I walked out of church today.

[The King in Crimson]

I meant more what is your definition of a meaningful life full of value and purpose. From your side, not the arbitrary/athetistic/illusory whatever you want to call it side. Clearly you have your "correct" answer in mind.

If one believes in God, afterlife and objective moral values (me), then the ultimate purpose of life would, very fundamentally, be to lead a life as morally as possible in order to ensure a desirable afterlife.

So, the only thing keeping us from turning into slave-owning, raping, murdering, nihilistic assholes is fear of damnation from a supposedly all-powerful being that crafted us in his image?

And people say that atheists are cynical...

[hefdaddy42]

Subjective = arbitrary

Here's the problem.  This seems to be your driving point, and it simply isn't true.

[Omega]

Subjective = arbitrary

Here's the problem.  This seems to be your driving point, and it simply isn't true.

Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective). pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

Arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.


I'm not concerned with knowing what nomenclature (insert person's name here) thinks we should use to describe subjective morality. This is a pointless issue that is not serving for any purpose other than fodder for my responses. The point is that users here are asserting that there is no objective good or wrong and then go on to make judgments on social issues or personal opinions, deeming them themselves "right" or "wrong" when in their worldview, morals are but an illusion; there would be no "good" or "evil" acts and one could not objectively deem an act as "moral" or "immoral," "good" or "evil" and maintain a consistent worldview. Morals become completely arbitrary. Actions lose all moral dimension; no action would be either prohibited or obligatory. No moral difference would exist under this worldview between genocide and charity.

Even the revered atheist philosopher Frederich Nietzsche realized that in moral relativism, there is no distinction between murder and charity, and that all purpose, meaning or value that could be attributed to the human race or its actions was a self-delusion (nihilism).

[ehra]

The point is that users here are asserting that there is no objective good or wrong and then go on to make judgments on social issues or personal opinions, deeming them themselves "right" or "wrong" when in their worldview, morals are but an illusion

No, they're a personal preference.


You keep equating the subjective morals to, say, color preference, but then you try to treat them differently at the same time. If someone prefers blue over red and then says blue is a better color, you wouldn't tell them that color preference is an illusion and that they shouldn't prefer one over the other since their preference is completely arbitrary. Because it's a preference, someone preferring one color over the other doesn't suddenly mean they're making an objective claim. But then once the discuss turns to subjective morality you try to do exactly that, even though earlier in the thread you tried to argue they there was no difference between the two.

Then you try to argue that someone's perspective on morality shouldn't "matter" any more than their preference in color, when that makes no sense. Even if you take "morality" out of it, certain subjective preferences other people hold are absolutely more relevant to us than others. If you want kids and your wife doesn't, her preference in that case is absolutely going to "matter" more to you than whether she likes a certain band or not.

You can't argue that perspective morality is akin to any other personal preference like color or music then also try to treat it differently or make it work by different "rules" than any other personal preference.

[the Catfishman]

so.. Omega read Nietzsche and is now telling atheists that their world view is equal to nihilism... which is the same as stating that Hefdaddy is catholic because he is a Christian.

The point is that users here are asserting that there is no objective good or wrong and then go on to make judgments on social issues or personal opinions, deeming them themselves "right" or "wrong" when in their worldview, morals are but an illusion

.. as we tried to explain, this is not always true.

[Omega]

The point is that users here are asserting that there is no objective good or wrong and then go on to make judgments on social issues or personal opinions, deeming them themselves "right" or "wrong" when in their worldview, morals are but an illusion

No, they're a personal preference.


You keep equating the subjective morals to, say, color preference, but then you try to treat them differently at the same time. If someone prefers blue over red and then says blue is a better color, you wouldn't tell them that color preference is an illusion and that they shouldn't prefer one over the other since their preference is completely arbitrary. Because it's a preference, someone preferring one color over the other doesn't suddenly mean they're making an objective claim. But then once the discuss turns to subjective morality you try to do exactly that, even though earlier in the thread you tried to argue they there was no difference between the two.

Then you try to argue that someone's perspective on morality shouldn't "matter" any more than their preference in color, when that makes no sense. Even if you take "morality" out of it, certain subjective preferences other people hold are absolutely more relevant to us than others. If you want kids and your wife doesn't, her preference in that case is absolutely going to "matter" more to you than whether she likes a certain band or not.

You can't argue that perspective morality is akin to any other personal preference like color or music then also try to treat it differently or make it work by different "rules" than any other personal preference.

In this worldview, morals are but an illusion; there would be no "good" or "evil" acts and one could not deem an act as "moral" or "immoral," "good" or "evil" and maintain a consistent worldview. Morals become completely arbitrary. Actions lose all moral dimension; no action would be either prohibited or obligatory. No moral difference would exist under this worldview between genocide and charity.

So far, fine. This is, you know.... exactly what subjective means.

You are missing the point when its right under your nose.

There is no disagreement here. In moral relativism, morals are, indeed, mere products of personal preference. Morals get reduced to subjective opinions. So if everyone's morals are merely subjective opinions, whose morals are right and whose are wrong? Nobody's. So what if a majority of a society happens to share the same set of completely subjective moral values? Does that mean that just because the majority of a populace shares similar moral values that their values are objectively right or wrong?

"In a world without objective moral values, who's to say whose values are right and whose are wrong? There can be no objective right or wrong, only our culturally and personally relative, subjective judgments. Think of what that entails! It means it's impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. It becomes impossible to praise generosity and love as good.

Somebody might say that it's in our self-interest to adopt a moral lifestyle. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. But obviously, that's certainly not always true. We all know situations in which self-interest runs smack in the face of morality. We end up being confronted, in Jean-Paul Sartre's words 'the bare, valueless fact of existence.' Moral values are either just expressions of personal taste or byproducts of biological evolution and social conditioning."

[Omega]

The point is that users here are asserting that there is no objective good or wrong and then go on to make judgments on social issues or personal opinions, deeming them themselves "right" or "wrong" when in their worldview, morals are but an illusion

.. as we tried to explain, this is not always true.

You did?

Why don't you try to explain again as I don't recall this ever taking place (or at least certainly not successfully).

[eric42434224]

The only difference between the two is that one feels morals should be the same for everyone regardless, and the other can change them to adapt to certain scenarios.  Thas all.  One is ridgid, and one flexible.  And both are perfectly fine.

But to say one is illusion is very ironic.  One who accepts the ridgid morals from say, god, has made the same choice as someone who will adapt their morals to a scenario.  You made a choice given the information at hand to follow the rules of the bible.  A book written by man with no real proof that the god exists or the rules are real and correct.  You took it on faith, and from your experiences....and that CHOICE makes it no different than a CHOICE made by anyone else.  You just choose to stick with your choice no matter what, and we can adapt to our situation.

So which is an illusion?

[the Catfishman]

The point is that users here are asserting that there is no objective good or wrong and then go on to make judgments on social issues or personal opinions, deeming them themselves "right" or "wrong" when in their worldview, morals are but an illusion

.. as we tried to explain, this is not always true.

You did?

Why don't you try to explain again as I don't recall this ever taking place (or at least certainly not successfully).

I do agree that in some sense morals are 'illusions' but that does not mean they are arbitrary or do not serve a purpose and it certainly does not mean that every individual can just 'make up' their morals on the spot. And that's what I tried to explain to you with the evolutionary development of morals... (they are ingrained in us and we can't just ignore them, them being illusions or not).

[ehra]

Does that mean that just because the majority of a populace shares similar moral values that their values are objectively right or wrong?

No! That's the entire point and what people have been arguing to you this entire time! It's still subjective! A society is a group of people agreeing to live together and abide by a certain set of rules/morals, and if they're broken certain punishments may or may not take place. That's it. If someone believes morals are all perspective and they call someone else immoral or "evil" then it's still just a subjective claim; they believe the other person is "immoral" based on their own perception of morality. Just like how me saying that ICP sucks is still just a subjective claim based on my musical preference and isn't a claim to objectivity.

The people arguing with you in this thread are flat out telling you that they view morals as subjective or perspective, and you're trying to catch them in some kind of contradiction by claiming they're trying to also claim moral objectivity when they're doing no such thing.

[Omega]

I meant more what is your definition of a meaningful life full of value and purpose. From your side, not the arbitrary/athetistic/illusory whatever you want to call it side. Clearly you have your "correct" answer in mind.

If one believes in God, afterlife and objective moral values (me), then the ultimate purpose of life would, very fundamentally, be to lead a life as morally as possible in order to ensure a desirable afterlife.

so how does this work out;

1.  you read about an afterlife thus you want to follow the rules that get you the ticket.

or

2.  you believe God has ingrained his set of morals into us.


If 1. how do you explain that people who have never heard of your God/Afterlife (for example the average Chinese farmer) still follow pretty much the same values as you? they still follow all ten commandments except for believing in God (which is an incredibly vain commandment anyway). Where did he found those values?

Isn't that evidence of an objective set of moral values which all humans intuitively recognize?

and with 2. I argue that these ingrained morals are a product of our evolutionary/cultural environment.

If atheism is true, then yes, I would agree.

"Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an 'objective something', ethics is illusory. I appreciate when somebody says 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction. All deeper meaning is illusory." - Michael Ruse, Evolutionary Naturalist, Atheist.

If atheism is true, then morals are merely meaningless personal opinions in which no one is either right or wrong.

Even monkeys roughly follow the ten commandments, is it because they want to have a cool afterlife? or does it make more sense that this arose as a beneficial strategy for them through thousands of generations?

Are an animal's actions ever considered to have a moral dimension? When a lion kills a zebra, is the lion "murdering" a zebra? When a cat kills an animal for mere pleasure, is the cat sadistic? When a male shark forcefully impregnates a female shark, is the male shark raping the female shark?

In every sense of the word, moral relativism leads to the same "morality" of animals: there is no objectively wrong or right actions, actions lose all moral dimension, there would be no morally discnerable difference between rape and love, and the only reason not to kill members of society would be merely out of inconvenience, not some illusory sense of right and wrong. A life of self-interest would be the only rational path.

[Omega]

Does that mean that just because the majority of a populace shares similar moral values that their values are objectively right or wrong?

No! That's the entire point and what people have been arguing to you this entire time! It's still subjective! A society is a group of people agreeing to live together and abide by a certain set of (illusory) rules/morals, and if they're broken certain punishments may or may not take place. That's it. If someone believes morals are all perspective and they call someone else immoral or "evil" then it's still just a subjective claim; they believe the other person is "immoral" based on their own perception of morality. Just like how me saying that ICP sucks is still just a subjective claim based on my musical preference and isn't a claim to objectivity.

So then you're in utter agreement with me.

Therefore, if you believe all morals are merely subjective, how can you earnestly condemn genocide, murder, rape, etc under a moral basis?

You can't.


But people who affirm subjective morality do so anyway (make objective moral claims) and hence are acting in contradiction to their own worldview!

[Omega]

(Double Post)

[the Catfishman]

If atheism is true, then yes, I would agree.

"Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an 'objective something', ethics is illusory. I appreciate when somebody says 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction. All deeper meaning is illusory." - Michael Ruse, Evolutionary Naturalist, Atheist.

If atheism is true, then morals are merely meaningless personal opinions in which no one is either right or wrong.

I agree with the quote you gave, but nowhere does he say that that means that no one is right or wrong.. that's something you added, he just says they all deeper meaning is illusionary... which I agree with. 

In every sense of the word, moral relativism leads to the same "morality" of animals: there is no objectively wrong or right actions, actions lose all moral dimension, there would be no morally discnerable difference between rape and love, and the only reason not to kill members of society would be merely out of inconvenience, not some illusory sense of right and wrong. A life of self-interest would be the only rational path.

That's what I'm saying... the reason we do not kill members of society is precisely because of this 'illusionary' sense of right and wrong (which again is for a large part ingrained in us), why can you not agree with this?

[yeshaberto]

you are all wrong!
now move on to something else

[ehra]

Therefore, if you believe all morals are merely subjective, how can you earnestly condemn genocide, murder, rape, etc under a moral basis?

I've made multiple arguments on this very thing which you ignored. I'm not going to type them out again.

Uh.... no. Someone's preference in color has no meaningful impact on how they function in society, and most people in society will have no vested interest in or any reason to be concerned with someone's preference in color. On the other hand, someone thinking it's ok to murder people when the people around them don't DOES have a large impact in how they function with society, and the people around them have a damn good reason to be concerned with that person's moral view; mainly being that they don't want to be stabbed in the face.

Even if you take "morality" out of it, certain subjective preferences other people hold are absolutely more relevant to us than others. If you want kids and your wife doesn't, her preference in that case is absolutely going to "matter" more to you than whether she likes a certain band or not.

Most people don't want to live in a society where random murder and rape is accepted, so of course they're going to condemn it.

[Omega]

If atheism is true, then yes, I would agree.

"Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an 'objective something', ethics is illusory. I appreciate when somebody says 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction. All deeper meaning is illusory." - Michael Ruse, Evolutionary Naturalist, Atheist.

If atheism is true, then morals are merely meaningless personal opinions in which no one is either right or wrong.

I agree with the quote you gave, but nowhere does he say that that means that no one is right or wrong.. that's something you added, he just says they all deeper meaning is illusionary... which I agree with. 

You are not reading into the quote. Look at what Ruse states: "ethics is illusory" He is stating that morality, the idea of actions being "right" or "wrong," is illusory. This observation is painfully obvious in the quote.

In every sense of the word, moral relativism leads to the same "morality" of animals: there is no objectively wrong or right actions, actions lose all moral dimension, there would be no morally discnerable difference between rape and love, and the only reason not to kill members of society would be merely out of inconvenience, not some illusory sense of right and wrong. A life of self-interest would be the only rational path.

That's what I'm saying... the reason we do not kill members of society is precisely because of this 'illusionary' sense of right and wrong (which again is for a large part ingrained in us), why can you not agree with this?

What you are saying is that this "sense of right and wrong" is merely a fabrication of one's mind. If so, why should it ever demand that it be followed?

Is it, then, intrinsically "wrong" to rape? According to this worldview, no. Is it wrong, then, to murder? According to this worldview, no, regardless of how it would ever affect society.
 

[Omega]

Therefore, if you believe all morals are merely subjective, how can you earnestly condemn genocide, murder, rape, etc under a moral basis?

I've made multiple arguments on this very thing which you ignored. I'm not going to type them out again.

Uh.... no. Someone's preference in color has no meaningful impact on how they function in society, and most people in society will have no vested interest in or any reason to be concerned with someone's preference in color. On the other hand, someone thinking it's ok to murder people when the people around them don't DOES have a large impact in how they function with society, and the people around them have a damn good reason to be concerned with that person's moral view; mainly being that they don't want to be stabbed in the face.

Even if you take "morality" out of it, certain subjective preferences other people hold are absolutely more relevant to us than others. If you want kids and your wife doesn't, her preference in that case is absolutely going to "matter" more to you than whether she likes a certain band or not.

I really hope you don't truly believe these amount to arguments, much less for why an illusory moral code should be followed.

Most people don't want to live in a society where random murder and rape is accepted, so of course they're going to condemn it.

Of course. But they would condemn it merely out of inconvenience, not some illusory sense of "right and wrong."

In other words, (in moral relativism) there is no basis for why anything would be wrong or right. Any action would be permitted and none would be prohibited, regardless of their effect on society.

[yeshaberto]

Once again...
This discussion is going in circles and is off-topic
Move on

[the Catfishman]

What you are saying is that this "sense of right and wrong" is merely a fabrication of one's mind. If so, why should it ever demand that it be followed?

Is it, then, intrinsically "wrong" to rape? According to this worldview, no. Is it wrong, then, to murder? According to this worldview, no, regardless of how it would ever affect society.

it is not demanded by anyone that we follow them, we do it because it's ingrained in our psychology.. or in other words.. our "sense of right and wrong". It is not demanded that we get horny when we are teenager.. but for some reason we are.

and for the second part, indeed nothing is intrinsically wrong or right... however.. the bold part again shows how you miss the evolutionary aspect.


And about Ruse: https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/15/morality-evolution-philosophy

Am I now giving the game away? Now you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what's to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense. But you are still a human with your gene-based psychology working flat out to make you think you should be moral. It has been said that the truth will set you free. Don't believe it. David Hume knew the score. It doesn't matter how much philosophical reflection can show that your beliefs and behaviour have no rational foundation, your psychology will make sure you go on living in a normal, happy manner.

[yeshaberto]

Am I invisible?   
I really don't want to lock this threadi

[eric42434224]

Am I invisible?   
I really don't want to lock this threadi

Who said that?

Whos there?

[the Catfishman]

I'm sorry, I saw it after I posted it... but I also don't really agree with it being off topic, the thread starter started and participated in this discussion 

[yeshaberto]

Ah, good point.   But I still think the subject has been exhausted.   At least that is my morally subjective relative opinion

[ehra]

Considering that in Omega's last reply to me he explicitly blew off my comments while repeating an argument I had replied to in a part of a previous post that he also ignored, I'd agree that there isn't much else that's going to be said at this point.

[Omega]

What is excruciatingly frustrating is that "my point" is conceded and is then shortly after contested in the same sentence.

[Sigz]

I believe that murdering someone for no reason is wrong. I also acknowledge that there's no truly objective basis for this belief, and that it's derived from just my own values.

I really don't see what's so hard to understand or what is contradictory about that position.

[yeshaberto]

Nice.  I am no longer a lock topic virgin

[bosk1]

@Omega, etc.:  No, this thread will not be reopened.  There were repeated warnings to keep the debate civil, focused, and on-topic.  Those warnings were not heeded.  Consequently,