My 'Truth' or 'YOUR 'truth'?

[Enki]

Are there not philosophers who defend objective morality, non-theistically?   Well, the old 'uns were mostly theists, anyway, e.g. Plato.

Hi Wiggs,

Sam Harris, noted American atheist, is an exponent of moral realism. He suggests the following, for instance.

"For there to be objective moral truths  worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in this world. If there are psychological laws that govern human well-being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality.... Everything about human experience suggests that love is more conducive to human happiness than hate is."

Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation", p23.

Of course he strongly rejects the idea that belief in an objective morality depends on believing in a god and he also accepts that  we do not have anything like a final scientific understanding  of human morality. In fact, he does seem to me to be talking about human flourishing here, which I do not disagree with. However I would challenge the idea  that this in some way suggests an objective morality.

I accept that there is a 'potential' for morality, if it aids survival. However I see this as no different to any other 'potentials' such as the eye, movement, ability to breed, speed, strength, selfishness and a myriad of other characteristics of living things. I do not see these 'potentials' as having any outside existence in their own right, and, therefore do not regard them as objective in the sense of having an existence separate from the creatures which exhibit these characteristics.

I rather go along with these words of E. O. Wilson:

"Either ethical principles, such as justice and human rights, are independent of human experience, or they are human inventions. The distinction is more than an exercise for academic philosophers. The choice between these two understandings makes all the difference in the way we view ourselves as a species. It measures the authority of religion, and it determines the conduct of moral reasoning."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/04/the-biological-basis-of-morality/377087/

[Rhiannon]

I've just started a thread on happiness over on Ethics as it merits its own discussion, if anyone fancies it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Wiggs,

Sam Harris, noted American atheist, is an exponent of moral realism. He suggests the following, for instance.

"For there to be objective moral truths  worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in this world. If there are psychological laws that govern human well-being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality.... Everything about human experience suggests that love is more conducive to human happiness than hate is."

Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation", p23.

Of course he strongly rejects the idea that belief in an objective morality depends on believing in a god and he also accepts that  we do not have anything like a final scientific understanding  of human morality. In fact, he does seem to me to be talking about human flourishing here, which I do not disagree with. However I would challenge the idea  that this in some way suggests an objective morality.

I accept that there is a 'potential' for morality, if it aids survival. However I see this as no different to any other 'potentials' such as the eye, movement, ability to breed, speed, strength, selfishness and a myriad of other characteristics of living things. I do not see these 'potentials' as having any outside existence in their own right, and, therefore do not regard them as objective in the sense of having an existence separate from the creatures which exhibit these characteristics.

I rather go along with these words of E. O. Wilson:

"Either ethical principles, such as justice and human rights, are independent of human experience, or they are human inventions. The distinction is more than an exercise for academic philosophers. The choice between these two understandings makes all the difference in the way we view ourselves as a species. It measures the authority of religion, and it determines the conduct of moral reasoning."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/04/the-biological-basis-of-morality/377087/

Thanks for this. It will be interesting to see if it gets proper consideration or bluster from Wigginhall and Shaker.

[bluehillside Retd.]

It will be interesting to see if it gets proper consideration or bluster from Wigginhall and Shaker.

Ah, the unedifying sight of the king of assertion, evasion, irrelevance, insult, bluff and bare faced mendacity who to my knowledge has consistently run away from every single question that could undo him accusing two other posters noted for answering fully and to the point of "bluster".

Priceless!

[Gordon]

I've just started a thread on happiness over on Ethics as it merits its own discussion, if anyone fancies it.

Moderator:

Several posts from here on the subject of happiness have been moved the the thread mentioned by Rhiannon, where the earliest of these (by Wiggenhall) becomes the OP of this thread.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12155.msg617179#new

[Enki]

Thanks for this. It will be interesting to see if it gets proper consideration or bluster from Wigginhall and Shaker.

Make no mistake, Vlad. Just because I refer to Sam Harris doesn't mean I agree with him, or you. I don't think that Harris makes good arguments at all for objective morality. His main focus is on utilitarianism, but I think his ideas don't really hold water as far as being evidence for objective morality is concerned. Happiness for whom and how many, for instance?  And what does that happiness really mean, for each individual? and, why choose happiness anyway?

I'm with Wiggs on this one in his first post on the 'Happiness' thread. As I have already said, I see no reason to think that there is such a thing as an objective morality at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Make no mistake, Vlad. Just because I refer to Sam Harris doesn't mean I agree with him, or you. I don't think that Harris makes good arguments at all for objective morality. His main focus is on utilitarianism, but I think his ideas don't really hold water as far as being evidence for objective morality is concerned. Happiness for whom and how many, for instance?  And what does that happiness really mean, for each individual? and, why choose happiness anyway?

I'm with Wiggs on this one in his first post on the 'Happiness' thread. As I have already said, I see no reason to think that there is such a thing as an objective morality at all.

That's OK you were fair minded enough to put it on.

[Stranger]

I don't think that Harris makes good arguments at all for objective morality. His main focus is on utilitarianism, but I think his ideas don't really hold water as far as being evidence for objective morality is concerned. Happiness for whom and how many, for instance?  And what does that happiness really mean, for each individual? and, why choose happiness anyway?

Not only that but there is no objective reason to conclude that some positive outcome (happiness or whatever) for humans is "good" and that human suffering is "bad". We have to collectively decide that. Although there may be a large measure of consensus on it, some may call it speciesist while others may favour one particular group of humans to the detriment of others.

[Enki]

Not only that but there is no objective reason to conclude that some positive outcome (happiness or whatever) for humans is "good" and that human suffering is "bad". We have to collectively decide that. Although there may be a large measure of consensus on it, some may call it speciesist while others may favour one particular group of humans to the detriment of others.

Indeed, SKoS, in accordance with this sense of belonging  to a group and overlying the basic elements,  our nurture and culture  often plays a hugely prominent part  in shaping our moral views, often to the detriment of the groups that we feel we don’t belong to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not only that but there is no objective reason to conclude that some positive outcome (happiness or whatever) for humans is "good" and that human suffering is "bad". We have to collectively decide that. Although there may be a large measure of consensus on it, some may call it speciesist while others may favour one particular group of humans to the detriment of others.

If we have to make decisions we also have to evaluate those decisions, We also have to use past experience of the consequences of previous decisions and we need to do that to see if we were right or wrong.

All of that suggests a standard and a measure of success........aims and outcomes..................Moral relativity cannot provide that since ultimately any decision is as valid as any other.

[Gordon]

If we have to make decisions we also have to evaluate those decisions, We also have to use past experience of the consequences of previous decisions and we need to do that to see if we were right or wrong.

All of that suggests a standard and a measure of success........aims and outcomes..................Moral relativity cannot provide that since ultimately any decision is as valid as any other.

Doesn't suggest a standard to me but all you need do now, Vlad, to demonstrate this is to design a moral scale and a method of scoring moral decisions to see where they sit on the scale - this would be a basis for your 'measure of success' notion and would discriminate between moral decisions in a quantifiable way.

Good luck with that!   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Doesn't suggest a standard to me but all you need do now, Vlad, to demonstrate this is to design a moral scale and a method of scoring moral decisions to see where they sit on the scale - this would be a basis for your 'measure of success' notion and would discriminate between moral decisions in a quantifiable way.

Good luck with that!   

On what then do we base moral decisions if not a standard?
On what. Then do you base your moral decisions?

I think like on numerous previous occasions you have not fully thought this through.

[Stranger]

If we have to make decisions we also have to evaluate those decisions, We also have to use past experience of the consequences of previous decisions and we need to do that to see if we were right or wrong.

Yes, but "right" and "wrong" are subjective terms. They will depend on our personal values (or the values of a society).

All of that suggests a standard and a measure of success........aims and outcomes..................Moral relativity cannot provide that since ultimately any decision is as valid as any other.

That is why it becomes messy and difficult. It's why societies have to have rules and why there are groups devoted to changing attitudes and laws. We, as humans, tend to agree to some degree, which provides us with the only possible standard to use. However, we can observe through history, that attitudes change.

You are guilty not of an appeal to consequences but a false dichotomy too. You are saying that if it isn't objective, it doesn't matter and every course of action is equal. Whereas, in fact, for very practical reasons, it matters a lot to people and to the survival of societies.

We always come back to the fact that there is simply no objective test for morality. If you can't supply one, your argument is dead in the water, no matter what the consequences.

[Gordon]

On what then do we base moral decisions if not a standard?
On what. Then do you base your moral decisions?

I think like on numerous previous occasions you have not fully thought this through.

You are the one who said 'All of that suggests a standard and a measure of success' and I'm simply looking forward to seeing how you develop this moral standard and measure of success idea.

My thoughts on morality are neither here nor there - we're talking about your approach.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Doesn't suggest a standard to me but all you need do now, Vlad, to demonstrate this is to design a moral scale and a method of scoring moral decisions to see where they sit on the scale - this would be a basis for your 'measure of success' notion and would discriminate between moral decisions in a quantifiable way.

Good luck with that!   

Unfortunately though moral relativity provides no moral arbitration.
You suggest there is no external standard by which moral decisions are made nor any internal standards
What decision is therefor made.

All you successfully do is to establish that what you are really meaning to say is you don't know where your moral standard comes from.............

Unless you come out with the alternative and admit that actually, at base , their is no real morality"..........................In which case we are obliged to ask............why not act like there isn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, but "right" and "wrong" are subjective terms. They will depend on our personal values (or the values of a society).

Ah, so there are values out there. And where do they come from?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are the one who said 'All of that suggests a standard and a measure of success' and I'm simply looking forward to seeing how you develop this moral standard and measure of success idea.

My thoughts on morality are neither here nor there - we're talking about your approach.

Ah to be at the end of a bleak, cold, dark Scottish atheist inquisition steeped in a dour Presbyterianism.

We ask the questions, lady.......eh Gordon.

[Stranger]

Ah, so there are values out there. And where do they come from?

People. As I have said repeatedly, human nature is such that we have a degree of agreement. We (most of us) have empathy, people and groups we care about, and a desire not to live in a society without rules of conduct.

However, it isn't simple and objective. Hence the changes through history (abolition of slavery, the notion of equal rights for all humans and so on).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

People. As I have said repeatedly, human nature is such that we have a degree of agreement. We (most of us) have empathy, people and groups we care about, and a desire not to live in a society without rules of conduct.

However, it isn't simple and objective. Hence the changes through history (abolition of slavery, the notion of equal rights for all humans and so on).

Oh dear I fear your argument is going to go circular.
Where do people get their moral standard from.
Secondly it sounds as if there are genes for morality. Empathy etc.
In what way then do we decide our morality if that is the case.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

People. As I have said repeatedly, human nature is such that we have a degree of agreement. We (most of us) have empathy, people and groups we care about, and a desire not to live in a society without rules of conduct.

However, it isn't simple and objective. Hence the changes through history (abolition of slavery, the notion of equal rights for all humans and so on).

Yes but what is the engine of change?

[Gordon]

Unfortunately though moral relativity provides no moral arbitration.

Of course does - I can come to the view, having thought about the issues, that while shoplifting and murder are both morally wrong there is a difference in circumstances that is substantive in terms of, say, the different consequences arising from each on both individuals and society at large.

You suggest there is no external standard by which moral decisions are made nor any internal standards

Barring rules and regulations devised by people I've no idea how an external moral standard would appear since I can see no source of said standard that is independent of people. I think there are plenty of internal standards that are derived by people in the form of axioms.

All you successfully do is to establish that what you are really meaning to say is you don't know where your moral standard comes from.............

I didn't mean to say that at all - I think that my moral views derive from people thinking, both myself and in taking into account the thoughts of others throughout history. There is no shortage of moral philosophy to draw on.

Unless you come out with the alternative and admit that actually, at base , their is no real morality"..........................In which case we are obliged to ask............why not act like there isn't.

Because there clearly is, and I act as if there is - albeit it isn't based on what you'd prefer it was based on.

[Gordon]

Where do people get their moral standard from.

Their biology.

[torridon]

Yes but what is the engine of change?

Nothing ever remains the same; change is the norm.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course does - I can come to the view, having thought about the issues, that while shoplifting and murder are both morally wrong there is a difference in circumstances that is substantive in terms of, say, the different consequences arising from each on both individuals and society at large.

Barring rules and regulations devised by people I've no idea how an external moral standard would appear since I can see no source of said standard that is independent of people. I think there are plenty of internal standards that are derived by people in the form of axioms.

I didn't mean to say that at all - I think that my moral views derive from people thinking, both myself and in taking into account the thoughts of others throughout history. There is no shortage of moral philosophy to draw on.

Because there clearly is, and I act as if there is - albeit it isn't based on what you'd prefer it was based on.

Again, what is the engine for changing the rules to make them more moral?

If it is external influences then where does thateave personal subjectivity.

In fact it would seem that personal subjectivity is a source of immorality!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nothing ever remains the same; change is the norm.

Where does that leave rules then. Surely chaos is maximal change?