jlowder

Talon,

Okay, we're clear on that. You are not arguing for a position; instead, you're simply asserting your opinion.

If that is how you define the word "morality," then it seems obvious that morality, so defined, exists. Clearly, there are sets of rules or conduct that are considered "good." Of course, some people believe that such rules are purely subjective while others believe there are objective moral principles. But that is irrelevant to your definition of morality. On your definition of morality, morality definitely does exist.

I had written:

You replied:

But even if that were true, humans do exist now, so it is still the case that morality exists now. The fact (if it were a fact) that morality might cease to exist if humans were exterminated does not in any way lend support to your opinion that morality does not exist NOW.

I had also written:

You replied:

This is a silly reply. One does not have conversations with animals about anything, including morality, since they are unable to communicate using human language. More to the point, the facts that animals are unable to understand moral concepts and that animals are not morally responsible for their actions does not imply (or make probable) that there is no such thing as morality.

I will take this to mean that you are not merely 'agnostic' about morality and instead you hold the 'positive' belief that morality does not exist outside of the mind. What is the evidence for that belief?

I wrote:

You answered:

Forgive me if I (non-morally) judge your reply: you didn't answer my question. Again, what is your argument for the claim that there is "no objective or ultimate standard to base morality on"?

There are different opinions about the question of human origins. Some people believe that evolution is the best explanation while others accept creationism. Does that difference of opinion indicate there is no objective truth of the matter?

It's easy to define an objective moral code. Perhaps what you meant to say is that it's impossible to prove that any particular moral code is objectively true.

Okay, you are not arguing for the position that there is no morality; you're just stating your opinion. Then let me rephrase what I wrote earlier. Why bother announcing your opinion? From your perspective, wouldn't it be better if everyone else (mistakenly) believed that morality exists and is objective, so that they would be more likely to be moral (and hence not harm you or your family), while you could (secretly) commit acts that others would disagree with? Wouldn't it be better for you if other people held the mistaken belief that you did have a moral code?

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

Talon

Talon,
Face it, anything anyone has ever thought, said or wrote on the subject of morailty is only an opinion. There is no way to prove morality.

How so? Good and evil are also contructs of the human mind as well. We put our experiences into one catagory or the other. Charity is good killing people is evil and so on. But I don't view life in this manner. There is no good nor evil they are all simply human acts.

Take the 9-11 terrorists attacks. Americans judge it as evil and followers of bin Laden consider it a great good. Who's right? They use a god and religion to justify the actions claiming killing Americans is a good thing, we justify our reaction by saying it's an attack upon our country. Both are true statements but who can judge?

Their concept of morality allows them to believe killing Americans is good. Ours says it ok to kill them. But both agree that killing is wrong. So who's moral code is correct? If you can't decide then why call it morality?

Your missing the point here. If I were to argue anything on this subject it would be that since all people have their own ideas of morality, regardless of the source, it is purley subjective. There are no absolute moral codes which to follow.

Of course it is. But, we cannot know wether or not more intelligent animals have or even grasp a concept of morality.

The point was we can't judge the morality of others, we have no absolute framework to reference, they can be twisted to fit our needs, it's like they don't have any real bearing except in the mind of the beholder.

Why not just ask me to disprove god? What evidence would you find satisfactory? I still think it impossible to prove something doesn't exist... hold on let me ask that god guy.
Do you know someone who can be considered an ultimate judge? But, no his judgement would be biased as well. Are you beginning to get the point?

Is any one opinion on morality completely accurate for everyone? How would you decide what is true or not true? Morality is based on beliefs not hard facts. You cannot prove any partiular aspect of morality is universally true.

Maybe "define" is the wrong word, substitute "develop".

If I had any intent on comitting acts in secret that would be true but I don't. It's not like I'll ever run into anyone from the II at the mall or anyone I know personally would read this. Why should I care? I offered my two cents because I wanted too, that's all.

I also don't believe in the concept of human rights either does that bother you also?


TALON

jlowder

Talon,

I had written:

To which you replied:

This doesn't support your view that "morality" (according to your definition) does not exist. You said that "morality is a set of rules or conduct that is considered 'good.'" Even if moral rules are nothing but constructs of the human mind, it is still the case that moral rules exist now, since human minds exist now. So even if we accept your definition of "morality," it is still the case that morality exists now.

Nitpick: it is not just Americans who believe the 9-11 terrorist attacks were wrong.

Their religion is objectively false, so any ethical judgments grounded in that religion are also objectively false. I don't see any problem here.

It seems to me you are equivocating between attacking the existence of any kind of morality at all, and attacking objective morality. It is a commonplace that ethical disagreement does not disprove the institution of morality. The only debate is over whether ethical disagreement is compatible with (or not improbable on) objective morality. I've already responded to why ethical disagreement is not improbable even on the assumption that there is an objective morality. (Click <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000333" target="_blank">here</a> and scroll down to where I quote philosophers Post, Smith, and Arnhart.)

You wrote:

If I can't decide? I can easily decide: the 9/11 attacks were morally wrong. The moral code of the terrorists responsible for 9/11 is objectively wrong.

I am merely holding you to what you originally claimed, that morality does not exist. I've already shown that even on your own definition of terms, morality definitely does exist. Now you are alluding to an entirely different claim. Now you are claiming that morality is subjective. You allude to the following argument in support:

(1) If all people have their own ideas of morality, regardless of the source, then morality is subjective.
(2) All people have their own ideas of morality, regardless of the source.
(3) Therefore, morality is subjective.

This is a valid but unsound argument. Premise (1) is false. If all people have their own ideas of morality, regardless of the source, it does NOT follow that morality is subjective. The only way to prove that morality is subjective is to show that there is no objective fact of the matter about whether moral principles are true. The fact that all people have their own ideas of morality doesn't show that there isn't a fact of the matter.

You then made the following statement:

Another assertion without evidence. You still have not shown that there is no objective fact of the matter regarding moral judgments, which is what you need in order to disprove objectivism and prove subjectivism.

I then wrote:

To which you replied:

Well, as a matter of fact, I not only believe it is <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/ipnegep.html" target="_blank">possible to produce evidence against God's existence</a>, but that there actually is <a href="http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/video/lowder-fernandes.html" target="_blank">evidence against God's existence</a>.

You next wrote:

The point is that you are very confused about the meaning of basic terms in moral philosophy, including "morality," "objective," and "subjective." Objective morality does NOT require the actual existence of a person who serves as the "ultimate judge," any more than the objectivity of the laws of logic requires a person to legislate the law of noncontradiction. Perhaps the reason you are so opposed to objective morality is that you seem to have no idea what it actually entails.

I next wrote:

You replied:

This doesn't answer my question. If disagreement over human origins does not prove that there is no objective fact of the matter, why should disagreement over ethical principles prove that there is no objective fact of the matter?

Finally, I wrote:

You responded:

But even if you don't commit acts in secret, the point is that you have made a public announcement that you have no moral code. Those were your words, not mine. I don't see how it could be in your advantage to make such an announcement. Most people, upon hearing a person make such an announcment, would want nothing to do with such a person. They definitely would not trust that person. So I still do not understand why it was to your advantage to offer your two cents.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

daemon

Sorry to get back to this so late; I don't usually read/post to the forums on the weekends. Far too busy!

The use of the word "rational" seemed prone to confusion, due to the (IMO) vague definition of the word.

If self-contradictory.

This seems quite off the subject at this point...

Nataraja

Can anyone tell me exactly what morality is? I mean, some of you seem to have the most messed up idea of it that I can imagine. Is it so wrong to do nice things for people in hopes of a little appreciation or as a result of some vague nurturing instinct? Am I evil simply because I find that being truthful tends to make life a little less confusing? Should I be hanged because I find that showing respect for others tends to be returned a hundredfold?

Guilty on all counts, your honor.

Perhaps I should see a shrink about my tendency to feel a little proud of myself when I manage to connect with people. We all know that life without sociopathic tendencies for some mythical cloud monster to help us curb is morally reprehensible, right?

Perhaps I should plea insanity.

"Crazy; toys in the attic, I am crazy. Truly gone fishing."

"The evidence before the court is incontrovertible, there's no need for the jury to retire. In all my years of judging I have never heard before of anyone more deserving of full penalty of law."

Pink Floyd, I love you!

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Nataraja ]</p>

Stephen T-B

The ship is sinking. There are 350 passengers and 349 life belts. You are travelling with your wife, her mother and your sister. You all, except for your mother-in-law, have managed to get a life belt.
You grab one from an old man, and in the course of the struggle for it, knock him down and he dies. But you’ve got the lifebelt and your mother-in-law is saved.
Did you commit an immoral act?

Rusting Car Bumper

Yes. However, in many situations in life, it's very difficult or impossible to not commit an immoral act.

That is why discussions of morality are interesting and its why morality is a messy and often ambigious topic.

DC

babelfish

I agree with DC - making up hypothetical moral situations is really fun!

Here's one that I've used on this forum before:

Your ship just went down and you're in a big liferaft. On your right you spot a sizeable group of strangers who are about to drown. But way off to your left you can see your daughter waving frantically. Now you know the group of strangers includes a scientist who has just discovered a cure for cancer. Do you go to the left or to the right? Do you pull out your bible for a quick consult?

Talon

This post is getting ridiculously long! I'll try one more time to explain my view.

It does if you take into account that in my view there is no "good" or "evil" to base a moral code or any morality on. I don't believe in the concepts of good and evil therefore I do not have any basis upon which I would base a moral code.

Picknit: It's just a general example.
It doesn't matter if it's false because it's a truth to them and they can justify actions taken based on their version of truth, just as you and I do.
"Virtually all people in virtually cultures agree that murder, rape, stealing, lying, torturing children for fun are wrong. Virtually all humans agree about basic moral principles, such as that it is wrong to cause suffering needlessly, that love is morally better than hate, that wisdom is better than ignorance, and that it is good to heal the sick or injured, and so forth".

"Virtually all" does not include me. I see nothing "wrong" with rape, murder, stealing, lying or even child abuse. (oh, you'll blast me for that, I just know it). They are all just acts humans commit to reap some sort of benefit. Keep in mind I have no desire to commit such acts even if they benefit me, the consequences far outweigh the benefits. But morally I have no problem with committing such acts.


There you go again. You don't get it do you? There was nothing "wrong" in their act. They committed it to benefit themselves somehow. I don't view the acts of humans as good or evil, right or wrong. They are just acts. The commit the acts and now they have suffered consequences. You consider those acts as from you subjective point of view, your morality. And anything you write or think is subjective to your point of view regardless of any label you put on it.

Quote:

I am merely holding you to what you originally claimed, that morality does not exist. I've already shown that even on your own definition of terms, morality definitely does exist. Now you are alluding to an entirely different claim. Now you are claiming that morality is subjective. You allude to the following argument in support: (1) If all people have their own ideas of morality, regardless of the source, then morality is subjective. (2) All people have their own ideas of morality, regardless of the source. (3) Therefore, morality is subjective. This is a valid but unsound argument. Premise (1) is false. If all people have their own ideas of morality, regardless of the source, it does NOT follow that morality is subjective. The only way to prove that morality is subjective is to show that there is no objective fact of the matter about whether moral principles are true. The fact that all people have their own ideas of morality doesn't show that there isn't a fact of the matter. You then made the following statement:

How is morality not subjective? One person thinks one thing someone else doesn't. One cannot escape themselves and their beliefs when making moral judgements. Again I will state there is no way one can be purely objective when making moral decisions. Every experience that occurred to that person is a factor on any decision they make.

Quote:

Now does one prove the non-existence of something? Or more to the point, do you believe that anyone who purports objectivism or an objective morality is not influenced by personal values?
"...but of there being a truth of the matter as regards the correctness or incorrectness of our value judgments" J. Post.
Here he is clearly admitting that he feels that any truth is based on a value system, personal or otherwise.
If a person lacks a value system can they be considered to have any morality? It comes back to subjective opinions again. Can one have morality without a value system? I think it's possible. But I have no such example to share.
But can say I have no such value system that I'm aware of. And I definitely do not have any moral code to speak of. I would never condemn someone else for acts that others consider wrong.

So, you're that J. Lowder. I had no idea! It's an honor sir that you have taken the time to trash my personal beliefs. (You know I'm just kidding, right? Sometimes my humor is lost without the personality behind it). Can rent the tape anywhere you know of?

Granted I not an expert on any morality save what I learned as an xian. And I very well may be confused over the details of objective morality but, then I do know it's still a moral code. One in which your personal beliefs are the factors by which you base you concept of morality.

I think it did. Any morality is based on intangible beliefs. While we can and have gathered evidence on human origins. To me, your comparison is flawed based on this fact.

See you're making assumptions about "most people". If I were to tell the average person I have no moral code most would have no idea what I meant and I'm sure the rest wouldn't care. I think I would offend more people by telling them I'm atheist than with my declaration.

Why do you make the assumption I'm not trustworty? I'm very trustworthy because I'm honest. Not that I have any moral reason to be so but it certain does make life a lot easier.

Why do you think I wrote that to gain some advantage? I pick up my guitar to play simply to express myself. That's really all I did here. The subject caught my eye and I expressed myself. There was no motive to gain anything by writing it.


TALON

jlowder

Talon,

Indeed it is. I'll try to consolidate the material into the main issues.

Does "Morality" Exist?

Talon originally defined morality as "a set of rules or conduct that is considered 'good.'" I pointed out how even if moral rules are nothing but constructs of the human mind, it is still the case that moral rules exist now, since human minds exist now. In his latest reply, Talon writes:

But none of this is even relevant to Talon's definition of morality. Even if Talon himself does not recognize a set of rules or conduct as good, it is still the case that plenty of other people do recognize a set of rules or conduct as good. So it is still the case that "morality," so-defined, exists.

The Argument from Ethical Disagreement

Next, Talon appeals to the phenomenon of ethical disagreement. As an example, he points out that some people (morally) approve of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the basis of their religion while others (morally) disapprove. In reply, I pointed out that the religion of the attackers is "objectively false, so any ethical judgments grounded in that religion are also objectively false." In his latest statement, Talon writes:

This is nonsense. Propositions are either true or false. It doesn't matter whether anyone believes the proposition is true or false. What matters is whether the proposition is actually true. If we consistently applied your logic, then not only would there be no objective fact of the matter about ethics but there would be no objective fact of the matter about religion. But that's nonsense. The religion of the 9/11 terrorists is false, and it continues to be false in spite of the fact that many some believe it to be true. But if that particular religion false, then that religion cannot justify any ethical judgments.

Talon next responds to Quentin Smith. Smith wrote:

In reply, Talon writes:

So what? This doesn't refute Quentin Smith's point, namely, that "there is not widespread moral disagreement, contrary to what philosophers and nonphilosophers alike often maintain" (emphasis mine). Smith was arguing that the extent of ethical disagreement is often exaggerated, and nothing you have written contradicts that.

That's a piece of autobiography, but it doesn't support the major claim that ethical disagreement either disproves the existence of morality itself or the somewhat more modest claim that ethical disagreement is evidence against objective morality. (I mention both claims because it is not clear what conclusion you are trying to support.)

Next, Talon had suggested that there was no way, in principle, to resolve ethical disputes. Again, he talked about disagreement over the 9/11 attacks:

I replied:

In his latest, latest response, Talon writes:

This is a mere assertion of bias in favor of subjectivism and against objectivism. You have said several times that you do not believe there was anything (morally) wrong with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Now provide an argument for that conclusion. (Note: simply saying over and over again that morality is subjective does not constitute an argument for the conclusion that morality is subjective.)

Of course everyone has a subjective point of view. But that was not the question. The question is whether there is an objective fact of the matter in ethics. The fact that I, along with everyone else, has a subjective point of view does not prove there is no objective fact of the matter. By analogy, I have the opinion that the law of noncontradiction is true, but nevertheless the law of noncontradiction is a matter of fact.

This is a classic example of the straw man fallacy. I am not arguing that morality is objective, simply because I label it objective.

You seem to be terribly confused regarding what objective morality is about. Objective morality does NOT require that persons be "purely objective when making moral decisions." Objective morality isn't even about what anyone thinks about moral principles! All that objective morality implies is that there is an objective fact of the matter in ethics.

I think this is a good place for me to sign off, so I'll end my post here. If you feel I ignored anything you consider really important, let me know and I will respond to it the next time around.

Jeffery Jay Lowder