11 ms·

I very much agree with the evaluation that philosopher/biographer James Harris concludes with here: it is easy and extremely common to misunderstand Hume as a M

by keane 10y ago

I very much agree with the evaluation that philosopher/biographer James Harris concludes with here: it is easy and extremely common to misunderstand Hume as a Moral Anti-realist or as a Moral Subjectivist. Reading David Hume's arguments concerning our ability to locate the source of morals convinced me of Moral Realism and Moral Objectivity and is what ended all of my opposition to Christianity. I explain Hume's perspective here: http://liamk.org/is-love-real/ http://liamk.org/is-love-real/

0134340 10y ago
Religion just like everything else is a tool for survival, nothing more. Many religions revolve around disciplinary structures; if you don't do what is "right", it's typically viewed as not optimal for survival in this world or what they may view as an afterworld. You seem to put these emotive features of love, beauty and whatever tickles your fancy as above all when there'd be none of those observed without the survival of an observer; the Machiavellian means of survival does have moral validity whether you see it or not. You generalize atheists and atheism so much as to dilute your target, a common and cheap practice in debate. Atheism is already diluted enough because it's a non-belief, nothing else, so there's little target for generalization there even though you love to employ it in a desperate attempt to find something to latch on to and debate. And the atheists I know, most are relative moralists. That doesn't mean they don't think humanity doesn't have a moral compass, in general, but they tend to mean that there's no facts to demonstrate moral code, as you just said in your link. There's so much wrong with your arguments there, I don't know where to start.
- keane 10y ago
  Can you refute the Is-Ought problem or not?
  - 0134340 10y ago
    Let me put it in simple terms, moral code tends to be derived from a variable mix of reason and emotion for us. Because pain tends to make us withdraw from the situation that entices it, we conclude that pain is not something we want, ie, "bad". No one knows ultimately why we receive negative/positive stimuli for certain situations but the best we can conclude, morality can be derived from reason and emotion. If you're assuming morality isn't tied to either and rather derived from the illogical, mystical, magical, whatever it is you're implying, then it would be a fool's errand because you can't use logic to debate illogic. But anyone can claim their moral code or gods are beyond logic but in this world, to be of value, you need it backed by something more substantive. Basing your life on that which is beyond logic is a dangerous game and I'd conclude not morally optimal. I'd recommend you looking at life more in a thermodynamic fashion. It's simple, elegant and you have no magical and mystical unproven qualities that need reconciliation. From thermodynamics, you can learn theorize better to why life behaves as it does and helps take the mystery out of a lot of it. I'd argue morality is a thermodynamic function, even. Morality being derived from pain/pleasure senses, which derive from chemical processes, etc but of course, no one ultimately knows. But to me, saying "definitions of right and wrong are not based on the relations of objects nor can be perceived by reason" is false. Many people who convert to a religion do so because that religion may make some sort of sense to them. That's one of the reasons I became a christian early on, because it made some sort of logical sense. Not much but just enough to lure me in. You can use that tactic with people for all kinds of uses, to tell just enough truth to get them to believe you and if they like it enough, you can get away with falsehoods. Many use reason to justify their statements about how their gods or moral codes don't have to abide by reason, ironically. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory...
    - keane 10y ago
      >>moral code tends to be derived from… No one is foolish enough to deny that various societies develop moral codes, generally based on their experiences (eg, pain). The question is whether moral statements (eg, "Humans should not murder") are objective and Real (they refer to some objective Moral Fact) or whether this was just a delusion we invented and used to survive. >>but the best we can conclude, morality can be derived from reason and emotion No. This is the entire Is-Ought argument. Saying "Hume is wrong" does not refute Hume. You would need to give a reason. >>looking at life more in a thermodynamic fashion Materialism cannot point to a source of objective moral values. Period. >>But to me, saying…is false. As expected, that's not a refutation. >>That's one of the reasons I became a christian early on In my opinion, based on your given conceptions of metaethics, rather than dismiss this avenue of inquiry with the reasoning "it made some sort of logical sense [but not enough]" you could likely have explored the concept further.
      - 0134340 10y ago
        You capitalize "truth" in other comments and say we should seek it yet you don't realize this endeavor is also prone to the is-ought problem. Because man seeks truth, does that mean he should morally seek it? The principle you adhere to destroys itself with even the faintest intellectual rigor. The more you try to make logic of illogic, religion, the more it waters down your version of truth. It happened to me also. What I then believed as a Christian became so watered down that it was far and away anything resembling Christianity. >>Materialism cannot point to a source of objective moral values. Period. Yes, it can. Whatever the material is derived from, it's chained to a more objective link. So yes, you can use relative morality to argue that it, in itself, has objectivity. For example, someone higher in rank says Saturday is a day off yet he gives the order to his inferior that he can then order that Saturday can be either. You have relative order coming from objective order. >>In my opinion, based on your given conceptions of metaethics, rather than dismiss this avenue of inquiry with the reasoning "it made some sort of logical sense [but not enough]" you could likely have explored the concept further. Ah, the old 'because you don't believe, you haven't been spending enough decades of your life exploring the religion I want you to believe in'. Meanwhile, hundreds of other religious people want me to explore their hundreds of gods and hundreds of interpretations through hundreds of years of philosophical wankery. I just could as well say you haven't explored atheism enough and that's why you haven't arrived to it.
Artistry121 10y ago
Assigning value to yourself where there may be none for the purpose of having value is a possible symptom of "self-important". Your jump from "morals cannot exist without a higher power" to "the christian god is that higher power" is a huge leap. "We make nothing of religion if we do not make heart-work of it. The only thing that you cannot be in Christianity is self-righteous/self-justified and self-important/self-reliant." Morals can be created and defined to help humans run effective societies and decide the way we interact with and expand the definition of life.
- keane 10y ago
  >"Morals can be created and defined to help humans [X]" No one is foolish enough to deny that human societies can employ ethical codes and that doing so can help a society survive or thrive. But what is debated is if there exists Objective standards (or not) and from that, what that means for us. Drawing from an earlier comment addressing this, while both humans and animals may practice empathy, cooperation, or other behaviors that help them as individuals or groups to survive or thrive, this falls short of 'morality'. Morality is positions about what one should do: eg "one should not murder humans for sport". Hume's observation of the Is-Ought problem shows us that we cannot reason "humans practice X therefore humans should practice X" as we similarly cannot reason "humans believe X therefore X is objectively the case". Saying that animals or humans practice empathy is merely observing something they do, the "Is". We can't say "humans sometimes practice empathy therefore humans should practice empathy" like we can't say "humans sometimes practice violence therefore humans should practice violence". You could add a condition, such as "If humans do not want to be put in jail by society, then they should not murder (or at least get caught having murdered)". But this is known as Hypothetical Morality, and with dependence on the conditions it becomes merely advice about cause and effect and is to be ignored by those who don't find the conditions compelling.
  - 0134340 10y ago
    You seem to reason that only theism holds a monopoly on morality in that it links to a higher order but atheism just as well can be linked to a moral higher order. I get what you're saying, I've been there also but I also realized the error of my ways. I'll give my own link as well that vaguely covers this. I will admit I'm not very well versed in theology, but not for lack of interest but I've never come across any argument that could successfully refute atheism's moral or philosophical validity. 0134340.blogspot.com/2016/05/machiavellian-musings.html
kiba 10y ago
Atheism is not about morality or lack there-of.
- keane 10y ago
  Both Atheists and Theists sometimes act in accordance with various suggested Norms and sometimes do not. However, the observation is that if Atheism is true this has implications for morality, namely moral facts do not actually exist. I explain more of what the debate is and has been in this comment from a few weeks ago that might clarify: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11646701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11646701
  - 0134340 10y ago
    Atheism, in itself, makes no claim about "moral facts". It's the lack of belief in deities. If your whole premise of the article is based on squeezing lemonade from apples, or implying more about atheism other than what it's not, it won't be true because atheism is nothing other than lack of belief in deities. You can be an atheist and still believe morality can be derived from something other than a devised deity. I feel you'd be better off if you just went back to the drawing board; you seem confused by this whole 'atheism has no moral validation' notion. There's many other theories of universal creation other than what we typically think of as gods and those theories can just as well be used to justify personal moral code. I don't think you've had much experience with atheists, willfully or not, who've cared to clear you up on your delusions about it.
  - Retra 10y ago
    Atheism is true and moral facts do exist. They exist because there are universal and fundamental structures to decision-making processes, and we have a moral obligation to engage them, because they are necessary for moral reasoning. Which in turn is just a special kind of general reasoning, which is necessitated by our very existance.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      If moral reasoning is simply a necessity of our very existence, then anything we decide to do is necessarily moral, no? If otherwise our existence only necessitates some general reasoning, but not necessarily that special case, then why should we reason morally? Why shouldn't we avoid that special case?
CuriouslyC 10y ago
The issue with moral absolutes is the fact that these absolutes can only be derived for a given context (e.g. human, american, mother, christian, etc). There is no objective means to state the primacy of a given context over any others. That being said, since you have to define what "good" means, and what the role/fundamental characteristic of various contexts is, I think any attempt at a completely rational morality is quite doomed.
- Retra 10y ago
  A context-independent rational morality might be doomed, but we actually do live in a specific context, and you can be arbitrarily rational with respect to that context. And regardless, you have to value those things which promote decision-making capability, since you'll end up a non-moral corpse without it, and sacrifice whatever local good you're trying to save in the process. So there are very large contexts with clear moral foundations that you are a part of.
reitanqild 10y ago
Read your explanation, thanks!
- keane 10y ago
  You are very welcome!
reality_czech 10y ago
Falling back on religion doesn't get you anywhere. Which religion, and which timeframe? Is it the Christianity of late 19th century America, where homosexuality and sex outside marriage were considered mortal sins? Or is it something more like Unitarian Universalism in the early 2000s? Or is it the extremist branch of Islam preached by outfits like ISIS? You are going to have to decide. And to do that, you're going to have to use the lump of gray matter in your skull.
- keane 10y ago
  >>doesn't get you anywhere It is the only way to understand statements about morality as objective and real rather than as invented delusions that can be ignored. >>Which religion, and which timeframe? This is now the work of Theology. >>you're going to have to use the lump of gray matter in your skull Absolutely.
  - pythia__ 10y ago
    >It is the only way to understand statements about morality as objective and real rather than as invented delusions that can be ignored. Not necessary. There is an alternative route through game theory and the notion of an evolutionarily stable strategy. See, e.g., http://www.saet.uiowa.edu/papers/2015/alger%20weibull%20nplayers.pdf http://www.saet.uiowa.edu/papers/2015/alger%20weibull%20npla.... Put concisely, the argument is that morality is adaptive. In that way morality can be said to be real and not arbitrary.
    - keane 10y ago
      Nope. From the abstract "What preferences or moral values should one expect evolution to favor?…We show that certain moral preferences…are evolutionarily stable. In particular, selfishness is evolutionarily unstable…We also establish that evolutionarily stable strategies are the same as those played in equilibrium by rational individuals with evolutionarily stable moral preferences." This is just a big observation of what humans do. To be clear, what is not in contention: does obeying a society's established norms help one survive/thrive. The question we're looking for is: Does the moral language humans employ ("Humans should not murder") refer to objective moral facts (Moral Realism) or is the moral language humans employ just an expression of invented whims that humans use for surviving/thriving/comfort. In the same way that we cannot validly reason "(1) Humans happen to practice violence therefore (2) humans should practice violence" we cannot validly reason "(1) Humans happen to practice nonviolence therefore (2) humans should practice nonviolence" (as seemingly benevolent and attractive as that reasoning may be).
fingerprinter 10y ago
This is quite literally nothing more than the age old 'there cannot be an objective morality without a higher power <giant leap> therefore Christianity". You also might want to check this out: https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s... The challenge, though, really is not if something is 'objectively right'. That's not the question you want to ask, or the conclusion you really want. You want to know 'is x religion the one true religion?'. We can answer that. A religion, like anything making a claim, is actually falsifiable. The added challenge with a religion is that the religion has to be 100% right, all the time, or it is not right at all. Said another way, if a religion is ever wrong, it is not true and we can move on from it. This is where religion /always/ gets into trouble. Christianity is no different than any other religion here. It makes claims or assertions and if any of those are shown to be wrong, oops, the religion is not true. So, when the bible states slavery is fine, rape is fine, beating your wife is fine, it has to be 100% right on these or the religion is null and void. Unlike the global flood (which is obviously not true), you cannot slip up and say "just kidding, metaphor or allegory" in these cases. Making a claim about what is good/bad is something we can judge, particularly as society advances. It doesn't actually matter if those are "objectively right or wrong" for it to make the religion not true, either. That's a trap. You can try and argue that slavery, per the bible, is ok. You can try. You won't win any favor with anyone these days. We've moved past owning people as a concept. It's unacceptable. Our modern moral code, subjective or objective, is "better" than that described in the bible, therefore, the bible is wrong, therefore, christianity is wrong. One could try and argue that slavery is actually objectively ok, therefore inline with the bible, and some do try this approach and have used it to justify slavery centuries ago. But you can't do that today and be considered a rational human being. It's not acceptable. We know this. It's undisputed fact that owning people is wrong. Therefore, again, our modern moral code demonstrates a higher/better/whatever moral code than christianity in the bible, therefore christianity is wrong and we move on. If a religion were true, society should NEVER be more advanced morally/ethically than the religious standard. This simply cannot be with what the religion is claiming to be. So, as I stated earlier, the question isn't objective or subjective morality. The question is "is x religion true" (unlike "is there a god?" which really isn't answerable at the moment, maybe ever). We can answer the questions if certain religions are true. To this end, we know the answers on all religions that make positive and exclusive claims...all have fallen short.
ctulek 10y ago
If we agree that most of the wars and immoral things are done in the name of god, I think being theist or not is irrelevant to posses moral values. I don't think it is in princible impossible to find objective moral values hardwired in our brains that makes us uncomfortable when we do things that is not good for ourselves, or our families, or society. Last few centuries helped us to trash so many believes that were basically wrong (and amazingly it was even trashing itself every decade now thanks to scientific methods), I don't see any reason that is also not possible for morality, which My gut feeling says is probably a mental optical illusion like thinking the world is flat.
- icebraining 10y ago
  I don't think it is in princible impossible to find objective moral values hardwired in our brains that makes us uncomfortable when we do things that is not good for ourselves, or our families, or society. But if it's a mechanism of our bodies, while it might be "objective" in the sense that it's a physical thing, it's still relative to each human. Just like someone is born tall or bow-legged, one might be born with 'wires' that make them uncomfortable with different things. If they act accordingly, are they moral? Even if what they do makes most others uncomfortable?
  - ctulek 10y ago
    It will be indeed as "objective" as what medicine/biology defines someone "healthy". That being said, we already define certain categories when it comes to disabilities, and with very few disputes. Moral values could also be like that, and indeed its like that for who are legally called psychopaths and such. Anyway, I think the author of the article linked in the root comment is looking for something more divine for moral values, but as a disappointment, just repeats the same rituals of thousand year old fallacies like as if theist believes have objective basis from which other objective basis can be inferred.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      I agree with your assessment of the article, I just don't think taking the average of relative moralities makes for an objective morality, at least as the word is used in this context.
olalonde 10y ago
This is the classic "I want it to be true, therefore it's true" non-argument. It should be obvious to anyone with some knowledge of history and modern homo sapiens cultures that there is no such thing as "Moral Objectivity". Morality (as in, what is considered culturally acceptable) varies greatly across time, cultures and individuals. Morals that seem more universal than others may very well be biologically hardwired or selected by virtue of helping the cultures who carry them prosper (not unlike genes).
- keane 10y ago
  >>It should be obvious to anyone with some knowledge of history and modern homo sapiens cultures that there is no such thing as "Moral Objectivity" Actually observing what humans do (history, culture) as you propose would be absolutely insufficient for determining if Moral Statements refer to Objective Moral Facts or are just invented delusions that were useful. We can't merely observe what humans happen to think or happen to do to tell. We can't reason "Humans happen to believe X therefore X is the case/exists" which is the sense of what we seek in metaethics. The sense of what you propose is akin to reasoning "Humans practice X therefore humans practice X" but similar tautologies are not very useful. >>Morality (as in, what is considered culturally acceptable) varies greatly across time, cultures and individuals. No one denies this: human behavior changes. But that's not the question at hand. >>Morals that seem more universal than others may very well be biologically hardwired or selected by virtue of helping the cultures who carry them prosper (not unlike genes). This is yet another Fact and fails to escape the limitations observed by Is-Ought. >>This is the classic "I want it to be true, therefore it's true" non-argument. The argument isn't to prove that morality is objective or to prove God exists. It is just an observation that "For morality to be Objective, this is the necessary dependency: God" and a suggestion that we understand moral language accordingly. As the Marquis de Sade roughly put it "If God does not exist, everything that Is, is Right". Moral statements are either real (Moral Realism) which requires a departure from strict Empiricism or they are invented opinions (Moral Anti-realism) a position consistent with Empiricism/Atheism/Materialism. The actual instance of "I want it to be true, therefore it's true" occurs when soi disant Empiricists think they can logically hold Moral Realism (often Secular Humanists who've overlooked these implications.)
SmirkingRevenge 10y ago
Generally, to the theist, terms like "moral" or "ought" are tightly coupled with the Nature of God (or "God's Commands", etc). More often than not, those terms actually refer explicitly to God's Nature or commands. On that understanding, this phrase is true: "Objective morality cannot exist if theism is false." Or in other words.. "God's Nature cannot exist, if theism is false." Duh. So what? A moral-realist atheist is generally going to rely on some (theorized) universally shared value/desire as the starting point for a moral framework. To such a person, moral statements take the form, "Since you value you X, you should do Y" (where Y is the optimal way to reach the desired state of affairs, X). There's no is-ought problem when moral statements have that form, there's only the problem of demonstrating or proving that such universal shared values/desires exist at all.
- keane 10y ago
  A significant point is that starting with values, as you propose, is a departure from Empiricism. We have no scientifically-accepted evidence such a theorized value exists and (as you know) what Hume shows with his Facts-Values gap is that we can never use data we observe empirically to arrive at values. You could admit you are starting with a Value but your personal opinion of what value to begin with would always remain a subjective whim in a mundane, materialist universe. This is why Hume understood our deepest convictions of our conscience could only be explained in a supramundane world, concluding they must be impressions sourced to the Supreme Being. Again, you can't simply start with a Value and declare you have escaped subjectivity. Being subjective, your morality remains conditional and hypothetical. One's declaration becomes "If you begin by first valuing—as I do—that animals should not be killed, you should be a vegetarian" -- supposing one does not share this first (theorized) value regarding animals the sentence is dismissed as any other subjective moral claim. You speculate this subjectivity could be answered if you could demonstrate such a value had actually been what you term a "universal shared value" but this can never be done. Even if 99% of humans or life in the universe held the value "animals should not be killed" we could not declare that value a moral fact. A majority believing something is never able to tell us what is actually the case (ad populum). We remain unable to reason "99% of life in the universe desires not to kill animals therefore no one should ever kill animals" - the data (Is) cannot transcend and provide an objective should (Ought).

by keane 10y ago

0134340 10y ago

Religion just like everything else is a tool for survival, nothing more. Many religions revolve around disciplinary structures; if you don't do what is "right", it's typically viewed as not optimal for survival in this world or what they may view as an afterworld. You seem to put these emotive features of love, beauty and whatever tickles your fancy as above all when there'd be none of those observed without the survival of an observer; the Machiavellian means of survival does have moral validity whether you see it or not. You generalize atheists and atheism so much as to dilute your target, a common and cheap practice in debate. Atheism is already diluted enough because it's a non-belief, nothing else, so there's little target for generalization there even though you love to employ it in a desperate attempt to find something to latch on to and debate. And the atheists I know, most are relative moralists. That doesn't mean they don't think humanity doesn't have a moral compass, in general, but they tend to mean that there's no facts to demonstrate moral code, as you just said in your link. There's so much wrong with your arguments there, I don't know where to start.

keane 10y ago
Can you refute the Is-Ought problem or not?
- 0134340 10y ago
  Let me put it in simple terms, moral code tends to be derived from a variable mix of reason and emotion for us. Because pain tends to make us withdraw from the situation that entices it, we conclude that pain is not something we want, ie, "bad". No one knows ultimately why we receive negative/positive stimuli for certain situations but the best we can conclude, morality can be derived from reason and emotion. If you're assuming morality isn't tied to either and rather derived from the illogical, mystical, magical, whatever it is you're implying, then it would be a fool's errand because you can't use logic to debate illogic. But anyone can claim their moral code or gods are beyond logic but in this world, to be of value, you need it backed by something more substantive. Basing your life on that which is beyond logic is a dangerous game and I'd conclude not morally optimal. I'd recommend you looking at life more in a thermodynamic fashion. It's simple, elegant and you have no magical and mystical unproven qualities that need reconciliation. From thermodynamics, you can learn theorize better to why life behaves as it does and helps take the mystery out of a lot of it. I'd argue morality is a thermodynamic function, even. Morality being derived from pain/pleasure senses, which derive from chemical processes, etc but of course, no one ultimately knows. But to me, saying "definitions of right and wrong are not based on the relations of objects nor can be perceived by reason" is false. Many people who convert to a religion do so because that religion may make some sort of sense to them. That's one of the reasons I became a christian early on, because it made some sort of logical sense. Not much but just enough to lure me in. You can use that tactic with people for all kinds of uses, to tell just enough truth to get them to believe you and if they like it enough, you can get away with falsehoods. Many use reason to justify their statements about how their gods or moral codes don't have to abide by reason, ironically. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory...
  - keane 10y ago
    >>moral code tends to be derived from… No one is foolish enough to deny that various societies develop moral codes, generally based on their experiences (eg, pain). The question is whether moral statements (eg, "Humans should not murder") are objective and Real (they refer to some objective Moral Fact) or whether this was just a delusion we invented and used to survive. >>but the best we can conclude, morality can be derived from reason and emotion No. This is the entire Is-Ought argument. Saying "Hume is wrong" does not refute Hume. You would need to give a reason. >>looking at life more in a thermodynamic fashion Materialism cannot point to a source of objective moral values. Period. >>But to me, saying…is false. As expected, that's not a refutation. >>That's one of the reasons I became a christian early on In my opinion, based on your given conceptions of metaethics, rather than dismiss this avenue of inquiry with the reasoning "it made some sort of logical sense [but not enough]" you could likely have explored the concept further.
    - 0134340 10y ago
      You capitalize "truth" in other comments and say we should seek it yet you don't realize this endeavor is also prone to the is-ought problem. Because man seeks truth, does that mean he should morally seek it? The principle you adhere to destroys itself with even the faintest intellectual rigor. The more you try to make logic of illogic, religion, the more it waters down your version of truth. It happened to me also. What I then believed as a Christian became so watered down that it was far and away anything resembling Christianity. >>Materialism cannot point to a source of objective moral values. Period. Yes, it can. Whatever the material is derived from, it's chained to a more objective link. So yes, you can use relative morality to argue that it, in itself, has objectivity. For example, someone higher in rank says Saturday is a day off yet he gives the order to his inferior that he can then order that Saturday can be either. You have relative order coming from objective order. >>In my opinion, based on your given conceptions of metaethics, rather than dismiss this avenue of inquiry with the reasoning "it made some sort of logical sense [but not enough]" you could likely have explored the concept further. Ah, the old 'because you don't believe, you haven't been spending enough decades of your life exploring the religion I want you to believe in'. Meanwhile, hundreds of other religious people want me to explore their hundreds of gods and hundreds of interpretations through hundreds of years of philosophical wankery. I just could as well say you haven't explored atheism enough and that's why you haven't arrived to it.

Artistry121 10y ago

Assigning value to yourself where there may be none for the purpose of having value is a possible symptom of "self-important". Your jump from "morals cannot exist without a higher power" to "the christian god is that higher power" is a huge leap. "We make nothing of religion if we do not make heart-work of it. The only thing that you cannot be in Christianity is self-righteous/self-justified and self-important/self-reliant." Morals can be created and defined to help humans run effective societies and decide the way we interact with and expand the definition of life.

keane 10y ago
>"Morals can be created and defined to help humans [X]" No one is foolish enough to deny that human societies can employ ethical codes and that doing so can help a society survive or thrive. But what is debated is if there exists Objective standards (or not) and from that, what that means for us. Drawing from an earlier comment addressing this, while both humans and animals may practice empathy, cooperation, or other behaviors that help them as individuals or groups to survive or thrive, this falls short of 'morality'. Morality is positions about what one should do: eg "one should not murder humans for sport". Hume's observation of the Is-Ought problem shows us that we cannot reason "humans practice X therefore humans should practice X" as we similarly cannot reason "humans believe X therefore X is objectively the case". Saying that animals or humans practice empathy is merely observing something they do, the "Is". We can't say "humans sometimes practice empathy therefore humans should practice empathy" like we can't say "humans sometimes practice violence therefore humans should practice violence". You could add a condition, such as "If humans do not want to be put in jail by society, then they should not murder (or at least get caught having murdered)". But this is known as Hypothetical Morality, and with dependence on the conditions it becomes merely advice about cause and effect and is to be ignored by those who don't find the conditions compelling.
- 0134340 10y ago
  You seem to reason that only theism holds a monopoly on morality in that it links to a higher order but atheism just as well can be linked to a moral higher order. I get what you're saying, I've been there also but I also realized the error of my ways. I'll give my own link as well that vaguely covers this. I will admit I'm not very well versed in theology, but not for lack of interest but I've never come across any argument that could successfully refute atheism's moral or philosophical validity. 0134340.blogspot.com/2016/05/machiavellian-musings.html

kiba 10y ago

Atheism is not about morality or lack there-of.

keane 10y ago
Both Atheists and Theists sometimes act in accordance with various suggested Norms and sometimes do not. However, the observation is that if Atheism is true this has implications for morality, namely moral facts do not actually exist. I explain more of what the debate is and has been in this comment from a few weeks ago that might clarify: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11646701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11646701
- 0134340 10y ago
  Atheism, in itself, makes no claim about "moral facts". It's the lack of belief in deities. If your whole premise of the article is based on squeezing lemonade from apples, or implying more about atheism other than what it's not, it won't be true because atheism is nothing other than lack of belief in deities. You can be an atheist and still believe morality can be derived from something other than a devised deity. I feel you'd be better off if you just went back to the drawing board; you seem confused by this whole 'atheism has no moral validation' notion. There's many other theories of universal creation other than what we typically think of as gods and those theories can just as well be used to justify personal moral code. I don't think you've had much experience with atheists, willfully or not, who've cared to clear you up on your delusions about it.
- Retra 10y ago
  Atheism is true and moral facts do exist. They exist because there are universal and fundamental structures to decision-making processes, and we have a moral obligation to engage them, because they are necessary for moral reasoning. Which in turn is just a special kind of general reasoning, which is necessitated by our very existance.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    If moral reasoning is simply a necessity of our very existence, then anything we decide to do is necessarily moral, no? If otherwise our existence only necessitates some general reasoning, but not necessarily that special case, then why should we reason morally? Why shouldn't we avoid that special case?

CuriouslyC 10y ago

The issue with moral absolutes is the fact that these absolutes can only be derived for a given context (e.g. human, american, mother, christian, etc). There is no objective means to state the primacy of a given context over any others. That being said, since you have to define what "good" means, and what the role/fundamental characteristic of various contexts is, I think any attempt at a completely rational morality is quite doomed.

Retra 10y ago
A context-independent rational morality might be doomed, but we actually do live in a specific context, and you can be arbitrarily rational with respect to that context. And regardless, you have to value those things which promote decision-making capability, since you'll end up a non-moral corpse without it, and sacrifice whatever local good you're trying to save in the process. So there are very large contexts with clear moral foundations that you are a part of.

reitanqild 10y ago

Read your explanation, thanks!

keane 10y ago
You are very welcome!

reality_czech 10y ago

Falling back on religion doesn't get you anywhere. Which religion, and which timeframe? Is it the Christianity of late 19th century America, where homosexuality and sex outside marriage were considered mortal sins? Or is it something more like Unitarian Universalism in the early 2000s? Or is it the extremist branch of Islam preached by outfits like ISIS? You are going to have to decide. And to do that, you're going to have to use the lump of gray matter in your skull.

keane 10y ago
>>doesn't get you anywhere It is the only way to understand statements about morality as objective and real rather than as invented delusions that can be ignored. >>Which religion, and which timeframe? This is now the work of Theology. >>you're going to have to use the lump of gray matter in your skull Absolutely.
- pythia__ 10y ago
  >It is the only way to understand statements about morality as objective and real rather than as invented delusions that can be ignored. Not necessary. There is an alternative route through game theory and the notion of an evolutionarily stable strategy. See, e.g., http://www.saet.uiowa.edu/papers/2015/alger%20weibull%20nplayers.pdf http://www.saet.uiowa.edu/papers/2015/alger%20weibull%20npla.... Put concisely, the argument is that morality is adaptive. In that way morality can be said to be real and not arbitrary.
  - keane 10y ago
    Nope. From the abstract "What preferences or moral values should one expect evolution to favor?…We show that certain moral preferences…are evolutionarily stable. In particular, selfishness is evolutionarily unstable…We also establish that evolutionarily stable strategies are the same as those played in equilibrium by rational individuals with evolutionarily stable moral preferences." This is just a big observation of what humans do. To be clear, what is not in contention: does obeying a society's established norms help one survive/thrive. The question we're looking for is: Does the moral language humans employ ("Humans should not murder") refer to objective moral facts (Moral Realism) or is the moral language humans employ just an expression of invented whims that humans use for surviving/thriving/comfort. In the same way that we cannot validly reason "(1) Humans happen to practice violence therefore (2) humans should practice violence" we cannot validly reason "(1) Humans happen to practice nonviolence therefore (2) humans should practice nonviolence" (as seemingly benevolent and attractive as that reasoning may be).

fingerprinter 10y ago

This is quite literally nothing more than the age old 'there cannot be an objective morality without a higher power <giant leap> therefore Christianity". You also might want to check this out: https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s... The challenge, though, really is not if something is 'objectively right'. That's not the question you want to ask, or the conclusion you really want. You want to know 'is x religion the one true religion?'. We can answer that. A religion, like anything making a claim, is actually falsifiable. The added challenge with a religion is that the religion has to be 100% right, all the time, or it is not right at all. Said another way, if a religion is ever wrong, it is not true and we can move on from it. This is where religion /always/ gets into trouble. Christianity is no different than any other religion here. It makes claims or assertions and if any of those are shown to be wrong, oops, the religion is not true. So, when the bible states slavery is fine, rape is fine, beating your wife is fine, it has to be 100% right on these or the religion is null and void. Unlike the global flood (which is obviously not true), you cannot slip up and say "just kidding, metaphor or allegory" in these cases. Making a claim about what is good/bad is something we can judge, particularly as society advances. It doesn't actually matter if those are "objectively right or wrong" for it to make the religion not true, either. That's a trap. You can try and argue that slavery, per the bible, is ok. You can try. You won't win any favor with anyone these days. We've moved past owning people as a concept. It's unacceptable. Our modern moral code, subjective or objective, is "better" than that described in the bible, therefore, the bible is wrong, therefore, christianity is wrong. One could try and argue that slavery is actually objectively ok, therefore inline with the bible, and some do try this approach and have used it to justify slavery centuries ago. But you can't do that today and be considered a rational human being. It's not acceptable. We know this. It's undisputed fact that owning people is wrong. Therefore, again, our modern moral code demonstrates a higher/better/whatever moral code than christianity in the bible, therefore christianity is wrong and we move on. If a religion were true, society should NEVER be more advanced morally/ethically than the religious standard. This simply cannot be with what the religion is claiming to be. So, as I stated earlier, the question isn't objective or subjective morality. The question is "is x religion true" (unlike "is there a god?" which really isn't answerable at the moment, maybe ever). We can answer the questions if certain religions are true. To this end, we know the answers on all religions that make positive and exclusive claims...all have fallen short.

ctulek 10y ago

If we agree that most of the wars and immoral things are done in the name of god, I think being theist or not is irrelevant to posses moral values. I don't think it is in princible impossible to find objective moral values hardwired in our brains that makes us uncomfortable when we do things that is not good for ourselves, or our families, or society. Last few centuries helped us to trash so many believes that were basically wrong (and amazingly it was even trashing itself every decade now thanks to scientific methods), I don't see any reason that is also not possible for morality, which My gut feeling says is probably a mental optical illusion like thinking the world is flat.

icebraining 10y ago
I don't think it is in princible impossible to find objective moral values hardwired in our brains that makes us uncomfortable when we do things that is not good for ourselves, or our families, or society. But if it's a mechanism of our bodies, while it might be "objective" in the sense that it's a physical thing, it's still relative to each human. Just like someone is born tall or bow-legged, one might be born with 'wires' that make them uncomfortable with different things. If they act accordingly, are they moral? Even if what they do makes most others uncomfortable?
- ctulek 10y ago
  It will be indeed as "objective" as what medicine/biology defines someone "healthy". That being said, we already define certain categories when it comes to disabilities, and with very few disputes. Moral values could also be like that, and indeed its like that for who are legally called psychopaths and such. Anyway, I think the author of the article linked in the root comment is looking for something more divine for moral values, but as a disappointment, just repeats the same rituals of thousand year old fallacies like as if theist believes have objective basis from which other objective basis can be inferred.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    I agree with your assessment of the article, I just don't think taking the average of relative moralities makes for an objective morality, at least as the word is used in this context.

olalonde 10y ago

This is the classic "I want it to be true, therefore it's true" non-argument. It should be obvious to anyone with some knowledge of history and modern homo sapiens cultures that there is no such thing as "Moral Objectivity". Morality (as in, what is considered culturally acceptable) varies greatly across time, cultures and individuals. Morals that seem more universal than others may very well be biologically hardwired or selected by virtue of helping the cultures who carry them prosper (not unlike genes).

keane 10y ago
>>It should be obvious to anyone with some knowledge of history and modern homo sapiens cultures that there is no such thing as "Moral Objectivity" Actually observing what humans do (history, culture) as you propose would be absolutely insufficient for determining if Moral Statements refer to Objective Moral Facts or are just invented delusions that were useful. We can't merely observe what humans happen to think or happen to do to tell. We can't reason "Humans happen to believe X therefore X is the case/exists" which is the sense of what we seek in metaethics. The sense of what you propose is akin to reasoning "Humans practice X therefore humans practice X" but similar tautologies are not very useful. >>Morality (as in, what is considered culturally acceptable) varies greatly across time, cultures and individuals. No one denies this: human behavior changes. But that's not the question at hand. >>Morals that seem more universal than others may very well be biologically hardwired or selected by virtue of helping the cultures who carry them prosper (not unlike genes). This is yet another Fact and fails to escape the limitations observed by Is-Ought. >>This is the classic "I want it to be true, therefore it's true" non-argument. The argument isn't to prove that morality is objective or to prove God exists. It is just an observation that "For morality to be Objective, this is the necessary dependency: God" and a suggestion that we understand moral language accordingly. As the Marquis de Sade roughly put it "If God does not exist, everything that Is, is Right". Moral statements are either real (Moral Realism) which requires a departure from strict Empiricism or they are invented opinions (Moral Anti-realism) a position consistent with Empiricism/Atheism/Materialism. The actual instance of "I want it to be true, therefore it's true" occurs when soi disant Empiricists think they can logically hold Moral Realism (often Secular Humanists who've overlooked these implications.)

SmirkingRevenge 10y ago

Generally, to the theist, terms like "moral" or "ought" are tightly coupled with the Nature of God (or "God's Commands", etc). More often than not, those terms actually refer explicitly to God's Nature or commands. On that understanding, this phrase is true: "Objective morality cannot exist if theism is false." Or in other words.. "God's Nature cannot exist, if theism is false." Duh. So what? A moral-realist atheist is generally going to rely on some (theorized) universally shared value/desire as the starting point for a moral framework. To such a person, moral statements take the form, "Since you value you X, you should do Y" (where Y is the optimal way to reach the desired state of affairs, X). There's no is-ought problem when moral statements have that form, there's only the problem of demonstrating or proving that such universal shared values/desires exist at all.

keane 10y ago
A significant point is that starting with values, as you propose, is a departure from Empiricism. We have no scientifically-accepted evidence such a theorized value exists and (as you know) what Hume shows with his Facts-Values gap is that we can never use data we observe empirically to arrive at values. You could admit you are starting with a Value but your personal opinion of what value to begin with would always remain a subjective whim in a mundane, materialist universe. This is why Hume understood our deepest convictions of our conscience could only be explained in a supramundane world, concluding they must be impressions sourced to the Supreme Being. Again, you can't simply start with a Value and declare you have escaped subjectivity. Being subjective, your morality remains conditional and hypothetical. One's declaration becomes "If you begin by first valuing—as I do—that animals should not be killed, you should be a vegetarian" -- supposing one does not share this first (theorized) value regarding animals the sentence is dismissed as any other subjective moral claim. You speculate this subjectivity could be answered if you could demonstrate such a value had actually been what you term a "universal shared value" but this can never be done. Even if 99% of humans or life in the universe held the value "animals should not be killed" we could not declare that value a moral fact. A majority believing something is never able to tell us what is actually the case (ad populum). We remain unable to reason "99% of life in the universe desires not to kill animals therefore no one should ever kill animals" - the data (Is) cannot transcend and provide an objective should (Ought).