Morality: A treatise

[BigLundi]

So every once in awhile I like to make a long ass post about my current view of morality and meta ethics in response to how I've been vetting myself in the public forum(youtube, school, etc.). My last post about this particular topic appears to be...extremely old, and I can't seem to find it. But I know my original script and I'll copy/paste my last post about morality(Which concerns why I feel theistic morality is dead, and why I feel morality itself has become a bit of a science) and then expand from there with the new stuff addressing a couple objections that I've received. You can find my first pose here.

If you want to respond to my first topic, do it here, otherwise I'll be spread between the two answering questions, plus an old topic will be bumped, which might annoy the moderators.

Now then. An issue that seems to repeatedly come up when it comes to MY version of morality, that a subjective value and definition of morality can result in objectivity concerning 'oughtness' seems to be a point of contention among people that I present this with, and I'd like to address it.

This grows primarily from what I observe to be an extreme loyalty to a misconception about David Hume.

Anyone who's been engaged in the conversation about morality has heard David Hume's Is/Ought gap. That methodological naturalism when applied to investigating the universe can tell us what IS the case about the universe, but it cannot tell us what ought be the case. A prescriptive normative fact cannot come from a descriptive fact, in essence.

However, while this is true, It should never be misconstrued that Hume was a complete subjectivist concerning morality. This gap was simply an observation on his part. There's nothing to indicate(and indeed his literature seems to indicate the opposite) that he didn't believe that normative facts can be derived from presumed moral value X.

This is where the point of contention generally stems. I'll address the main concerns here, and see if I can't satisfyingly address the problems people bring up.

1. "Presuming moral value X is still only your subjective preference and opinion."

My response to this is...so what?

Presuming a subjective value X does not negate the proposition that an objective ought Y can be derived from it. To say that the subjective value renders the entirety of any moral statement or action I can say or do subjective, is a fallacy of composition.

To illustrate this problem I'd like to draw an analogy to a jet and a jet engine.

For the purposes of this analogy the Jet will be the entirety of a philosophical meta ethic, and the jet engine will be the values that drive it, and the characteristic of 'flight' is objectivity. Now, a jet engine cannot fly, on its own. The fallacy being made, however, is extending this lack of ability to fly to the entirety of the jet.

To make the illustration a little more clear, I'll break down the structure of a moral statement, and explain where subjectivity and objectivity come into play:

If I value human life, I ought not murder.
^ subjective value ^ objective logical conclusion.

This brings me to the second contention with my view on morality.

2. "Well, why ought we value X? You can't objectively say what we ought value."

Certainly I can't tell you what you objectively ought to value. But I CAN make an appeal to a common need for society in creating at the very least, a basis for moral values. All societies require certain things to survive, for instance, so then these would be some things to value, in order to continue society, and the only people that would reject these values would be people who do not find survival, valuable.

You might then make the argument: "Then why should I value survival?" Well, I would argue that survival is objectively valuABLE, and that's all that's necessary to concede that you should value it. Because it's capable of being valued, and there's no valid reason to NOT value it. There are a million reasons to make concerns and values for yourself reflecting survival, biological or social. Take your pick: Familial, societal, emotional, desirable, ALL of the preceding contain a vast array of reasons to value survival. And there isn't a reason to NOT value it. And if one can find a reason, I would contend that they would need to explain why it is their reason for devaluing survival supersedes that of the reasons to value it.

TL;DR version

Moral values are subjective by definition, but this doesn't undermine the concept of objective morality in the slightest.

While I can't tell you why you objectively ought to value anything, I can give you a vast array of reasons why you should value some basic things societies need to value in order to survive, and if you're going to say that it's not enough, I would submit you'd be required to submit a valid and sound reason that supersedes all of mine to devalue survival if you're going to argue this point, otherwise it's moot.

[Rallard]

Too deep for me, bro.

[Emma]

Objective morality could only come from a Higher Power.

Without a Higher Power, there is no point to morality.

[Winrar1337]

At 3/25/12 02:18 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Objective morality could only come from a Higher Power.

Without a Higher Power, there is no point to morality.

Why must morality be objective in order to have a point?

[TehPoptartKid]

At 3/25/12 02:31 PM, Ilssm wrote:

Why must morality be objective in order to have a point?

What's the point of being moral, though? So you can be remembered as such, which will fade? Because you get a good feeling? Why?

Because my friend. You will be in the history books like Joan of Arc, King Arthur, and the rest of the legends.

The legends!!!

[BigLundi]

At 3/25/12 02:18 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Objective morality could only come from a Higher Power.

Without a Higher Power, there is no point to morality.

I put a link to my first post on this issue as to why you're fundamentally wrong.

[TehPoptartKid]

At 3/25/12 02:39 PM, Ilssm wrote:

Because my friend. You will be in the history books like Joan of Arc, King Arthur, and the rest of the legends.

The legends!!!

99.9% of people do not get that chance, and even if you did, why would you do it? Just to be famous, not to actually help people out in need? Where DOES our sense of mortality come from, why does it seem to just be apart of the natural human nature?

Joan of Arc didn't do it to become famous. Have a good read, and come back to me.

[BigLundi]

At 3/25/12 02:22 PM, Ilssm wrote: Me, I like to be a good person, I try to give everyone a chance and treat them equal. I get a good feeling from helping others, as I assume most people do. Why I get this feeling? I do not know. Why do I try do be a good person? I don't know, I just do. My one and true honest question is, why? Why does the average person usually feel good after doing something good and feel bad if they do something bad? What IS good and bad? Does it have to do with what we were taught from the beginning, what we truly believe?

I would say we've evolved to have feelings and understandings that lead to us necessarily coming up with values.

Values themselves are an inevitable consequence of anything being valuable. You're asking why we value things...but...there are plenty of reasons, as I went over in my post. Familial(your family directly affect you, therefore you have a direct interest in valuing them, their lives, and treating them in a way that is conducive to them treating you positively.

Why do you like being treated positively? Because that's how we've evolved.

If someone in their lifetime who believes once they die, it's game over, why should they be moral?

...Because we have a life now. And that life is kind of important if it's the only one we're going to have. It's in your best interests to act moral so that your life becomes preferable, pleasurable, happy. And again, why do you want life to be pleasurable or happy? Because you've evolved that way.

Why, just so they can be remembered as a good or decent person?

Do you think the people that invented the cure for polio did it because, "Gee I want to be remembered for this"? And if they presumed that they wouldn't be remembered...do you honestly think they would say, "Well then what's the point? Screw it. Let the children die."?

Memories fade. Because they want to treat people the same way they want to be treated, why? What is the point of trying to do your best? Why do we get good feelings from helping others?

What is the point of wanting to be treated well? Again, you've evolved that way. Chemicals involved in your brain give you euphoric effects when you do things that are conducive to your own happiness and pleasure ,giving you these feelings.

At this point you're not asking about morality, you're asking 'why are we the way we are?'. Which is solved in the field of biology as well as existentialism.

I guess my point is, why as humans have we developed these moral codes that we are supposed to uphold when some of us believe won't matter after we cease to exist? Whenever I ask someone these questions, they always seem to come back to the same answer-

' We just do, I don't know. '

I didn't come back with that answer...and I'm fairly certain most philosophically educated atheists won't either. So there you go.

[BigLundi]

At 3/25/12 03:26 PM, Ilssm wrote:

At 3/25/12 03:10 PM, BigLundi wrote:

Makes sense, I suppose. Although I think there is more than the world then meets the eye.

Based on what?

[BigLundi]

At 3/25/12 03:33 PM, Ilssm wrote:

Based on what?

Well it's just... I don't know.

You believe what makes sense to you, I'll believe what makes sense to me. I do applaud you for being mature about this though.

Well then my only question is why you end your own investigation of your own world view when you come to the conclusion of, "...Well I don't know." but you feel it should be questioned of the atheistic worldview about morals even if their response is, "I don't know."

You APPEAR, from what I've seen, to be inconsistent in your investigation. You'll ask questions of others and expect answers wherein you don't ask questions of yourself because you don't have answers...So if you don't have answers...shouldn't you figure the answers out?

[MrFlopz]

People don't seem to grasp that morality predates religion. It predates the belief in a high power altogether. There are signs of morality in the animal kingdom.