Morality

[Sal1981]

You're missing my point. You're agreeing with me, but you don't realize it.
I'm saying morality can't be quantified. For it to be quantifiable would mean that there is a level of morality everyone agrees on.

I think saying that everyone would agree on a moral system is utopia, at best we can have Laws to that we agree on. Such as "stealing is wrong", "murder is wrong". I'm not exactly Kantian on the Law, because I can easily envision scenarios where stealing a loaf of bread to stop yourself from dying of starvation would be morally "better" than not stealing and let yourself starve to death. The gist is that morality, at least as how I would qualify it, and pictured by Sam Harris as a moral landscape, is that morality is merely guiding in our behavior, not an absolute. To me, quantifying this, seems more of a technical difficulty than qualitative one.

If you ask me, morality, in the sense we are using it, isn't morality at all. "Values" is the correct word to use in this sense, and I believe you accurately described this. Values are opinions you hold to your heart based on how you lived. Morality isn't morality if its subject to varying opinion, because that is to say that what truly is wrong, isn't really wrong depending on who you are. For example: Is it moral for me to retaliate when someone does me wrong? Whether they sleep with my gf, destroy my property or cause me bodily harm? Would I be wrong if I wanted to _do_ something in retaliation to how someone is treating me? Another example: Would it be wrong to punch a woman in the face if she first punches me? If the answer to my questions aren't a clear "Yes" or "No", then those answers are based on personal values. Morality suggests an invisible list of rules based on right and wrong, no matter _who_ you are.

I think revenge is always wrong. But in the case of someone causing you bodily Harm, I see nothing wrong with self-defense to limit it, and I don't qualify that as revenge.

As for the last sentence, I think that it is impossible to have "an invisible list of rules" no matter what qualitative subject it is, be it physics or chemistry, just that morality is circumstantial rather than descriptive (if I'm using those words right, I mean that physical laws "governs" us despite our realization of them, whereas morality is the other way around, we need to realize them before we can decide how we govern ourselves).

[Qchan]

Well, while I would agree that objective morality isn't scientific, a subjective one is natural, and therefore not unscientific, and has a foundation in social evolution.
In a soldier falling on a grenade to save his fellow soldier, and a million other examples.
Too simplistic.
I tentatively disagree with this. Ask someone whose lost 80 pounds about will power. Overcoming hunger to improve his health could be considered a moral choice.
Morality has at least two definitions. You should add the qualifier, "objective" or "subjective," rather than confusing the issue by making "values" the only term you use for subjective morals.

You mention that subjective morality is scientific, but then you disagree that morality is based on feelings rather than thought. Subjective morality is fancy for "opinion". Are you saying opinions aren't based on how a person feels? Seems like a contradiction to me. If you feel a certain way, your opinion will certainly be persuaded by such feelings.

That is the issue I'm trying to address. Subjective morality is like saying "Round triangle". It doesn't make sense.

[Qchan]

I think saying that everyone would agree on a moral system is utopia, at best we can have Laws to that we agree on. Such as "stealing is wrong", "murder is wrong". I'm not exactly Kantian on the Law, because I can easily envision scenarios where stealing a loaf of bread to stop yourself from dying of starvation would be morally "better" than not stealing and let yourself starve to death. The gist is that morality, at least as how I would qualify it, and pictured by Sam Harris as a moral landscape, is that morality is merely guiding in our behavior, not an absolute. To me, quantifying this, seems more of a technical difficulty than qualitative one.
I think revenge is always wrong. But in the case of someone causing you bodily Harm, I see nothing wrong with self-defense to limit it, and I don't qualify that as revenge.

As for the last sentence, I think that it is impossible to have "an invisible list of rules" no matter what qualitative subject it is, be it physics or chemistry, just that morality is circumstantial rather than descriptive (if I'm using those words right, I mean that physical laws "governs" us despite our realization of them, whereas morality is the other way around, we need to realize them before we can decide how we govern ourselves).

These are your opinions, though. Your opinions are based on how you feel. I'm speaking directly upon the concept of morality itself.

Here's a question for you. What do you feel is the foundation for morality?

[Solomon Zorn]

You mention that subjective morality is scientific, but then you disagree that morality is based on feelings rather than thought. Subjective morality is fancy for "opinion". Are you saying opinions aren't based on how a person feels? Seems like a contradiction to me. If you feel a certain way, your opinion will certainly be persuaded by such feelings.

That is the issue I'm trying to address. Subjective morality is like saying "Round triangle". It doesn't make sense.

Websters:

: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior

: the degree to which something is right and good - the moral goodness or badness of something

There are TWO definitions of morality in the Websters Dictionary. You have chosen to ignore the first one (the one that doesn't fit your preconceived notion). This makes it difficult to discuss the subject with you. Sometimes morals, and other opinions, are based on feelings, sometimes on reasoning, sometimes on the authority of a book, but they are no less subjective in any case.

[Qchan]

Websters:There are TWO definitions of morality in the Websters Dictionary. You have chosen to ignore the first one (the one that doesn't fit your preconceived notion). This makes it difficult to discuss the subject with you. Sometimes morals, and other opinions, are based on feelings, sometimes on reasoning, sometimes on the authority of a book, but they are no less subjective in any case.

Both definitions say the exact same thing.

Subjective morality = Opinions

If I slap you and I felt it was moral, then who is right? When you look at everything subjectively, every action and idea a human makes becomes a simple point of view. That is the point I'm trying to make. You cannot claim anything is moral or not moral because it turns into an opinion. This is why the whole idea of "morality" among atheists is a catch 22. It doesn't make sense to talk about what is right or wrong if what is right and what is wrong is based on someone's opinion of justice.

[Solomon Zorn]

Both definitions say the exact same thing.

Subjective morality = Opinions

The first definition is subjective, as in "BELIEFS". The second definition is objective, the quality of "GOODNESS OR BADNESS."

If I slap you and I felt it was moral, then who is right?

Right? You mean objectively? No one is "right."

When you look at everything subjectively, every action and idea a human makes becomes a simple point of view. That is the point I'm trying to make. You cannot claim anything is moral or not moral because it turns into an opinion. This is why the whole idea of "morality" among atheists is a catch 22. It doesn't make sense to talk about what is right or wrong if what is right and what is wrong is based on someone's opinion of justice.

Nobody's talking about what is right or wrong. Nobody's claiming anything is moral or not moral. Talking about our specific morals is not what we're doing here. We're talking about the nature of morality. Most of us are not claiming anything is objectively moral.

You're not gaining any ground here Qchan. Atheists have morals the same as everyone else. We just don't believe God gave them to us. We have in fact, a great deal of agreement, not only with each other, but with religious folks as well, as to what is right and wrong.

It's not a perfect world.

[Qchan]

The first definition is subjective. The second definition is objective.
Right? You mean objectively? No one is "right."
Nobody's talking about what is right or wrong. Nobody's claiming anything is moral or not moral. Talking about our specific morals is not what we're doing here. We're talking about the nature of morality. Most of us are not claiming anything is objectively moral.

You're not gaining any ground here Qchan. Atheists have morals the same as everyone else. We just don't believe God gave them to us. We have in fact, a great deal of agreement, not only with each other, but with religious folks as well, as to what is right and wrong.

It's not a perfect world.

1) That's not how I've interpreted it.

2) Precisely!

3) When you say, "atheists have morals the same as everyone else" you expect people to understand that you know "right" from "wrong" like everybody else as if the concept is objective. It is a logical fallacy and you have failed to catch that.

[Solomon Zorn]

3) When you say, "atheists have morals the same as everyone else" you expect people to understand that you know "right" from "wrong" like everybody else as if the concept is objective. It is a logical fallacy and you have failed to catch that.

NO! I don't know "right from wrong" in any OBJECTIVE sense. I have a SUBJECTIVE morality, the same as everyone else has a SUBJECTIVE morality. To say I don't have morals would be to say that I don't have any BELIEFS as to what is right or wrong. Is that what you want me to say? How many ways do I need to explain this to you? Everyone has a subjective morality. No one has an objective one. You are mistaken in your definition of morality (that it implies objectivity) and I think that is still coloring your misunderstanding of other people on this thread, especially me. You have created a semantic problem where none exists.

[Solomon Zorn]

It is a logical fallacy and you have failed to catch that.

The only logical fallacy here is your obfuscation of definitions to make the words “right” and “wrong”  inherently objective, when there is another way of using those terms as well. Acceptable, or unacceptable are legitimate synonyms, and might help you understand the meaning of what I said, since the context of everything else that I've written on the subject doesn't seem to be sufficient for you to figure it out.

[Qchan]

The only logical fallacy here is your obfuscation of definitions to make the words “right” and “wrong”  inherently objective, when there is another way of using those terms as well. Acceptable, or unacceptable are legitimate synonyms, and might help you understand the meaning of what I said, since the context of everything else that I've written on the subject doesn't seem to be sufficient for you to figure it out.

You and I don't disagree. However, I am trying to help your argument. I'm telling you that morality doesn't make sense scientifically.

Were you aware that the world's sense of morality was much much different before the turn of the millennium? Mankind was pretty primitive and barbaric when it came to morality. Our morality, on the global scope, has improved dramatically since those times. You claim that morality is subjective because what you believe is right and wrong can be totally different than someone else's sense of justice. You are right about this, and I agree! However, we all share the same morals. We all shared the same morals during the early centuries and we all shared the same morals even beyond those times.

Everyone agrees that killing is wrong. We say to ourselves, "Death is terrible and it makes us sad." However, even without killing, people still die. Either from diseases, plagues, starvation, accidents and etc. So, the question is, even though death still exists, what foundation did the act of killing become a moral taboo? I'm not asking about why its wrong. I'm asking where did the idea that its wrong come from? Animals kill all the time to survive. Humans, during the BCE era had to kill to survive too. In poor countries with unstable governments, people have to kill to stay alive. So, what is the foundation for "killing is wrong"? Scientifically speaking, I have no clue!

[Solitary]

Really? Everyone agrees killing is always wrong, how about self defense, or to protect a valued thing or person. Death is always terrible and makes us sad, even when someone is in unbearable agony that can never be taken away accept by death, or an evil person like Hitler is killed? What are you 10 years old? It is quite obvious that if you don't want something done to you or a loved one it is morally wrong---how much brain power does that take? What in the hell does morality have to do with science. And what the hell does religion have to with it for that matter? Morality is something our higher powers of intelligence and feelings create, and it isn't a black and white issue that is a fallacy of sound reasoning. What you are trying to do is show that religion somehow has all the answers with a magic man in the sky and science doesn't. Well science has a lot of answers that religion doesn't too, like why is religion so important for morality when it has caused so much strife and pain and suffering for thousands of years and still does from lack of knowledge thinking it is knowledge when it is only primitive superstitious nonsense, while science has made are lives better than even Kings had in the past. Solitary

[Qchan]

1) Really? Everyone agrees killing is always wrong, how about self defense, or to protect a valued thing or person.

2) Death is always terrible and makes us sad, even when someone is in unbearable agony that can never be taken away accept by death, or an evil person like Hitler is killed? What are you 10 years old?

3) It is quite obvious that if you don't want something done to you or a loved one it is morally wrong---how much brain power does that take?

4) What in the hell does morality have to do with science. And what the hell does religion have to with it for that matter?

5) Morality is something our higher powers of intelligence and feelings create, and it isn't a black and white issue that is a fallacy of sound reasoning.

6) What you are trying to do is show that religion somehow has all the answers with a magic man in the sky and science doesn't. Well science has a lot of answers that religion doesn't too, like why is religion so important for morality when it has caused so much strife and pain and suffering for thousands of years and still does from lack of knowledge thinking it is knowledge when it is only primitive superstitious nonsense, while science has made are lives better than even Kings had in the past. Solitary

Wow. You had a light to say in that one paragraph.

1) I dunno if you can call "self-defense" killing. Sure you can kill someone in self-defense. However, killing insinuates a pattern. However, to make things easier for you to understand, we'll use the word "murder". Better?

2) I see you're taking my little example and running with it.

3) Well.... It has been documented that some mothers will mercy kill their child if they feel they will be tortured. You're kind of arguing "the grey" and missing the point entirely.

4) What does morality have to do with science? I've been asking that same question. What does religion has to do with morality? Well, religion appears to aim toward the realm of consciousness in which science cannot enter. So, religion may have a lot to do with it.

5) I partially agree with this.

6) I am? I haven't mentioned religion until now. Seems like you're making assumption on what my argument really is about.

[GSOgymrat]

Were you aware that the world's sense of morality was much much different before the turn of the millennium? Mankind was pretty primitive and barbaric when it came to morality. Our morality, on the global scope, has improved dramatically since those times. You claim that morality is subjective because what you believe is right and wrong can be totally different than someone else's sense of justice. You are right about this, and I agree! However, we all share the same morals. We all shared the same morals during the early centuries and we all shared the same morals even beyond those times.

I don't understand how morality is subjective but "morality, on the global scope, has improved dramatically." By what objective measure? You agree with Solomon Zorn that morality is subjective but say we have always shared the same morals. By morals do you mean values?

[Solitary]

I guess you have no idea what neurology is. You win the award for being the most obtuse person I have ever came across, and I worked around Mongos (Dutch) and the mentally retarded.  It's been fun, but even having fun has its limits accept for drug addicts, obsessive neurotics and the insane.    Solitary

[Qchan]

I don't understand how morality is subjective but "morality, on the global scope, has improved dramatically." By what objective measure? You agree with Solomon Zorn that morality is subjective but say we have always shared the same morals. By morals do you mean values?

I was anticipating this form of reply. I changed my wording so people could understand what I'm saying. I will break down my wording so you could see precisely what I'm getting at.

1) I first mentioned how our morals are pretty much all the same. I then say that morals were equally similar in different time periods of civilization and gradually improved as time went on. Objective morality doesn't mean morality stays the same forever. You can't look at objective morality as being a static value that never changes. That isn't what objective morality is.

2) I then explained a single moral many of us all share to emphasize the point I'm making. I made a few contrasts to show that the moral doesn't make sense. I pointed out how killing was necessary for the survival of mankind over the ages. Even animals practiced killing so they could live.

3) I then asked where did that moral come from after knowing the necessity of killing.