is just too strange.)

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

Jamie_L

I'd disagree that we totally get away from the morals instilled in us in youth. The morals we learn very young (implicitly through interaction with our families) I think partially get hardwired into our brains. That's why we don't think about them - we just "know" what's right and what's wrong.

The origins of morals, I believe, are the general behaviors needed to maintain a social species. The basics of don't hurt, don't kill, don't take what's not yours, help others, etc. are all things that groups of humans need to keep any kind of society together.

Morals also protect the individual - a general morality throughout the group maintains a safe environment for everyone. Furthermore, moral behavior establishes your reputation in the group as an upstanding fellow who ought to be helped with the s&*t hits the fan.

Jamie

Bill Snedden

In response to the OP, I would say that not only does morality NOT require religion, it's better off without it.

To quote Steven Weinberg, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

I'll also repeat here an argument I made previously (in another thread) as to why I believe that successful long-term ethical development requires a humanistic, rather than supernatural, foundation:

I. Moral/ethical systems are required in order to facilitate a harmonious society.

II. The society of man's future will be pluralistic and diverse.

III. A moral/ethical system that will function in a pluralistic and diverse society must have at its core a unitary value.

IV. In order to be unitary, that value must transcend human culture and tradition, but must still be connected to humanity's nature.

V. Religious moral systems are culturally & traditionally bound and bear no necessary connection to humanity's nature and therefore cannot serve this function.

VI. A humanistic system is the best alternative to replace religion as the moral foundation for humanity's future.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Malaclypse the Younger

Alonzo Fyfe

The are facts, but they are subjective facts: facts about a particular human consciousness.

Morals are the causes of (some) human action. That's what a moral belief is, an idea that causes certain actions under certain circumstances.

A person does these things for one reason and one reason only: She chooses to do so, because for whatever reason(s), she values truth over deceit, freedom over slavery, property over theft. It is trivially obvious to note that some people apparently do not have these values: They choose to lie, vote for slavery, or take the money. We infer from these actions that they value deceit over truth, slavery over freedom, and theft over property.

Paul5204

My friends:

While it may be true that one can have a "morality" without a god or a religion, absent what my other friends at Hebrew National call the "Higher Authority," such a "morality" is nothing more than the figment of your, my, and their imagination. And absent some standard external to humanity, any morality such as, say, one that holds that the Nazis were evil, is more or less equal [as it were]to my statement that chocolate is good and vanilla is bad. Have to go now, my most moral friends, ie., the murderers, rapists, and thieves, have invited me to dinner. O joy!