Imagine my surprise when I heard that atheism was based on a search for truth. We all know that’s false.
Let’s examine a couple recent examples.
Patrick claimed that I did not provide any links.
You’ll note the complete absence of any links…
I provided links. Patrick lied.
KN claimed that Immanuel Kant was an atheist philosopher.
KN lied,
Patrick demands morals of others while denying that there are any objective moral obligations.
Why do atheists care about what is true and what is immoral?
Why do atheists attack the object of their ignorance?
among other things conceding that objective morality exists.
I think they are silly
We all do. It’s part of being finite and human
peace
Something tells me you didn’t find that interesting at all LOL
Demonstrate it exists and I will ‘concede’ it exists. It’s simple really.
No, specifically the conversation was about me. What silly beliefs do I have that I am clinging onto so I can avoid ‘admitting’ that objective morality exists?
I like that.
No, I wasn’t kidding. (I know I’m sarcastic so often that it can be hard to tell.) But I like positions that don’t prohibit ‘objectivity’ to human artifacts.
In this context I think you believe that objective morality does not exist.
That idea is silly because it contradicts other beliefs you have like slavery is wrong.
If I’m wrong and you do believe in objective morality my comments were not directed to you
peace
Actually I try not to. I like being demonstrated to be wrong, I’ve just learnt something!
https://xkcd.com/1053/
Why? Here is the crux of the matter! So be specific. Why, if I don’t believe objective morality exists can I also not believe that slavery is wrong?
I accept that it’s not ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ on a universal, global sense. It’s not binding in any sense. The stars will continue to shine if slavery is never abolished. There will be no punishment for those that enslave others in the next life, nor paradise for the slaves.
And yet, somehow I still manage to believe slavery is wrong. And I’ve already explained my reasons why in this thread.
If you want to say that is silly then you are actually going to have to justify that and argue against what I’ve actually said rather then just leave it at that.
Or not. As you prefer!
I don’t believe or not believe in the existence of things. They have either been demonstrated to exist to some level of accuracy/detail or they have not.
As yet I have no demonstration that objective morality exists and in fact what I find is that the proponents of it can’t actually help me determine if it exists or not!
For example, it is posited that torturing children is 100% objectively wrong, yet some cultures did exactly that and thought it perfectly fine. I’m yet to see this addressed.
Likewise, on threads I have started to try and determine the ‘rules’ of this morality where examples like ‘the trolley question’ have been discussed there has been no or weak explanations from the ‘objective morality’ supporters as to why people change their choices often solely because the way a dilemma is posed?
So if there are any silly ideas here, it’s the idea that proponents of objective morality have done anything other then proclaim it exists, proclaim it proves god exists as a consequence and then refuse to take part in any further attempts to delineate it.
Think on.
OMagain,
Fwiw, I don’t think it’s as easy to delineate the stuff you say there is ‘objective evidence’ for in that post and the stuff for which you deny it. As you say you like suggestions about things with which you’re unfamiliar, I recommend you read some Quine.
Well, apparently slavery is not wrong anyway or did you miss that long discussion? It’s just temporary and local, nothing to worry about in comparison to spiritual slavery.
If it was wrong it would have been mentioned somewhere I’m sure.
According to WLM moral subjectivism means that moral rules only apply to oneself and no one else than oneself. I think it follows, and he agrees that “everyone should do as they please” would be morally acceptable under those premises… but that moral rule clearly applies to everyone so can’t be subjective. I think this obvious contradiction must mean that his definition of moral subjectivism is wrong
I don’t normally bother to try and express myself to this level of detail with these people as others are saying exactly what I’m saying but with better terminology. KN for example, most recently.
But I fancied a go today. But yes, I have said some confusing things. But, given the charitable reading FMM is always asking for you can probably discern my intent. I’ll have a look, thanks for the recommendation.
OMagain, to fifth:
Yes, please answer that, fifth. It’s quite important.
You too, William.
You’ve got that more than a bit inverted. This site was founded to allow the open and honest discussion of intelligent design creationism where participants do not have to worry about being banned or having comments altered or deleted.
We are not emotionally committed to not banning people, we are morally committed to the principle of freedom of expression. That UD looks bad in comparison is their responsibility, not ours.
No legal obligation, certainly. His lack of commitment to freedom of expression does demonstrate a character flaw.
Like your good self, I suppose?
That’s not the goal here. In fact, I tend to give the IDCists a bit more slack, and I see the other admins acting similarly.
I challenge you to find any instance of Lizzie behaving obnoxiously at UD, yet nonetheless she was banned.
Paging Dr. Freud….
keiths,
How can they know it exists and not have access to it?
That “temporary and local” quote should be tattooed on fifthmonarchyman’s avatar as a warning about the evil things religion can make you say.
You can believe it’s subjectively wrong just not objectively wrong.
Because to believe that
both
1) X is objectively wrong
and
2) Nothing is objectively wrong
is to believe a bold blatant contradiction.
It is not logically possible for a thing and it’s negation to both be true.
I’m not sure how I can be more specific than that
peace
That’s correct. I don’t believe it’s objectively wrong. I’ve never claimed it is! I never would have as I don’t think anything can be objectively wrong or right. There’s just human shaped things muddling along as best they can given the tools we’ve been left with. Some things seem to retard the spread of the human shaped things. Other things encourage them. As a product of evolution I tend towards behaviours that encourage them. That humans have achieved consciousness of a higher order then any other animal means we can ponder those choices rather then just reacting. Predict what will happen given one path or another. Label some things ‘wrong’ and some things ‘right’ as ways to provide and enhance a shared reality with others who also feel the same way.
Your contradiction is a product of your own assumptions.
All we are is stardust. I’m sorry that’s insufficient for you FMM.
You are actually drifting tantalizingly close to reality. Alas, I suspect you have long ago chosen to throw away your mooring lines. For those of us in the reality based community, concepts like morality have no meaning outside the context of a social species. Morality is no more than the summation of many small subjective behavioral choices by a group of individuals. There is a lot of common ground, but there is also a lot of variation. We, as a species, generally know how to be “moral” in the same way dogs generally know how to be “good dogs”. It’s complicated by our capacity for abstract thinking and theory of mind, but there is no there there that requires any of your blathering about morality as some sort of thing that exists absent behavior and interaction. The phrase “actually moral” is a presupposition utterly unrooted in reality.
I’m reminded of this scene from See No Evil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVRGjvfdDS0
It’s like FMM learnt about a caricature of atheists at Sunday school. All they need is a good godding, and they’ll be back on the right team.
I have tried quite hard to get those who say there is an objective morality to explore the entailments of that objective morality actually existing, but none of them seem very interested. If you dispute that FMM or William we can try again 😛
So
just to be clear
You think it might be morally good for some people to engage in slavery?
I note this position also necessarily means that there is no objective way to decide if slavery is morally good for a particular individual or civilization.
Is that really your position?
while we are at it, one more question
Is it objectively true that slavery is not objectively wrong?
peace
No. I cannot think that. I can agree that some people would themselves think what they were doing was moral when they were engaging in slavery. But I could never say that it would be morally good. That’s not how it works.
No objective way, no. But if you were to ask me I’d say no, it was not morally good for a particular individual or civilization. And I’d have, you know, reasons for that.
Yes.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
A rational person would use evidence to distinguish between them. A theist would strongly advocate for objective morality but never claim that it is a fact so that he can dismiss all of the evidence.
Yes. History, and the bible, support this statement. It doesn’t mean that I have to agree with them and fight to oppose slavery.
“
Again, you are correct. But many societies and the bulk of their population have concluded that slavery is not good for society.
Yes
Since there is no evidence of objective truth with respect to right and wrong, your question is equivalent to “have you stopped molesting your children” and only accepting a yes or no answer.
peace
One of the big problems I see in this discussion is that no one has critically examined the meanings of “subjective” and “objective”. These words are doing our thinking for us.
For example, WJM is assuming that subjective and objective are a strict dichotomy. On that assumption, and following an intuitively plausible interpretation of each term, his view then turns out to be the following:
But that is, of course, invalid.
The first claim is true — and in that sense, moral constraints are indeed not “subjective”. But it does not follow that moral constraints are therefore “objective” in the sense of “being part of the fundamental structure of reality”.
The problem is compounded by the fact that WJM has been allowed to set the terms for the discussion. The result is that anyone who aims to deny that moral constraints are metaphysically fundamental must therefore say that morality is “subjective” .
Suppose — just to take what to me looks like the most plausible view — moral constraints are a synthesis of developmentally canalized primate social behavior and culturally constructed mechanisms of rewards and sanctions relevant to successful cooperation.
If that is “subjective” simply by virtue of not being “objective,” where “objective” means “metaphysically fundamental”, then developmentally canalized primate social behavior and culturally constructed mechanisms of rewards and sanctions relevant to successful cooperation are put in the same box as personal, idiosyncratic, and individual whims, fantasies, and feelings. And that’s clearly absurd.
In short, we would need to figure out what we mean by “objective” and “subjective”, and avoid the simplistic idea that these terms have a single meaning, and also think about degrees of objectivity and subjectivity, and also the relevance of the concept of “intersubjectivity“.
And then there are various related questions about whether the objectivity of values is similar to and different from the objectivity of facts, the difference between moral realism and cognitivism, the difference between local and global expressivism, the debate between cognitivist and noncognitivist antirealism . . .
I’m sorry, did you think metaethics was going to be easy?
Excellent post. I quoted only one sentence, but the whole post is good.
The “subjective”/”objective” dichotomy does not work well with morality.
Is there no connection then between truth and morality?
Absolutely nothing morally wrong, objectively or otherwise, with making false statements under oath.
“Thou shalt not bear false witness,” and all that …
Mung,
My point wasn’t that moral judgments can’t be true or false, but that the truth and falsity of moral judgments needs to be distinguished from the truth and falsity of empirical judgments and also from the truth and falsity of logical judgements.
– Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction
Maybe that’s part of the problem here.
I think that’s part of it. I also think it’s problematic to assume that the kind of objectivity that attaches to models generated by scientific techniques is itself anything archetypal and timeless. Scientific objectivity has a history of its own as well (see here).
I wonder if, instead of thinking of moral judgments as ‘true’ and ‘false’ in the way that empirical judgments are, we might be better off thinking of them as ‘genuine’ and ‘distorted’. (This is an off-the-cuff idea and might not work.)
The idea is that moral judgments are ‘genuine’ if they are grounded in an recognition of the intrinsic value of the sapience-and-sentience, or sentience, of the human, or animal, that is the object of the judgment. (In Buber’s terms, the Ich-Du encounter; in Levinas’s terms, the encounter with the Face of the other that calls into question my own tendency towards egoism.) And moral judgments are ‘distorted’ if an ideology of dehumanization or de-animalization interferes with that recognition.
You’d better tell Barry.
My “messenger boy” tattoo isn’t visible to just anyone.
Mung,
You’re very selective in your outrage, Mung. How does that work with objective morality?
No. Some believe that homosexuality is immoral. But there is no truth to that claim. Some believe that Doctor assisted suicide is immoral. But there is no truth to that. Is stealing food to feed your kids immoral?
“
I find it morally wrong. As, I suspect, you do. But others that we both know, a certain homophobic bankruptcy lawyer comes to mind, obviously do not find it morally wrong.
I don’t see what’s supposedly so problematic with saying “homosexuality is immoral” is a false moral judgment, and “homosexuality is not immoral” is a true moral judgment.
The stupidest, most foolish and downright pernicious mistake that progressives made in the culture war was to concede to traditionalists and reactionaries the language of objective moral truths. It is incompatible with progressive/liberal values, it makes us hypocrites when we speak out against human rights abuses (including those carried out by our own governments) and exploitative labor practices, and it is philosophically incoherent.
(Every day I have to contend with undergrad students who use the language of ethical relativism to rationalize their indifference to suffering and injustice, so it’s a sore spot with me.)
Meanwhile, over at UD today in one of Seversky’s comments:
Mung:
Seversky:
KF from the ceiling, posting at the bottom of Seversky’s comment:
Bold font in original.
Just to be clear
Are you saying it’s stupid, foolish and pernicious to say that objective morality does not exist?
It sounds like there might need to be an Intramural debate among the “progressives” here on that point.
peace
This site could probably use a good OP on objectivity. It seems to be of vital importance in the crusade against God, what with the constant demands for objective empirical evidence.
As to the place of objectivity in modern thought I think KN is definitely going against the grain, a fact he seems to readily admit.
– Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction
Good luck teasing them apart. 🙂
Of course. What, I should go around outraged all the time? Then you’d just claim that it’s only Mung, he’s outraged all the time, it’s safe to ignore him.
Is it that I ought never be outraged, is that the end game here?
Mung,
It’s just funny that you hold us to a ‘higher standard’ than UD. I suppose it would be hard to hold us to a lower standard than ID…
‘Hey guys, you’re not very good at that thing you believe in, even though my believer friends at that other site are much worse!’
Yes.
Quite possibly.
Yet I don’t believe in a literal hell. Did you somehow miss that?
ETA: Further, I did not say atheists cannot behave in a moral way.
No fucking way. You retards keep pretending objective whatevers support your delusions. They don’t. The debate has zero to do with gawd
Just for the record In case anyone was wondering I believe in a literal hell but I don’t believe in “infinite punishment after death” either.
peace
I don’t believe you.
Take for example the following statement:
I think we can forgive Patrick for misspelling the word gawd.
So there you have it, two Christians with two different views on hell, neither of which is as OMagain imagines. Another strawman up in flames.