non-existence of objective morality

[BH]

I am afraid I really do not understand my fellow theists regarding objective moral values and needing a deity to give us objective moral values or else there is no reason or right to have moral systems. It seems to me that when they claim if there are no objective moral values they should be free to do whatever they want---even murder rape and steal, and those who don't want those things have no right to stop them because it is just their subjective opinion those things should be wrong. If I understand them right then I think they are mistaken

I would agree that any moral value system we humans would have (lacking a deity giving us our moral standards) would be subjective, despite this though, there nevertheless would be objective consequences from holding those moral values. For example, prohibiting murder would be a subjective value, but objectively speaking punishing and forbidding murder would make life a lot safer for people to live and prosper.

An apologist would reply that we have no right to force any moral view on anyone else since it isn't objective, even prohibiting murder. I would reply that that is just the apologists opinion, subjective itself, and we who would not want to see murder be permitted can simply impose it on those who would be murderers. The apologist cannot object to any subjective created system forbidding murder we might make because the apologist has nothing but his own subjective opinion to back his/her claim up. The apologist has no objective moral standard saying we can't impose our morals on him/her forbidding murder if there is no deity.

Am I understanding our apologists wrong? Maybe it is just me but I can't follow their reasoning very well here. Sounds like they are just arguing to argue. And if I come across as convoluted in my thinking I do not mean to, it is just I think I am dealing with convoluted thinking from the apologist and do not know what to do.

Someone be kind to poor BH and set him straight.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that one of the big issues with this topic is the assumption that "subjective" and "random" are somehow synonyms of each other. By that, I mean the argument that if you say morality is subjective, you're saying that there's no essential difference between the claims "murder is immoral" and "wearing blue is immoral", since they're both just based on our opinions. This being the case, without objective standards, there's no real basis for any moral position.

This is, of course, a fatuous argument and a misunderstanding of the fact that one can apply rational thought to ones moral positions and look at the consequences (or lack thereof) of having various rules, even though there's no objective external standard to base those rules off of.

 

[Underseer]

I don't know if objective morals are even possible (I suspect not), but I do know that the Euthyphro dilemma proved thousands of years ago that you can't get objective morals from any authority-based moral system.

Euthyphro Abridged
How do you know if the authority is moral unless you develop a definition of morality that is independent of the authority? But the moment you do that, the definition is now the source of your morality, not the authority.

Christians try to get around this by claiming a false dichotomy, but every "third option" they come up with merely change what is claimed as the authority, and you have the exact same dilemma with the new authority. Example: Ah ha! False dilemma! We know that God is moral because it is God's nature to be moral, therefore, no dilemma! Except now you have the exact same dilemma with God's nature that you had when God was the claimed authority. How do you know God's nature is moral unless you develop a definition of morality that is independent of God's nature? See? The dilemma is not actually resolved, it just gets shifted to a slightly different authority.​

The original dilemma was about the Greek gods, and most people apply it to all religions, but I would go one step further than that and apply the Euthyphro dilemma to all authority-based moral systems. You get the same problem no matter who or what the claimed authority is.

This raises the next obvious question: why do all religions claim to be able to make you more moral if none of them can?

I have a hypothesis about that.

If you believe that your religion makes you more moral, I think that you are less likely to question the man in the pulpit for fear that doing so will cause you to become a bad person. If you believe that your religion causes people to become more moral, not only will you be afraid of questioning the man in the pulpit, you will also be afraid of anyone else questioning the man in the pulpit.

In other words, the moral claims of all religions amount to little more than a cheap marketing ploy.

One consequence of the Euthyphro dilemma is that authority-based moral systems result in morals that are completely arbitrary. Believers think it's arbitrary based on their god, but it's really arbitrary based on the pronouncements of the man in the pulpit. And that's how you end up with William Lane Craig arguing that it would be moral for God to order all the babies in an entire city killed, but it would be immoral if you were to order the same thing. See? It's moral when the priest tells you that God told him to tell you to kill all the babies in a city, but it would be immoral if you were to ever order anyone else to do the same thing.

Did I mention that William Lane Craig also argues that his morals are superior because they are objective and that the existence of objective morals proves the existence of his god?

Moral Realism
To me, morality is not a thing. Morality is a property of decisions. But I've noticed that theists are always moral realists. To them, morality isn't a property of decisions, it's a thing. So if someone does something immoral, they have to explain how The Thing of immorality got into that person and caused him to be immoral, and how do they get The Thing back out? (Hint: getting The Thing out of a person will require being obedient to the man in the pulpit.)

But wait, if morality and immorality are Things, then how did those particular Things come into existence? Ah ha! We have a ready-made answer with our religion! Magic is the only possible explanation for the existence of morality!

See, if you recognize that morality is just a property of decisions, it's not hard to see that every human has the potential to make good or bad decisions because all humans are slobbering morons who are influenced by emotion and cognitive biases. But the moment you decide that morals are a Thing, then you have to explain what The Thing is and how The Thing got into the universe in the first place, and all of that requires going back to the man in the pulpit for more answers.

What's the Harm?
Invariably in discussions like this, someone will ask "What's the harm?" So what if theists are brought to morality by a bad means as long as they become more moral? But they miss the point of the Euthyphro dilemma. An authority can't make you more moral, only demand your obedience, and the Nazis gave us a rather dramatic demonstration that obedience is not at all the same thing as morality.

Let's review some of the moral decisions of the Christian majority in recent years:

• Giving money to pass a law in Uganda to execute all gay people
  This is morally good. In fact people who protest Chik-fil-A for trying to cause the mass murder of all the gays in Uganda are persecuting Christians! (Apparently Christianity is an interchangeable concept with mass murder? I'm sure the Positive Christians would agree with that.)
• Baking a wedding cake for a gay couple
  This is morally evil!
• Toddler concentration camps
  We need to have a lengthy national debate about this, after which most of us still will not be convinced.

Apologists like William Lane Craig argue that the authority of his religion is the only possible way to produce coherent objective morals, whereas the Euthyphro dilemma predicts that an authority-based moral system results in an incoherent arbitrary mess. Which does the above sound like to you?

Aside: I recognize that moderate/liberal Christians were on the opposite/morally good side of every one of the above-listed moral pronouncements of the conservative majority. I'm not lumping them with this at all.

 

[James Brown]

I find it interesting that Moral Objectivists argue that Objective Morality is by definition superior to Subjective Morality.

Then, when asked for the source of Objective Morality, they point to a Subjective object (Scripture, Popular Opinion, their own internal feelings, etc.)

It may be the case that Objective Morality is indeed superior, but that we poor Subjective beings have no way of discovering what it actually is.

 

[abaddon]

The lamest rules are objective rules. I find the rules written on a post that you're supposed to read and obey to be the easiest rules to ignore. The most compelling "rules" are intra- and inter-subjective rules. I happen to like myself and others, I don't really need a lot of rules laid down to make me care. As guidelines, like laws for how to behave on the streets, I see the necessity. But that's straying out of ethical regard into agreeing on some social conventions (which still is an inter-subjective arrangement).

When you're mindfully engaged in your shared reality with others, it doesn't take a lot of rule-making, or all that much thinking either, to feel the desire to get along with others and not hurt people.

It helps to have a supportive environment in culture to mature into a complete human. America could definitely use some improvement in that regard. It's a climate conducive to perpetual toddlerhood -- though I would blame that more on consumerism and excess technology than on religion. Still, religion ain't much help. Dressing up the reasons for goodness and virtue in a cloud of supernaturalism is manipulation. Manipulated into being good... what an ugly strategy. So, ethics needs encourage; nothing I said was in denial of this. But the encouragement can't be some oppressive authority forcing it; it's not clear that works with even compliant people. Better to encourage the subjective experience of empathic regard rather than tell people "this is what The Boss expects of you".

 

[PyramidHead]

What does it mean for morality to be objective or subjective? If I do something that harms you, will it harm you any less if I only committed a subjectively wrong act, versus an objectively wrong act? I don't think it makes any difference in practice. You might say that it determines whether the wrongness of an act can be demonstrated to someone else, like an objective fact about the state of the world, but knowledge about the state of the world is vulnerable to the same problems as knowledge of morality; in order to have any effect on behavior, the person has to be motivated by it.

So, with all the arguments in the world, I can show that it's wrong to eat the flesh of animals, but without the normative impulse to actually mold my behavior accordingly, that wrongness has no power over anything. And in the same way, despite being given all the reasons why climate change is occurring and is primarily driven by human behavior, without the additional impulse to guide my beliefs by evidence and rationality, that claim will make no difference to me. At this point, you may feel the urge to rush toward the counterargument that, whether I believe it is happening or not, the "state of the world" is such that climate change is happening and is the result of human activity, and this cannot be said about the wrongness of eating meat. But this counter is not sustainable, because there is no way of demonstrating that the state of the world is objectively in correspondence with a claim about it without, again, appealing to the listener's willingness to be guided by evidence and rationality--the very thing that, in its absence, prompted this appeal to an objective state of the world. It could just as easily be said that, regardless of whether or not I agree, to eat meat is wrong because of reasons X, Y, and Z. And, again, if I am not willing to be motivated by the wrongness of something to change my behavior regarding it, this will have no impact on my life.

There is, in other words, an unexpected symmetry between behavior and belief. I can accept, or not accept, that something is morally good or bad, or that there is good reason to believe something is true, based on the same sorts of considerations: my temperament toward the information I am receiving, how reluctant I may be to integrate it into my lifestyle, and so forth. That's the subjective version. Alternatively, I can imagine that there is something intrinsically real that is reflected or represented by statements about morality or science. Under that interpretation, both would be objective. But there is no non-circular way of justifying either of these positions. You will always have people who are committed to one ethical view or another, despite being told the ways that it is worse than alternative views (because the ways it is shown to be worse are not the kind of ways that drive their activity), and people who are committed to a set of beliefs about the empirical world despite being provided with evidence to the contrary (because they do not consider the evidence applicable, convincing, or whatever).

I therefore remain skeptical of any claim that science is a purely neutral report of an objective state of affairs in reality, while ethics is the insubstantial and subjective expression of opinion belonging to the realm of emotionalism.

 

[WAB]

**Oh nevermind.**

I've started answers in about ten threads recently and wound up in a botch in all save a couple. I will try to get my sh.t together and answer later, as this is a subject of interest for me.

 

[The AntiChris]

You will always have people who are committed to one ethical view or another, despite being told the ways that it is worse than alternative views (because the ways it is shown to be worse are not the kind of ways that drive their activity), and people who are committed to a set of beliefs about the empirical world despite being provided with evidence to the contrary (because they do not consider the evidence applicable, convincing, or whatever).

I therefore remain skeptical of any claim that science is a purely neutral report of an objective state of affairs in reality, while ethics is the insubstantial and subjective expression of opinion belonging to the realm of emotionalism.

Why? I don't see an argument here. You seem to be saying that because there are disagreements in both the 'empirical' and 'ethical' realms, there is no significant difference between beliefs in the two realms. This doesn't seem to follow.

 

[fast]

Morality is objective regardless of whether or not theists are correct in their shared belief. An act is right or not regardless of anyone's personal views. It's wrong to steal your neighbors lawnmower and pawn it for the purpose of buying porn with those ill-gotten gains no matter who in your household thinks otherwise.

 

[Bomb#20]

I am afraid I really do not understand my fellow theists regarding objective moral values and needing a deity to give us objective moral values or else there is no reason or right to have moral systems. It seems to me that when they claim if there are no objective moral values they should be free to do whatever they want---even murder rape and steal, and those who don't want those things have no right to stop them because it is just their subjective opinion those things should be wrong. If I understand them right then I think they are mistaken

I would agree that any moral value system we humans would have (lacking a deity giving us our moral standards) would be subjective, despite this though, there nevertheless would be objective consequences from holding those moral values. For example, prohibiting murder would be a subjective value, but objectively speaking punishing and forbidding murder would make life a lot safer for people to live and prosper.

An apologist would reply that we have no right to force any moral view on anyone else since it isn't objective, even prohibiting murder. I would reply that that is just the apologists opinion, subjective itself, and we who would not want to see murder be permitted can simply impose it on those who would be murderers. The apologist cannot object to any subjective created system forbidding murder we might make because the apologist has nothing but his own subjective opinion to back his/her claim up. The apologist has no objective moral standard saying we can't impose our morals on him/her forbidding murder if there is no deity.

Am I understanding our apologists wrong? Maybe it is just me but I can't follow their reasoning very well here. Sounds like they are just arguing to argue. And if I come across as convoluted in my thinking I do not mean to, it is just I think I am dealing with convoluted thinking from the apologist and do not know what to do.

Someone be kind to poor BH and set him straight.

Okay, I'll give it a shot. Your fellow theists aren't arguing just to argue. They think they're making substantive rational arguments. And they are, but not as many as they think they are. Their thinking about morality is muddled, just like their thinking about their theological opinions; but the thinking of most atheists about morality is equally muddled and many theists are just as capable of spotting errors in atheists' reasoning and pointing them out as atheists are of theists'. So you get a mix of plain common sense, and intelligent insights, and painfully obvious fallacies, just like you get from the average atheist.

There are a number of regrettably pedantic distinctions that need to be made to clear the muddled reasoning away. First, we need to recognize that the two phrases you used -- "objective moral values" and "objective moral standards" -- do not mean the same thing, any more than objective sweetness values are the same thing as objective sweetness standards. We can perfectly well establish objectively that Pepsi is sweeter than Coke -- the objective standard is how much sugar they contain -- but that in no way requires anyone to value sweetness in some particular way that favors one over the other. There are no objective sweetness values and it makes no sense to suggest that anyone is mistaken to value the taste of Coke over the taste of Pepsi, or vice versa. Objective values are a contradiction in terms: "a value" refers to the state of mind of a valuer, a subject. To talk of something's value without at least implicitly specifying who values it is simply a "type mismatch error", to put it in computer science terms -- it's like Peppermint Patty saying "5 + 8 = green". So there cannot be objective moral values. But this is no obstacle to the existence of an objective moral standard, any more than the fact that Coke in principle can't be objectively tastier than Pepsi is an obstacle to the existence of an objective sweetness standard. It is perfectly possible for fast to be correct that it's wrong to steal your neighbor's lawnmower and pawn it for the purpose of buying porn with those ill-gotten gains, no matter who in your household happens to not value doing the right thing.

Second, we need to recognize that whether morality is subjective is an entirely different question from whether there are objective moral standards. Whether there are objective moral standards is a question of ethics, to be debated between philosophers; whether morality is subjective is a question of linguistics, to be debated between scientists. People often reason as follows: there is no way to measure moral rightness; therefore there are no objective moral standards; therefore morality is subjective. But that's a fallacy. It's perfectly possible for morality to be objective without there being any objective moral standard -- that would simply mean all moral claims are false.

Whether morality is subjective or objective depends on what moral claims mean. When fast says "It's wrong to steal your neighbor's lawnmower and pawn it for the purpose of buying porn", what does he mean? Does he mean to communicate that "steal your neighbor's lawnmower and pawn it for the purpose of buying porn" has the property of wrongness? Or does he mean to communicate that the set (<some subject's valuing procedure>, "steal your neighbor's lawnmower and pawn it for the purpose of buying porn") has the property of wrongness? Meaning is determined by use. Questions of word meaning are scientific questions; they're settled by making observations of the way people use words, forming hypotheses about what the people intend to communicate, and testing those hypotheses by comparing the implications of the hypotheses with the observations. The question of whether morality is subjective is simply the question of how many operands the "wrong" predicate takes. It's settled the same way we determine that "sleep" takes one operand and "unplug" takes two operands.

And third, we need to recognize that whether there are objective moral standards is an entirely different question from whether there's a deity telling people what to do. As Underseer and Socrates pointed out, authority simply doesn't work as a basis for morality. It's perfectly possible that the theists you're describing are completely full of baloney, and yet there's an objective moral standard. They're simply mistaken in equating it with their various religions' gods. And that's regardless of whether any of those gods actually exist. Just because there's a god doesn't mean anyone has a duty to obey it.

So where does all that leave us?

For example, prohibiting murder would be a subjective value, but objectively speaking punishing and forbidding murder would make life a lot safer for people to live and prosper.

An apologist would reply that we have no right to force any moral view on anyone else since it isn't objective, even prohibiting murder. I would reply that that is just the apologists opinion, subjective itself, and we who would not want to see murder be permitted can simply impose it on those who would be murderers.

No, the apologist is perfectly correct on that point. If there's no objective moral standard then we have no right to force any moral view on anyone, as a matter of logic, because the concept of a "right" presupposes an objective moral standard. That's not just the apologist's opinion. However, we who would not want to see murder be permitted can still simply impose it on those who would be murderers, even though we don't have a right to, because there's no objective moral standard limiting us to doing what is within our rights. Both you and the apologist appear to be subconsciously relying on a "Don't do what you have no right to do" rule, because relying on that rule is intuitive and habitual, and following an idea to its logical conclusion when you're entertaining it without accepting it is hard.

Does any of that help?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It is my observation that we react to things that happen to us. If one is raped, tortured, robbed, assaulted, one does not have to consult a religious book to know how one is supposed to feel about that. And of course that goes for when good things happen. Evolution has given us large brains with emotions that react to such things. This then, is as close to objective as we will get as far as the basis of morality. The problem is our ability to think abstract thoughts that allows us to create bad morality based on ideology, bad religion, racism et al. So staring with the basics, our emotions, thinking is required. and a sense of history how bad things can happen. Morality is recognizing that fact and avoiding the errors of the past. But I don't see much of that in religion, starting with a claim that only God gives us absolute morality.

The problem with theists that claim that is, they want a simple morality but morality is never simple and their claim does not supply an actual answer.

 

[Random Person]

It is my observation that we react to things that happen to us. If one is raped, tortured, robbed, assaulted, one does not have to consult a religious book to know how one is supposed to feel about that. And of course that goes for when good things happen. Evolution has given us large brains with emotions that react to such things. This then, is as close to objective as we will get as far as the basis of morality. The problem is our ability to think abstract thoughts that allows us to create bad morality based on ideology, bad religion, racism et al. So staring with the basics, our emotions, thinking is required. and a sense of history how bad things can happen. Morality is recognizing that fact and avoiding the errors of the past. But I don't see much of that in religion, starting with a claim that only God gives us absolute morality.

The problem with theists that claim that is, they want a simple morality but morality is never simple and their claim does not supply an actual answer.

I saw a little bit of irony pop out of your post. Getting rape, tortured, assaulted, etc., would indeed feelings with the necessity of consulting a book. However morality is more about the perpetration of rape, torture and assault, etc. Maybe somebody feels good about robbing people. Free stuff is awesome. We need a book to make them feel guilty about that.

 

[The AntiChris]

Evolution has given us large brains with emotions that react to such things.

An emotional reaction is a subjective reaction (It's only 'true' for that particular subject).

This then, is as close to objective as we will get as far as the basis of morality.

So, not at all objective? Or did you mean something else?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It is my observation that we react to things that happen to us. If one is raped, tortured, robbed, assaulted, one does not have to consult a religious book to know how one is supposed to feel about that. And of course that goes for when good things happen. Evolution has given us large brains with emotions that react to such things. This then, is as close to objective as we will get as far as the basis of morality. The problem is our ability to think abstract thoughts that allows us to create bad morality based on ideology, bad religion, racism et al. So staring with the basics, our emotions, thinking is required. and a sense of history how bad things can happen. Morality is recognizing that fact and avoiding the errors of the past. But I don't see much of that in religion, starting with a claim that only God gives us absolute morality.

The problem with theists that claim that is, they want a simple morality but morality is never simple and their claim does not supply an actual answer.

I saw a little bit of irony pop out of your post. Getting rape, tortured, assaulted, etc., would indeed feelings with the necessity of consulting a book. However morality is more about the perpetration of rape, torture and assault, etc. Maybe somebody feels good about robbing people. Free stuff is awesome. We need a book to make them feel guilty about that.

The problem with the major religious books we have is that they prescribe genocides, massacres and evil acts by God himself. Hardly a solution to moral woes. The Quran and hadiths are just as bad. Leading to such things as ISIL, Boko Haram, al Qaeda, the Taliban and other evil Islamic extremists. The West is thankfully, over its religious wars, heresy hunts, pogroms, crusades, conversion by force, acceptance of slavery and other woes.

But we still have the right wingers running America today.

 

[abaddon]

I saw a little bit of irony pop out of your post. Getting rape, tortured, assaulted, etc., would indeed feelings with the necessity of consulting a book. However morality is more about the perpetration of rape, torture and assault, etc. Maybe somebody feels good about robbing people. Free stuff is awesome. We need a book to make them feel guilty about that.

If Christians learn "robbing people is bad" from a Book, it doesn't "take" in their behavior unless there are people who apply emotional pressure (or encouragement, however one frames it). Whether peers at his church, or more likely parents at home during his childhood (with or without book).

I rather agree more with Cheerful Charlie. That you feel bad after being robbed or raped wasn't the point. That you know you'd feel bad and mirror neurons make most people able to know "if I would feel bad when my body or belongings are violated then so would anyone else". It takes a serious lack of something to not get that, whether it wasn't taught in childhood or was driven out of their heads by the ugly atmosphere of hyper-acquisitive societies where we all feel like competitors.

Some say being brutally competitive is how we evolved to be. That's social darwinism, it's ideology not science, and it's contradicted by the observation that nature is by and large cooperative. Even trees communicate with and help one another. The view of nature as "red in tooth and claw" is obsolete. Even predation is cooperation.. yeah, a bunny getting torn apart and eaten is brutal, but that's pointing at one tidbit of the ecology and then trying to characterize the whole by some few features of it.

So, no, I don't think we need a book to make people feel bad. And what a concept... "To make people feel guilty". What would be wrong with teaching them to feel the fact they are not lone egos in competition with all other egos, but features of a larger system both societal and ecological? If the Book is good for anything, isn't that rather more it's message we're all "children of God"... that is, we're all kin (which rather is the message of evolution too)? Why is that message lost in Christian nations, and the punitive aspect so emphasized?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This is not really a new problem. Plato's dialogue "Gorgias" pits Socrates against a sophist named Callicles. Callicles believes he is some sort of elite and resents average citizens of Athens who gang up on him with their laws limiting his actions. To Callicles, might makes right with people like him. Fireworks ensue. The world is alive with Callicles types who believe they are above moral laws. Why shouldn't I proclaim myself a superman above moral norms? Like, oh, say, Stalin, Hitler or others who saw no need to behave morally. Worst yet are those who create political systems based on bad ideas such as the Callicles of the world? Ayn Rand for example. See also Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic. Same sort of nonsense, self elected elitist who claims not to be held to the moral standards of society.

 

[Random Person]

I saw a little bit of irony pop out of your post. Getting rape, tortured, assaulted, etc., would indeed feelings with the necessity of consulting a book. However morality is more about the perpetration of rape, torture and assault, etc. Maybe somebody feels good about robbing people. Free stuff is awesome. We need a book to make them feel guilty about that.

If Christians learn "robbing people is bad" from a Book, it doesn't "take" in their behavior unless there are people who apply emotional pressure (or encouragement, however one frames it). Whether peers at his church, or more likely parents at home during his childhood (with or without book).

I rather agree more with Cheerful Charlie. That you feel bad after being robbed or raped wasn't the point. That you know you'd feel bad and mirror neurons make most people able to know "if I would feel bad when my body or belongings are violated then so would anyone else". It takes a serious lack of something to not get that, whether it wasn't taught in childhood or was driven out of their heads by the ugly atmosphere of hyper-acquisitive societies where we all feel like competitors.

Some say being brutally competitive is how we evolved to be. That's social darwinism, it's ideology not science, and it's contradicted by the observation that nature is by and large cooperative. Even trees communicate with and help one another. The view of nature as "red in tooth and claw" is obsolete. Even predation is cooperation.. yeah, a bunny getting torn apart and eaten is brutal, but that's pointing at one tidbit of the ecology and then trying to characterize the whole by some few features of it.

So, no, I don't think we need a book to make people feel bad. And what a concept... "To make people feel guilty". What would be wrong with teaching them to feel the fact they are not lone egos in competition with all other egos, but features of a larger system both societal and ecological? If the Book is good for anything, isn't that rather more it's message we're all "children of God"... that is, we're all kin (which rather is the message of evolution too)? Why is that message lost in Christian nations, and the punitive aspect so emphasized?

Your post made me feel bad, maybe you should make up your own Bible.

 

[Bomb#20]

This is not really a new problem. Plato's dialogue "Gorgias" pits Socrates against a sophist named Callicles. Callicles believes he is some sort of elite and resents average citizens of Athens who gang up on him with their laws limiting his actions. To Callicles, might makes right with people like him.

Whereas Socrates held that an individual has a duty to submit to the commands of society. Followed orders and drank the hemlock. I guess he showed them.

Fireworks ensue. The world is alive with Callicles types who believe they are above moral laws. Why shouldn't I proclaim myself a superman above moral norms? Why shouldn't I proclaim myself a superman above moral norms? Like, oh, say, Stalin... See also Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic. Same sort of nonsense, self elected elitist who claims not to be held to the moral standards of society.

So were these people wrongdoers and self selected elitists, then? What the heck is the difference between calling it nonsense to consider oneself not held to the moral standards of society, and calling it nonsense to consider oneself not held to the moral standards of Stalin? "God is right by definition" and "Society is right by definition" and "Stalin is right by definition" are all exactly the same moral theory: they're the theory that a moral obligation is a command of the Supreme Wisher.

 

[Bomb#20]

I find it interesting that Moral Objectivists argue that Objective Morality is by definition superior to Subjective Morality.

What do you expect? Objective morality is the topic of moral claims, and most people care a lot about moral claims. Subjective morality is the topic of autobiographical claims, and most people don't really want to listen to other people's autobiographies.

Then, when asked for the source of Objective Morality, they point to a Subjective object (Scripture, Popular Opinion, their own internal feelings, etc.)

Morality is complicated. It's adaptive. It's present in every human population. It varies from species to species -- if you eat your neighbor's kid there's probably something broken in your brain and if a lion eats his neighbor's kid his brain is probably working just fine. Hmm. Complicated, adaptive, found in pretty much the whole species, different in other species. What does that remind me of? Oh, I've got it: pelvises, livers, eyeballs, temporal lobes, placentas, color vision, copulating, walking, scratching, sneezing, vocalization, ...

Where objective morality comes from is not really all that hard a problem.

It may be the case that Objective Morality is indeed superior, but that we poor Subjective beings have no way of discovering what it actually is.

Okay, that sounds like a harder problem than the other ones. Still, there are a lot of things we used to wonder about, that we thought we had no way of discovering what they actually are. Ancient Greek philosophers used to debate what clouds are.

 

[PyramidHead]

You will always have people who are committed to one ethical view or another, despite being told the ways that it is worse than alternative views (because the ways it is shown to be worse are not the kind of ways that drive their activity), and people who are committed to a set of beliefs about the empirical world despite being provided with evidence to the contrary (because they do not consider the evidence applicable, convincing, or whatever).

I therefore remain skeptical of any claim that science is a purely neutral report of an objective state of affairs in reality, while ethics is the insubstantial and subjective expression of opinion belonging to the realm of emotionalism.

Why? I don't see an argument here. You seem to be saying that because there are disagreements in both the 'empirical' and 'ethical' realms, there is no significant difference between beliefs in the two realms. This doesn't seem to follow.

I'm not making the positive claim that both are objective or subjective, I'm making the negative claim that it cannot be shown that they differ in their status without appealing to a source that is already assumed to be objective.