Morality

[RickD]

On 11/18/17 at 6:19am RickD said:

“Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That wasn't what I was suggesting. That would be equal to me saying that Theists cannot commit mass murders. That's just not logical.”

This tells me he finds the claim; that the belief in subjective morality will lead to atrocities, as an illogical claim

No Kenny. PaulS was saying that belief in subjective morality lead to those atrocities. That's not the same as saying that belief in subjective morality will necessarily lead to those kinds of atrocities. But given human nature, it's a good likelihood that it could happen.

And this is a position that PaulS holds, but you do not; is that correct?
K

I'm not sure which "position" you are referring to.

I believe that when taking a belief in subjective morality to its logical conclusion, atrocities like those referred to, not only fit the subjective morality worldview, they are also justified by the subjective morality worldview.

Here is my position. If morality is objective, it is objective regardless of whether I believe or want it to be subjective, or not.

If morality is Subjective, it is subjective regardless of whether you and others believe or want it to be objective or not.

If only subjective morality leads to the listed atrocities, and those atrocities exist, that would indicate morality is subjective, because if it were objective, said atrocities would not have taken place. Do you agree?

Huh?

Could you please explain how you came to that conclusion?

Edit:

You continue to make the same mistake.

What I'm saying is:

1) morality is objective

2) some believe morality is subjective

3) some who believe morality is subjective, have committed atrocities which are consistent with a subjective morality worldview

[Kenny]

No Kenny. PaulS was saying that belief in subjective morality lead to those atrocities. That's not the same as saying that belief in subjective morality will necessarily lead to those kinds of atrocities. But given human nature, it's a good likelihood that it could happen.

And this is a position that PaulS holds, but you do not; is that correct?
K

I'm not sure which "position" you are referring to.

I believe that when taking a belief in subjective morality to its logical conclusion, atrocities like those referred to, not only fit the subjective morality worldview, they are also justified by the subjective morality worldview.

Here is my position. If morality is objective, it is objective regardless of whether I believe or want it to be subjective, or not.

If morality is Subjective, it is subjective regardless of whether you and others believe or want it to be objective or not.

If only subjective morality leads to the listed atrocities, and those atrocities exist, that would indicate morality is subjective, because if it were objective, said atrocities would not have taken place. Do you agree?

Huh?

Could you please explain how you came to that conclusion?

Let me try it this way:
It is a contradiction to claim only if action “X” is true (in this case subjective morality) will we get action “Y” (atrocities that have taken place) and then at the same time claim action “X” is not true. Do you agree with me so far?

Edit:

You continue to make the same mistake.

What I'm saying is:

1) morality is objective

2) some believe morality is subjective

3) some who believe morality is subjective, have committed atrocities which are consistent with a subjective morality worldview

Okay; I’m going to ask you the same question I asked you 11/17/17 at 9:45am because your previous response seems to contradict what you are saying now:

Do you really believe all of those mad men considered if morality were objective or subjective, concluded it was subjective; then went out slaughtering millions because of it?

Ken

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
It is a contradiction to claim only if action “X” is true (in this case subjective morality) will we get action “Y” (atrocities that have taken place) and then at the same time claim action “X” is not true. Do you agree with me so far?

No. I'm not making any such argument.

Do you really believe all of those mad men considered if morality were objective or subjective, concluded it was subjective; then went out slaughtering millions because of it?

Not exactly Ken. I believe those names listed before, Mao, Stalin, etc., didn't believe in God, therefore, didn't believe in objective morality.

Does that help?

[Kenny]

kenny wrote:
It is a contradiction to claim only if action “X” is true (in this case subjective morality) will we get action “Y” (atrocities that have taken place) and then at the same time claim action “X” is not true. Do you agree with me so far?

No. I'm not making any such argument.

Do you really believe all of those mad men considered if morality were objective or subjective, concluded it was subjective; then went out slaughtering millions because of it?

Not exactly Ken. I believe those names listed before, Mao, Stalin, etc., didn't believe in God, therefore, didn't believe in objective morality.

Does that help?

Do you believe the Objective/Subjective morality issue was even a thought much less a consideration when they decided to commit those evil acts? If not, isn't it fair to conclude subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did?

[Philip]

Ken: Do you believe the Objective/Subjective morality issue was even a thought much less a consideration when they decided to commit those evil acts? If not, isn't it fair to conclude subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did?

What motivates such people to evil has only to do with their own selfish narcissism in desiring whatever it is they want, and that they are willing to obtain it by any means necessary. They don't care about philosophical analysis of their motivations. Even if they believe right and wrong is objective - they care about but one thing, following their on subjective ideas about what suits them.

Especially in America, and to a lesser extent in other Western nations, many atheists and agnostics don't realize how powerfully the values of Christianity, of which there remains a significant residual influence on the culture, has influenced their values in how they have formed their moral sense of how they treat their fellow man. This is why the Godless and godless, especially in societies where such unbelieving views and values are strong, so often are more likely to brutalize their fellow man - especially where people come together who are willing to do whatever evils to accomplish their common evil desires. These are such people who only care about a morality that allows them to take whatever, from whomever, however, and whenever!

[Kenny]

Ken: Do you believe the Objective/Subjective morality issue was even a thought much less a consideration when they decided to commit those evil acts? If not, isn't it fair to conclude subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did?

What motivates such people to evil has only to do with their own selfish narcissism in desiring whatever it is they want, and that they are willing to obtain it by any means necessary. They don't care about philosophical analysis of their motivations. Even if they believe right and wrong is objective - they care about but one thing, following their on subjective ideas about what suits them.

Especially in America, and to a lesser extent in other Western nations, many atheists and agnostics don't realize how powerfully the values of Christianity, of which there remains a significant residual influence on the culture, has influenced their values in how they have formed their moral sense of how they treat their fellow man. This is why the Godless and godless, especially in societies where such unbelieving views and values are strong, so often are more likely to brutalize their fellow man - especially where people come together who are willing to do whatever evils to accomplish their common evil desires. These are such people who only care about a morality that allows them to take whatever, from whomever, however, and whenever!

Again; isn't it fair to conclude subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did?

[Philip]

Ken: Again; isn't it fair to conclude subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did?

ALL people constantly bent upon evil - their only consideration concerning moral law: "What do I want to do?" Oh, and maybe, "Can I get away with it." For such people, that is all they care about some moral law, whether subjective or objective. They act as if their subjective response to that doesn't matter one bit. Or, if they are aware of objective moral law (which I believe they know of, but suppress), then they simply don't care about it, or pretend it doesn't exist or matter. The only deity that matters to such people, is the god the see in the mirror every morning.

[Kenny]

Ken: Again; isn't it fair to conclude subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did?

ALL people constantly bent upon evil - their only consideration concerning moral law: "What do I want to do?" Oh, and maybe, "Can I get away with it." For such people, that is all they care about some moral law, whether subjective or objective. They act as if their subjective response to that doesn't matter one bit. Or, if they are aware of objective moral law (which I believe they know of, but suppress), then they simply don't care about it, or pretend it doesn't exist or matter. The only deity that matters to such people, is the god the see in the mirror every morning.

So is this another way of saying Subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did?

K

[RickD]

Ken: Do you believe the Objective/Subjective morality issue was even a thought much less a consideration when they decided to commit those evil acts? If not, isn't it fair to conclude subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did?

What motivates such people to evil has only to do with their own selfish narcissism in desiring whatever it is they want, and that they are willing to obtain it by any means necessary. They don't care about philosophical analysis of their motivations. Even if they believe right and wrong is objective - they care about but one thing, following their on subjective ideas about what suits them.

Especially in America, and to a lesser extent in other Western nations, many atheists and agnostics don't realize how powerfully the values of Christianity, of which there remains a significant residual influence on the culture, has influenced their values in how they have formed their moral sense of how they treat their fellow man. This is why the Godless and godless, especially in societies where such unbelieving views and values are strong, so often are more likely to brutalize their fellow man - especially where people come together who are willing to do whatever evils to accomplish their common evil desires. These are such people who only care about a morality that allows them to take whatever, from whomever, however, and whenever!

Again; isn't it fair to conclude subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did?

No.

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
It is a contradiction to claim only if action “X” is true (in this case subjective morality) will we get action “Y” (atrocities that have taken place) and then at the same time claim action “X” is not true. Do you agree with me so far?

No. I'm not making any such argument.

Do you really believe all of those mad men considered if morality were objective or subjective, concluded it was subjective; then went out slaughtering millions because of it?

Not exactly Ken. I believe those names listed before, Mao, Stalin, etc., didn't believe in God, therefore, didn't believe in objective morality.

Does that help?

Do you believe the Objective/Subjective morality issue was even a thought much less a consideration when they decided to commit those evil acts? I have no idea.If not, isn't it fair to conclude subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did? No, that conclusion doesn't logically follow your premise.

[Philip]

Ken: So is this another way of saying Subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did?

It has EVERYTHING to do with it, because they act and think as if there is no morality beyond what they selfishly desire, or that it even matters to them. They are gods to themselves!

[Kenny]

Ken: So is this another way of saying Subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did?

It has EVERYTHING to do with it, because they act and think as if there is no morality beyond what they selfishly desire, or that it even matters to them. They are gods to themselves!

You are making the common mistake of confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism.

Ken

[Kenny]

kenny wrote:
It is a contradiction to claim only if action “X” is true (in this case subjective morality) will we get action “Y” (atrocities that have taken place) and then at the same time claim action “X” is not true. Do you agree with me so far?

No. I'm not making any such argument.

Do you really believe all of those mad men considered if morality were objective or subjective, concluded it was subjective; then went out slaughtering millions because of it?

Not exactly Ken. I believe those names listed before, Mao, Stalin, etc., didn't believe in God, therefore, didn't believe in objective morality.

Does that help?

Do you believe the Objective/Subjective morality issue was even a thought much less a consideration when they decided to commit those evil acts? I have no idea.If not, isn't it fair to conclude subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did? No, that conclusion doesn't logically follow your premise.

I believe the conclusion does logically follow the premise because if we assume you are correct and morality IS objective, this would be the case regardless of people like me who believe it is subjective.
Since all moral acts are objective, the acts of evil men can’t be blamed on subjective morality because subjective morality doesn’t exist.
Would you mind explaining why you say the conclusion does not logically follow the premise?

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
It is a contradiction to claim only if action “X” is true (in this case subjective morality) will we get action “Y” (atrocities that have taken place) and then at the same time claim action “X” is not true. Do you agree with me so far?

No. I'm not making any such argument.

Do you really believe all of those mad men considered if morality were objective or subjective, concluded it was subjective; then went out slaughtering millions because of it?

Not exactly Ken. I believe those names listed before, Mao, Stalin, etc., didn't believe in God, therefore, didn't believe in objective morality.

Does that help?

Do you believe the Objective/Subjective morality issue was even a thought much less a consideration when they decided to commit those evil acts? I have no idea.If not, isn't it fair to conclude subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did? No, that conclusion doesn't logically follow your premise.

I believe the conclusion does logically follow the premise because if we assume you are correct and morality IS objective, this would be the case regardless of people like me who believe it is subjective.
Since all moral acts are objective, the acts of evil men can’t be blamed on subjective morality because subjective morality doesn’t exist.
Would you mind explaining why you say the conclusion does not logically follow the premise?

Kenny,

How many times do you need me to explain that it's the belief in subjective morality that I'm talking about?

If I feel like I can do whatever I want, because I believe morality is subjective,even though in reality it's objective, then the logical conclusion to that belief in subjective morality , is that my preference to murder millions, is no better or worse, than my preference for chocolate ice cream!

If someone has a subjective morality worldview, then one doesn't have to consciously think about subjective morality every time one does something evil.

That's why your conclusion doesn't follow your premise.

Just like for me, as one who has an objective morality worldview, I don't consciously think, "objective morality" every time I act.

Think of a worldview as a lens that someone sees the world through. But it's more like contact lenses that are always on one's eyes. So whatever one sees, it's always seen through those lenses.

Your premise, when asking if Mao, Stalin, etc., thought about subjective morality when they committed atrocities, is like asking if they consciously put on their subjective morality glasses, when they already had their contacts on, and don't even think about it.

Understand?

[RickD]

Ken: So is this another way of saying Subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did?

It has EVERYTHING to do with it, because they act and think as if there is no morality beyond what they selfishly desire, or that it even matters to them. They are gods to themselves!

You are making the common mistake of confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism.

Ken

No Kenny, he's not. I think you need to re-google the difference. Ethical subjectivism holds that all moral principles are justified only by the individual, and do not necessarily apply to people other than the individual who accepts them.

Which is what Philip said, when he said, "they act and think as if there is no morality beyond what they selfishly desire, or that it even matters to them."