poll on morality

equivariant

I know that there is another thread on this, but I am interested in getting some quantitative info about boardsies views on morality. If the mods feel that this is overkill, maybe move the poll to the other thread?

Basically the issue is, in your opinion are good/evil objective or subjective concepts?

Sarky

I have a special place in my heart for the Assassin's Creed series for not just being good games, but also getting in some meaningful commentary on morality and perception. The explanation of the Creed is pretty much how I see life.

"Nothing is true, everything is permitted" essentially becomes "There is no objectivity in the world, it all comes down to individual perceptions of right and wrong. Seeing as we're stuck here together, and people are terrified about developing their own morality, let's try as best we can to create some rules of our own we can agree on to make life a little more pleasant. We can treat them as objective so insecure people can feel safe, at least until society deems a rule in need of change."

There is no good and evil. There's just us. There's only ever been just us. And what we've considered right or wrong has constantly changed to reflect the societies of the time. It will keep changing. And religion will either change to remain "with it" (or start off as liberal/secular/non-interfering so it doesn't require change), or it'll be forgotten and replaced by some other made up thing.

robindch

equivariant wrote: »

Basically the issue is, in your opinion are good/evil objective or subjective concepts?

You might want to define your terms if you want to see reliable results!

Delirium

It has grown and changed over the centuries to reflect the changing attitudes of the people of any given time.

Look back to early civilisations and you'll see quite a bit of death penalties/physical punishments. Could you imagine what the local Gardai would say if you informed them you were to have a sword duel with someone who had insulted your honour? :P

equivariant

robindch wrote: »

You might want to define your terms if you want to see reliable results!

Well I think that the poll options are precisely worded? What I really would like to know is the percentage of respondees that self identify as "atheist moral objectivists" - I will leave it to people themselves to decide what that means, as these are pretty well defined terms in the philosophical literature I think, and in any case I am not expert enough to give a philosophically precise definition of moral objectivism. I have included the theist options so that the results are not skewed by theist respondees (I am presuming that the vast majority of these will self identify as moral objectivists)

If you must have a definition - this will suffice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

Insect Overlord

Surely more of a philosophy discussion than a question of atheism/agnosticism, no?

Anyway, option 2.

seamus

The most relevant question I think is: If humanity did not exist, would the universe operate according to guiding moral principles?

No, of course it wouldn't. Therefore there is no objective morality.

im invisible

Im Agnostic...

seamus

im invisible wrote: »

Im Agnostic...

Get in the sack.

Beruthiel

Sarky wrote: »

I have a special place in my heart for the Assassin's Creed series

Am in the middle of playing No. 3 right now.

seamus wrote: »

The most relevant question I think is: If humanity did not exist, would the universe operate according to guiding moral principles?

No, of course it wouldn't. Therefore there is no objective morality.

/Thread.

Sarky

I'm avoiding it because if I wanted to spend hours building up a homestead I'd be on Facebook playing bloody Farmville.

equivariant

im invisible wrote: »

Im Agnostic...

.... and??

Are you atheist or theist?

equivariant

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Surely more of a philosophy discussion than a question of atheism/agnosticism, no?

Anyway, option 2.

There seem to be a lot of atheists around these days who will argue that atheism and moral objectivism are compatible. I am interested in finding out about atheist views on this issue. So it is a question about the philosophical viewpoints of atheists - hence appropriate to this forum.

Beruthiel

Sarky wrote: »

I'm avoiding it because if I wanted to spend hours building up a homestead

I have decided not to bother with that part.

equivariant

seamus wrote: »

The most relevant question I think is: If humanity did not exist, would the universe operate according to guiding moral principles?

No, of course it wouldn't. Therefore there is no objective morality.

That is just begging the question - not a resolution of the issue at all (I am not an objectivist by the way).

Dades

I want the people who chose option 1 to explain themselves!

(Obviously we can't make the poll public now after people have voted.)

Beruthiel

Dades wrote: »

I want the people who chose option 1 to explain themselves!

For my own peace of mind, I've decided to go with the following explaination: it's Monday, they clicked the wrong one, it's all just a big mistake, nothing to see here, move along.

equivariant

Beruthiel wrote: »

For my own peace of mind, I've decided to go with the following explaination: it's Monday, they clicked the wrong one, it's all just a big mistake, nothing to see here, move along.

#

or they have just read some Sam Harris book?

seamus

equivariant wrote: »

That is just begging the question - not a resolution of the issue at all (I am not an objectivist by the way).

Well not really. All of our data and observations of the universe before we came to exist and outside of our sphere of influence (i.e. outside of the solar system) indicate that the universe operates according to the physical principles and mechanics that govern reality and not in any moral fashion. Every atom is equal.

Therefore the universe operates amorally.

Now, you can go metaphysical and start to say that the basic laws of the universe manifest morality in themselves, but then you're getting into trying to redefine morality into something else altogether.

Sulla Felix

The last time we did thus the results were a landslide for subjective. I think it's a trend thatd be replicated in almost any group of atheists at least under cover of anonymity. My subjective morality is nearly as unpopular as my atheism in some wings of the family.

Dades

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Surely more of a philosophy discussion than a question of atheism/agnosticism, no?

A philosophical question, however, the responses to which are almost always determined by the religiosity (or not) of the individual.

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

I want the people who chose option 1 to explain themselves!

(Obviously we can't make the poll public now after people have voted.)

Good and evil exist objectively because.

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

Good and evil exist objectively because.

Brilliant... simply brilliant!

Have you considered a career as a religious preacher?

Zillah

Yes, but I don't have it in me to convince people to hate themselves so I don't think I'd be a very good one.

equivariant

seamus wrote: »

Well not really. All of our data and observations of the universe before we came to exist and outside of our sphere of influence (i.e. outside of the solar system) indicate that the universe operates according to the physical principles and mechanics that govern reality and not in any moral fashion. Every atom is equal.

Therefore the universe operates amorally.

Now, you can go metaphysical and start to say that the basic laws of the universe manifest morality in themselves, but then you're getting into trying to redefine morality into something else altogether.

Not at all. Mathematical truths are objectively true (imo at least) and would remain so, if all intelligent life was removed from the universe tomorrow - the universe does not 'operate' according to these mathematical truths any more than it does according any moral truths - it just so happens that mathematics provides a convenient language for describing many of the physical properties of the universe - that is not the same as saying that mathematics is an intrinsic property of the universe.
Thus, your argument, were it valid, would also apply to mathematical truths, which I believe are objectively true.

Sarky

They only hold true because of the assumption of various axioms. Assume a slightly different axiom, and your truths aren't true any more.

Penn

Sarky wrote: »

I have a special place in my heart for the Assassin's Creed series for not just being good games, but also getting in some meaningful commentary on morality and perception. The explanation of the Creed is pretty much how I see life.

The quote from the game itself:

"To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic."

Beautiful stuff.

equivariant

Sarky wrote: »

They only hold true because of the assumption of various axioms. Assume a slightly different axiom, and your truths aren't true any more.

Of course, but the arguments are still logically valid. So, for example, Goedel's theorem is still true, in the sense that the proof is a valid argument, even if there is no one around to state it.

My objection to Seamus' argument is not that I believe moral objectivism to be correct - I do not. It is that his argument, if it were valid, is an argument against many other forms of objective knowledge - for example his argument, if valid, would also rule out mathematical structuralism.

I think that it is possible to reject moral objectivism and still accept mathematical structuralism, hence I don't think that his argument can be valid.

Sarky

The thing about logic though is that you can't actually use it to prove logic works. There'll always be some assumption you can't eliminate

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Dades wrote: »

I want the people who chose option 1 to explain themselves!

I'd rather they didn't try. Best for everyone, to be honest.

equivariant

Sarky wrote: »

The thing about logic though is that you can't actually use it to prove logic works. There'll always be some assumption you can't eliminate

On the contrary ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_completeness_theorem

Sarky

Still based on axioms and semantics which are as arbitrary as anything.

equivariant

Sarky wrote: »

Still based on axioms and semantics which are as arbitrary as anything.

not the point. The point being that some logical systems are proveably complete

Gurgle

Dades wrote: »

I want the people who chose option 1 to explain themselves!

I'd be happy to

There are things that are 'bad', and then there's everything else.

When you cause harm to an innocent, its a bad thing.
Otherwise, work away.

Whats subjective is the details of what causes harm... this depends on all kinds of personal / societal stuff.

Dades

Aren't the definitions of "harm" and "innocent" exactly what needs to be defined by any system of morality? :pac:

Not to mention whatever exceptions there are to the rules...

pH

Dades wrote: »

I want the people who chose option 1 to explain themselves!

(Obviously we can't make the poll public now after people have voted.)

I guess it all depends on what we're talking about.

This area is very complicated and nuanced, but Moral Objectivism as being discussed here is the concept that In your opinion for a given situation there is a moral choice regardless of the person in that situation ("all similarly situated individuals").

For you too claim you're *not* a "moral objectivist" you need to provide a situation where IN YOUR OPINION it would be "correct" or "moral" for person A to make one decision, but equally correct and moral for person B not to make that decision - as distinct from "either could have made either decision".

Provide a scenario where in your opinion 2 different (but similarly situated) people are morally compelled to make different decisions - otherwise you're a moral objectivist!

doctoremma

I'm genuinely not sure, although that derives from my lack of understanding of the philosophical nuances, rather than me arguing for some complex position.

Do I kill people? No.
Do I not kill people because I choose not to? No. At least, it doesn't feel like that, nor does it appear to be processed in my brain like that.
Do I not kill people because my biological make up won't allow me to? I think so. But then, I couldn't say whether my apparent biological imperative to preserve life is innate or conditioned by society.

My actions don't feel subjective. That doesn't mean they aren't though. Someone tell me if I'm a moral subjectivist?

Can actions derived from biological imperative be considered in terms of morality? I don't know.

robindch

equivariant wrote: »

Well I think that the poll options are precisely worded? What I really would like to know is the percentage of respondees that self identify as "atheist moral objectivists" - I will leave it to people themselves to decide what that means, as these are pretty well defined terms in the philosophical literature I think, and in any case I am not expert enough to give a philosophically precise definition of moral objectivism.

Well (at the risk of sounding like a complete knob here) if you're not happy you can explain the question you think you're asking, I'm not quite sure you should trust the answers you think you're getting.

To be a bit more specific about it: I think that any ethical system -- I don't believe the term "moral" sits well with non-authoritarian systems -- there are a number of things that are fairly non-negotiable: the delivery and reciprocation of honesty, trust, fairness, responsibility, collegiality, equality and so on from all members of the community. With that basic stuff done, you can then go on and sort out the less obviously clearcut ideas: abortion, interest rates, prison + foreign policy, basic and derived human and animal rights etc, etc, etc.

If you want to refer to the first set as "absolute moral requirements", and there's a reasonable case one should, then yes, I think I would fit best into the "I believe in an objective morality" choice. If you want to refer to the second, larger set of actions + choices as your base set, then no I don't "believe in an objective morality".

The above digressions, btw, ignore the semi-religious uses of the term "moral" and the phrasal verb "believe in" and the unclear-to-me remit of the adjectives "objective" and "subjective".

Apologies for going all OCD on this

equivariant

robindch wrote: »

Well (at the risk of sounding like a complete knob here) if you're not happy you can explain the question you think you're asking, I'm not quite sure you should trust the answers you think you're getting.

I don't trust them in any important sense. It is after all just an Internet poll among a self selecting group boardsies. Interesting to me at least and possibly to others, but of course, of no real statistical significance

To be a bit more specific about it: I think that any ethical system -- I don't believe the term "moral" sits well with non-authoritarian systems -- there are a number of things that are fairly non-negotiable: the delivery and reciprocation of honesty, trust, fairness, responsibility, collegiality, equality and so on from all members of the community. With that basic stuff done, you can then go on and sort out the less obviously clearcut ideas: abortion, interest rates, prison + foreign policy, basic and derived human and animal rights etc, etc, etc.

I did deliberately choose to ask about morality rather an ethics. I appreciate that there is a distinction although I am not sure why morality implies authoritarianism?

I chose morality rather than ethics because t seems to me at least to be a tougher question to answer. As you point out below ethics covers such a broad range of issues hat it is hard to present any convincing argument for an objectively true ethical system

If you want to refer to the first set as "absolute moral requirements", and there's a reasonable case one should, then yes, I think I would fit best into the "I believe in an objective morality" choice. If you want to refer to the second, larger set of actions + choices as your base set, then no I don't "believe in an objective morality".

The above digressions, btw, ignore the semi-religious uses of the term "moral" and the phrasal verb "believe in" and the unclear-to-me remit of the adjectives "objective" and "subjective".

Apologies for going all OCD on this

Religions may have hijacked the word 'moral' but surely in this forum we recognise that morality does not necessarily have anything to do with religion

GCU Flexible Demeanour

doctoremma wrote: »

I'm genuinely not sure, although that derives from my lack of understanding of the philosophical nuances, rather than me arguing for some complex position.

Do I kill people? No.
Do I not kill people because I choose not to? No. At least, it doesn't feel like that, nor does it appear to be processed in my brain like that.
Do I not kill people because my biological make up won't allow me to? I think so. But then, I couldn't say whether my apparent biological imperative to preserve life is innate or conditioned by society.

My actions don't feel subjective. That doesn't mean they aren't though. Someone tell me if I'm a moral subjectivist?

Can actions derived from biological imperative be considered in terms of morality? I don't know.

You've stated the problem well and, absolutely, some do attempt an argument to the effect that morality is an innate sense, installed in humans as a product of evolution.

There are many problems with this view. The most immediate problem (IMHO) is that biological impulses are not always so benign. We'll avoid fulfillig Godwin's law by mentioning the Rwandan genocide instead. Plenty of biological imperatives were displayed there, not many of which involved preservation of life.

Now, it is another of those questions where no-one can actually tell you finally what to think. However, I'm not aware of any successful argument that shows a potential basis for an objective morality outside of religion. Innate impulses are just innate impulses. They might be comfortable, but that doesn't make them good or bad in a moral sense.

MrPudding

seamus wrote: »

Get in the sack.

Excellent use of Dara o'Briain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RstwLzikmvA

Gurgle

Dades wrote: »

Aren't the definitions of "harm" and "innocent" exactly what needs to be defined by any system of morality? :pac:

Harm... yes. Particular actions can cause harm in one circumstances and not in another.
Example: Sex with 'young' people. Historically there have been many cultures where "if she's old enough to bleed, she's bleeding old enough" is the culturally established norm.

Nowadays, having sex with a 12 year old is recognized to do psychological harm and so is legislated as statutory rape. In a society where most girls are married off as soon as they menstruate, is the adolescent harmed by having sex?

This doesn't mean that 'harm' has changed meaning.

Innocent is both easy and impossible to conclusively define.

pH

I'm fascinated by the large vote against objective morality.

Am I missing something here? Do people genuinely believe that for a certain situation different people can have different moral basis for their decisions?

Most posters seem to be skirting around a different concept, that of moral absolutism - which is not the same thing at all.

To be clear, to disagree with moral objectivism you'd need to believe something like - "It would be wrong for me to beat my wife, but I believe that it would be OK for John to beat his wife as his morals are different".

I'm just a bit surprised - though I have a feeling people are voting against moral absolutism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

equivariant

robindch wrote: »

Apologies for going all OCD on this

Apologies for double replying to your post - I thought of something else that I should have said. I understand your objections to my poll. However, the audience here surely consists mostly of people that are not trained philosophers (I certainly have no formal philosophical training). So it seems that we have 2 choices

1. Either refrain from discussing such matters at all and leave it to the pros - this is a reasonable course of action.

2. Attempt to have a discussion, while allowing for the fact that most participants are not philosophers. So we must try to balance clarity versus precision in our statements and be honest about the limitations of our own knowledge. For example, I have no doubt that any semi competent philosopher could destroy me in 2 minutes in any discussion of moral objectivism - regardless of what position I choose to defend. That does not mean that I am not entitled to an opinion, just that I lack the training.

Anyway, I respect your objections, but I have tried to adopt option 2 above and worded the poll accordingly. Thus, if I had phrased the poll options along the lines "I can give a rigorous philosophical defense of the following precisely specified moral objectivist position", would I get any more reliable information? Then the poll would really be about how much philosophy each of the respondees had studied.

Dades

pH wrote: »

I'm just a bit surprised - though I have a feeling people are voting against moral absolutism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

I suspect you're right, and I'll be the first to hold my hand up!

I reckon I got steered off course by this line in the OP:

equivariant wrote: »

Basically the issue is, in your opinion are good/evil objective or subjective concepts?

Perhaps the OP could clarify?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

pH wrote: »

I'm fascinated by the large vote against objective morality.
Am I missing something here? Do people genuinely believe that for a certain situation different people can have different moral basis for their decisions?
Most posters seem to be skirting around a different concept, that of moral absolutism - which is not the same thing at all.
To be clear, to disagree with moral objectivism you'd need to believe something like - "It would be wrong for me to beat my wife, but I believe that it would be OK for John to beat his wife as his morals are different".
I'm just a bit surprised - though I have a feeling people are voting against moral absolutism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

You're right to bring the point up for clarification and, clearly, I've no idea what anyone else is voting on the basis of. But I don't think the question hinges on a distinction between moral absolutism and moral objectivism.

As I understand it, moral absolutism would be like saying that it is always wrong for John to hit his wife, regardless of context. So, for the sake of argument, John would be wrong to hit his wife even if his intention is to stop her from killing their children.

Moral objectivism would be to say that moral questions do require an appraisal of context. But, once taking account of context, the principles have general effect. So, in our scenario, it would be moral for anyone - not just John - to hit anyone's wife to prevent them from killing anyone's children.

Moral subjectivism, as I understand it, doesn't particularly call on me to feel that John should be exempt from whatever I regard as ethical wife beating. It simply acknowledges that there's no particular reason for John to share my view of morality.

Asserting that wife beating is objectively immoral is, ultimately, an argument for theism. There's a guy called William Lane Craig, who was the subject of a thread on a nearby forum some time ago, who uses an argument for theism along those lines.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80383465&postcount=57
So what he's really trying to do (just based on the quote you included) is work backwards from the strong possibility that whomever he's debating with won't want to say "I think wife beating is unpleasant, but there's no natural order to the universe that it offends". Once he's trapped the other guy into saying wife beating is inherently wrong, he's got you. If wife beating does offend some universal morality, then it pretty much does follow that some moral law-giving being is the source of it.

keane2097

I responded to the poll with the terms outlined more or less as GCU has described above FWIW.

On an unrelated note, William Lane Craig must be the most disingenuous debater I've ever seen. I don't think it's even close.

Gbear

I don't see any evidence that there is an objective morality but I'm open to the notion that there could be an objective morality, or at least a relatively objective morality.

The much maligned Sam Harris makes a good analogy. Good health is somewhat subjective yet we usually have cancer sufferers as being in worse health than someone with a runny nose. Everyone has something wrong with them if you look hard enough so "perfect health" probably doesn't exist but that doesn't stop us giving a relative appraisal of health.

In the same vein, "perfect morality" might not exist but it could be possible to come up with a fairly non-subjective metric by which to compare the morality of different actions - bombing a bus full of children compared to laughing at someone falling over, for example.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

I'm fascinated by the large vote against objective morality.

Am I missing something here? Do people genuinely believe that for a certain situation different people can have different moral basis for their decisions?

Most posters seem to be skirting around a different concept, that of moral absolutism - which is not the same thing at all.

To be clear, to disagree with moral objectivism you'd need to believe something like - "It would be wrong for me to beat my wife, but I believe that it would be OK for John to beat his wife as his morals are different".

I'm just a bit surprised - though I have a feeling people are voting against moral absolutism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Its the other way around.

I believe that it is absolutely wrong to rape someone, in that there is no situation or circumstance where raping someone is ok, not now, not 10,000 years ago, not if the person raped you first, never.

That is "just" my subjective opinion though, I don't believe that it is some fundamental truth of the universe, like the speed of light or the distance from Cork to Dublin.

equivariant

In response to Dades, I think that the confusion was not caused by the OP, but rather by my attempted clarification, quoted below

equivariant wrote: »

Well I think that the poll options are precisely worded? What I really would like to know is the percentage of respondees that self identify as "atheist moral objectivists" - I will leave it to people themselves to decide what that means, as these are pretty well defined terms in the philosophical literature I think, and in any case I am not expert enough to give a philosophically precise definition of moral objectivism. I have included the theist options so that the results are not skewed by theist respondees (I am presuming that the vast majority of these will self identify as moral objectivists)

If you must have a definition - this will suffice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

In my defence, I note that wikipedia has conflated objectivism and universalism, so I am only as thick as Wikipedia (which is surely something to be proud of). I suspect the pH is correct and that nearly all the voters are voting on the basis of universalism rather than his/her definition of objectivism, which seems to be the correct one.

I also note the someone (surprisingly imo) has voted for 4. Is that a serious vote?

Reliable information from this poll: wikipedia is bad, most of us have conflated universalism and objectivism.

Gurgle

equivariant wrote: »

I also note the someone (surprisingly imo) has voted for 4. Is that a serious vote?

Some theists have sneaked into the forum when we weren't looking :eek: