Morality and Subjectivity

I'll try to clarify:
Subjective means to exist only in the mind and objective means to be based on facts and evidence. I believe that most complex thoughts are a combination of the two, especially including moral systems.Example: Consider a moral system that considers lying immoral. This rule is easy to justify: if lying wasn't discouraged, then a person might be more compelled to lie because it's easier. This would make conversation worthless because the person would likely be compelled to answer questions based on ease rather than validity. It logically follows, then, that telling the truth should be a moral standard. I would deem this type of reasoning subjective because it relies solely on logic.On the other hand, a person might've actually observed a society where lying was promoted. He might have noticed the productivity of that society versus one where lying was discouraged, and decided that based solely on productivity, the society that discourages lying is more productive and therefore morally superior (assuming that productivity is an aim for the moral system). This, then, would be a more objective approach.In general, I believe that moral systems attempt to base most of their standards on observed phenomena while filling the gaps with subjective reasoning.

quote:

---

I see your reverting to your two line sniping again. Pity. You wrote a post of some length yesterday and had something to actually say.

---

You clearly never read that post properly - go back and read it again, you are even mentioned by name!

Again? I pointed out that it was a long post. I didn't say it was a good one. Let my new found admiration take root before you start harvesting will ya.

here's the key bit - just for you.

quote:

---

We keep talking about how scientists doing their debate via peer review rather than internet forum, it's true and it's also an illustration that science is a complex business and one that the average man in the street will struggle to get a grasp of without a significant investment of time. It's why the creationists are so effective on the internet - they pitch their material at the right level (it's irrelevant to an extent that it's made-up!).

​

Therefore there needs to be a level of discourse on those boards pitched at people with little or no experience or understanding of the sciences or the atheist/theist debate. Iano always digs me for my relatively short posts - but it's entirely intentional, I occassionally write long posts but will delete them and replace them with something much shorter.

​

The truth of the matter is that most of the lurkers will skip straight past the long posts for a varity of reasons (This is not off the top of my head, my real-world "expertise" is around the information-seeking behaviour of individuals and organizations. Therefore I have a fair idea of the process and the best mechanisms to attract attention). It's at this problem perpection level that I am trying to reach the lurkers - when they are still trying to define their source selection criteria.

---

All I'm doing is adapting a creationist tactic.

Given your subsequent argument I don't see how you can apply 'especially' here. We might all be characters in some alien kids playstation game in which case you can be no more certain of the computer screen on front of you than I am of God.My oft repeated mantra about knowing God exists for certain has equally oft been qualified by that certainty being limited to equate in quality with the certainty that I exist (as I percieve myself to). I don't necessarily exist of course, I might be a character in a aliens playstation game The way we function is not to consider these as uncertainties at all. No one does consider them, except the relative few who ponder it and who then accept that its pointless to speculate. Anyway, within the bounds available I don't need to progress anymore having arrived at the destination. Your first argument makes plain (as does my response) that a person cannot be certain to a level greater that the ability for a person to be certain. This does not require infinite knowledge. It just requires one to be as certain as a person can. And that is how certain I am. I couldn't be more certain. I don't disparage science but remember that it is only a tool constructed and applied by the human mind. And it is only one of a number of tools available to the mind. In that sense it is narrow. One of many tools.

You keep on supplying the banner headlines then CK. And I'll keep on writing the column inches underneath.

Such a god would seem to be unimportant to us. In order for God to matter, He would have to be a creator who made us with some purpose in mind. Otherwise, we might as well call that God being/thing "nature."The nihilistic view would still be accurate in such a case.There has to be an explanation of how suffering entered the world.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

Well, yes, but I tend to think there's something oxymoronic about the term "cruel god." But I'm not sure. I think my point would be that our ideas of morality MIGHT be objective if there is a God, but cannot possibly be objective if there is no God. The moral argument against God is meant to PROVE that God does not exist.I'll think about your remarks some more. I don't see why it wouldn't matter that the judgement is subjective. We might agree about the judgement, and we might both be wrong.

Mathematics is based "solely on logic." Is it subjective? I don't think we have to go around measuring all those triangles to know that the Pythagorean theorum is true.(Sorry for the brief response, but I'm in a hurry right now).

I am not aware of any definition of "god" that rules out cruelty. Gods are often depicted as acting in ways which are cruel (even in the Bible)

quote:

---

I think my point would be that our ideas of morality MIGHT be objective if there is a God

---

There are a number of things to say to this.Firstly I have seen no convincing argument linking an objective morality to the existence of a God. (Divine Command Theory assumes subjective morality)Secondly, I responded to your objection as written "If there is no God then our morality is subjective..."Thirdly it seems that you are finally beginning to appreciate the difficulties of providing a fully logical proof, so you deserve some credit there, at least.

quote:

---

I don't see why it wouldn't matter that the judgement is subjective. We might agree about the judgement, and we might both be wrong.

---

The point is that it negates your problem of a subjective morality by using agreed definitions. If God would not do something (which we happen to refer to with the label "cruel"), and if it is shown that if God exists then He must have done that thing then it logically follows that God does not exist.

I would maintain that suffering is entirely subjective anyways.Edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, : No reason given.

Perhaps there is a problem with the meaning of the terms "subjective" and "objective."I think what I meant by "subjective morality" is that the moral rules are some ideas that humanity thought up or felt, which if they turned out to be objectively true (in the sense, say, that a mathematical theorum is objectively true--true at all times, in all places, for all agents)then this could only be so by a fluke, for there is no logical basis for these rules, whereas there is a logical basis for some mathematical theorum.

Expanations there are quite a few. Let's say you reached into a hat a drew forth a sheet of paper on which was written the best explanation. You read it. Has your life changed? In what ways?lfen

Mathematics is based on a set of axioms. Assuming the axioms to be true should be considered subjective; however, I should think that the rest of Mathematics would be objective. Thanks for pointing this out - I'll definitely have to rethink my interpretation of the definitions to these words before I can regain a clear understanding.I'm still of the persuasion that most complex thought is a combination of of subjective and objective reasoning. I'm going to have to take back my earlier statement - A moral system wouldn't be based on objective observations with subjective reasoning to fill in the blanks. It is probably more closely related to mathematics in that it takes a set of beliefs generally accepted to be true and builds upon them using logic. The axioms of any moral system, however, are much more numerous and less widely accepted as truths than those of math, making it a much more subjective method of thinking. This would account for the some of the wildly different moral standards seen in different cultures.I feel like this approach makes much more sense, but it's still hazy because I still need to consider how observations fit into the picture. I'll see if I can revise this and come up with a more complete version later.

It would depend on the explanation. But if I had certainty (beyond a reasonable doubt) that there was a God in the traditional sense, my life might change drastically.