DRFseven

You couldn't, of course, prove that negative. But, then, you wouldn't need to because the premise that what is natural is what should be is wrong. There is no more reason to say that things should be natural than that they should be "unnatural."



Yes.



Yes, I am aware that theist objectivists know this. I used to know it, too.



What a coincidence! We must alert the press.

HelenM

Indeed. I was a bit confused when Alonzo wrote about teaching people right and wrong because, if things just are right and wrong, why does one need to be taught? The only thing needed would be some sort of measure to fix anyone's 'detector-of-right-and-wrong' that seemed to be defective. (Although, let's hope it isn't that theirs is right and everyone else's is wrong! )

Yep!

In general I think I agree with you that atheist subjectivism is more defensible than atheist objectivism.

Alonzo, I see that you are rejecting any definition of moral objectivism that has morals comes from some mystical external place, which I can understand, since I see that as a theistic position. But I don't see how what you end up with is really about morals. It's about what humans want. How do we get from 'what we want' to 'morality'? How do mental states give rise to morality?

Helen

DRFseven

Why should "what we want" NOT define morality?

HelenM

From a subjectivist point of view it can be defined however one wants, I think . But I think few subjectivists would push for enforcing a communal system of morality in which it's ok to steal and kill so you can have 'what you want'. 'What you want' has to be carefully defined and, as has been said earlier in this thread, often what one person wants conflicts with what another wants. What about when satisfying our wants doesn't meet our needs?

From an objectivist point of view morality is whatever it is, isn't it? It's not something open to being defined by a person or group because because it's objectively whatever it is already.

Helen

Alonzo Fyfe

Come, now. If water just is H20, then why does one need to be taught? Facts still have to be taught -- they do not just pop into the head by magic. Moral facts, which are facts about what we should desire, require a bit more than giving people the belief I should desire X, it also involves giving the subject a desire for X. That is where all of this praise, blame, and the like fits in, in order to create a person that desires what he should desire?



What do you mean by "morality?" Can you provide an account of what seems to be missing in this account of morality?

Note: Morality is ultimately about what we should want, though, of course, this is determined by looking at the way in which different wants are compatible with other wants.

Look at the whole of moral behavior -- the way that parents teach moral rules to their children, the way in which people engage in moral debate, the way that moral terms are used in a language -- and tell me if there is anything in that behavior that is not accounted for in this theory?

Alonzo Fyfe

Not really.

The word "orange" can be defined however one wants. Anybody can step into a discussion and say, "When I use the word 'orange' I mean 'a form made from four line segments of equal length that meet at their end points at right angles.'" He can then offer all sorts of objective facts about squares.

If one wants to write about moral theory, the first thing to do is to limit oneself to using a definition of morality that means, as closely as possible, what most people mean when they use moral terms. Else, one is merely inventing a new language.

Much of my defense of the theory I propose is that this theory has the best fit with the way that most people use moral terms -- that it accurately describes what most people are talking about when they make moral claims. One of my chief criticisms of alternative theories is that there are facets of moral behavior that those theories do not account for. Thus, their theories are not so much "moral theories" as they are proposals for inventing a new language.


Here is an example. Any theory that reaches the conclusion that one can steal and kill to have "what you want" is not a moral theory as much as it is a proposal by a person making the claim to invent a new language. It would have as much relevance as a "moral" theory as a theory that said that said that "I hereby defind 'right' as 'the angle formed by one line and another line perfectly perpendicular to it.'

This is why the best theory is the 'moral' theory must discuss that which everybody recognizes when they use moral terms.

Yes, desires conflict. This is why morality is concerned with what we should desire in order to have the least conflict. We should have an aversion to killing innocent people, or taking their property without their consent, because these desires lead toa greater harmony among all desires -- allows more people to get what they want.

Subjectivist(2) theory fails because, when two people get together, and one says 'There ought to be separation between church and state' and another says 'there ought not be separation between church and state' -- church and state separation is not something that can both be 'ought' and 'ought not'. Each begins to toss out arguments in defense of their particular view.


I am prepared to argue that our needs are nothing more than our strongest and most stable wants. Though what I want may be in conflict with what other people need, my wants can never be in conflict with my own needs because my needs are nothing more than those things that sit at the top of my own list of wants.

If you can provide me with an example of a need that is independent of want, please do so.

DRFseven

They wouldn't push for a communal system of morality in which it's ok to steal and kill because that's not what they want. We all learn to want what we want through life experience (conditioning), and most people's experiences cause them to think those things are wrong. As we know, however, some people's experiences teach them the opposite.



Those who do this would be the ones who define objective morality as a system by which opinions are considered objective when they always contribute toward a specific end that is thought to be ultimately good (such as survival). In such a case, morality would have to be open to being defined by a person or group, because that would be the point; figuring out what would best facilitate the attainment of the ultimate goal.

excreationist

I think we have fundamental pleasures (what we're compelled to seek, depending on its intensity) and pains (what we're compelled to avoid). Examples would include things like sucking/chewing (originally used to encourage suckling, but leads to the enjoyment of kisses, etc) and avoiding bodily pain (which can make kids be quiet, through hitting them if they speak). [though I'm against that]
I think we have more abstract desires as well, like seeking newness (new patterns in experience), connectedness/coherence/familiarity (recognizing patterns), the relief of tension / relaxation, and maybe frustration.

When we have experiences, I think we associate triggered emotions with elements of our experience (including current memories). So if a kid is hit (receives bodily pain and therefore pain) after speaking, they'd associate the act of speaking with pain.... so they'd avoid speaking...
Well actually they'd associate speaking with their parent nearby in that situation with pain.

We also are naturally empathetic I think... so if we see fear in others, we naturally feel fearful (though this can be inhibited) and if we see happiness in others we naturally feel a bit happier (unless we have a very strong association between happiness in others and jealousy/anger/etc)

So if we see adults looking disgusted when we eat live snails then we feel some of that emotion - especially if they are like a god to us. I think disgust is actually a natural emotion... I think it is based our natural reaction to very bitter and sour foods and can be projected onto non-food things.

HelenM

ex-creationist, do you believe in objective or subjective morality?

Helen

HelenM

I still don't understand how something can be objective if people have to be taught it, which means they would not naturally perceive it, from the way the world is. Why do you need to teach people to desire something that is an objectively moral desire?

If you have to teach it then it seems like what you are doing is conforming those being taught to sharing the subjective desires of those doing the teaching.

Helen