Utilitarianism is generally defined by the principle "the greatest good for the greatest number." Maximize pleasure and minimize pain or maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness depending if you follow say Bentham or Mill. But what makes that objectively true and not a subjective opinion? Like what makes that opinion better than Immanuel Kant who believed in following principles that are universalizable for all. No, the premise is still subjective.
Christianity is INCOMPATIBLE with objective morality. Why else would Adam and Eve be PUNISHED for obtaining Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why else could the Bible teach that God should be obeyed WHATEVER He commands? Why else would Christians think it OK for Abraham to be willing to ritually sacrifice his own son because God had asked him to? Religion REPLACES rational and empathic morality and personal moral responsibility with blind amoral obedience.
Utilitarianism is false. The Experience Machine? Robert Nozik? Plus regardless of whether of it being true or not, it's still a culmination of subjective views. Further more, making friends can mean happiness for some while killing may equate to happiness for others.
@bitbutter But you use the concepts of it to prove your point. If Utilitarianism isn't true (happiness isn't moral good, etc.) then your whole point is false and means nothing. So do you believe that Utilitarianism is true?
@TheHumpadump Since my point is that there's nothing about atheism as such that makes it incompatible with objective morality, your claim that my "whole point is false" if utilitarianism is false, is false!
@bitbutter What? That makes no sense. You just said that atheism doesn't preclude Utilitarianism as being true. Fine. But you just said that means it is possible for Utilitarianism to be true and therefore objective morality to be true also, which was original question. So you do think Utilitarianism constitutes for objective morality.
Atheism is compatible with Objective Morality. In contrast, Religion is INCOMPATIBLE with Objective Morality. If morality is genuinely objective, like mathematics, then just as 2=2=4 remains unchangeable irrespective of the wishes or existence of a deity so would morality remain unchangeable. If it's objectively wrong to ritually sacrifice your child then it remains wrong for Abraham to do it even if God requests it. If Abraham believed in objective morality he would have rejected God's request.
@EqualAndFree Religion is compatible with OM too. It may not be wrong to ritually sacrifice your kid if commanded to by the creator of the universe, but wrong under other conditions.
Full disclosure: I don't see good reason to believe that moral facts exist.
@bitbutter That doesn't make sense. If the Creator of the Universe commands you to sacrifice your kid He's made a moral mistake - just as if He said "2+2=3" He would have made a mathematical mistake. You can't have objective morality AND acts that can be moral or immoral purely depending upon the wishes of a divine being. Religious "morality" is not about doing what is right - it's about unquestioningly doing what you're told to do even if it's wrong. That's the message of the Abraham story.
"You can't have objective morality AND acts that can be moral or immoral purely depending upon the wishes of a divine being."
I understand the objection. Religionists reply by insisting that god's wishes are not like human wishes, they follow necessarily from the fact of existence, they couldn't be other than what they in fact are. So 'subjective' doesn't fit as a description of god's will.
@bitbutter If God's wishes "follow necessarily from the fact of existence" then God would have no free will and His wishes would be universal and unchanging. Therefore if He wished Abraham to sacrifice his child He would wish all of us, at any time in history, to sacrifice our children - which is a rather problematic conclusion. If you assume that God universally and eternally wills whatever is rational and in the best interest of all then you might as well forget "God" and use reason instead.
@EqualAndFree "and His wishes would be universal and unchanging. Therefore if He wished Abraham to sacrifice his child He would wish all of us, at any time in history, to sacrifice our children"
Non sequitur. There's no logical barrier to contextual factors being relevant in determining the moral status of any action.
First off, morality cannot be objective even if god were to exist, because objectivity requires that ALL individuals must possess a moral sense. This is falsified by the fact that psychopaths have no sense of morality. The argument proposed by theists that "without god there isn't any objective morality" is a very weak because it insinuates that subjective morality is inherently "bad". Subjective morality is neither better nor worse, as it relies on each individual's perception.
Morality and all of those associated ideals are rooted entirely in a presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
-
Nature is pure war with every man against another, so man is only civilized by the threat of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor.
-
Utilitarianism is a religion just passing the collection plate at gunpoint for the gods of communism.
@SirWinstonChurchill "Nature is pure war with every man against another, so man is only civilized by the threat of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor."
I don't call that civil. Rather: man is civilized by the realisation that society isn't a zero-sum game.
Do you really think I give a damn about what you call "civil"???
-
Have you ever seen the Hellraiser movies? The Pinhead character says (after his next victim cries "Oh, my God"); "Do you really think I give a damn about what God thinks?"
-
I was prowling the streets in a large city late one evening and was confronted by someone who told me they were an anarchist. I left him on the concrete in a bloody pulp and simply said, "me too," immediately thereafter...
There is no objective morality. Utilitarianism is a system, but the choice to accept the assumptions of utilitarianism is subjective. One might take altruism as another "objective" system. But, while it is a system, and if it were true irrespective of personal opinions, then it would be objective. But, neither utilitarianism nor altruism are true irrespective of personal opinions because the decision to accept or reject their basic premises is personal and therefore subjective.
@PeytonFarquhar1 The freedom of choice there doesn't in and of itself mean that there is no objective morality, any more than the freedom to choose what to eat for dinner implies there is no objective need to eat.
@nightvidcole - I didn't say that the freedom of choice in and of itself means there is no objective morality. There simply is no objective morality. None. Morality is a value judgment about the right and wrong of a thing or action. There is no moral judgment that is objective - they are all individual judgments.
A Spartan, for example, thought it was quite moral to leave a defective baby out to die of exposure. Today, we think that grossly immoral and evil.
@whyiaskyou79 I agree with you, but there's nothing about _atheism_ per se that commits a person to this view of ethics--the topic of this video. So I think you failed ;)
The stance on whether or not gods exist is irrelevant.
There is no sound argument for objective morality.
Atheism is the default position on the question of whether gods exist, so i don't see the compatibility of that with accepting an oxymoron.
is the idea that a person can be correct on a certain position (in this case, not accepting the existence of a god), and also be incorrect on another position (in this case, thinking objective morality exists)?
An ethical system doesn't have to be "moral". Imagine a situation where "you are tortured by some people for fun" I bet that whatever other folks think of this, in the moment of torture you will think that the action of people torturing you for fun is immoral. That's kind of the essence of objective morality. Suffering can be in some cases subjective in a case of love relation etc - but imho, the idea that causing needless suffering is bad is kind of "universal".
@Andyba2000 objective morality pretty much mean -- something is moral just because it is. (typically because my holy book said so) its not like you can prove morals or measure them.
@whyiaskyou79 Mental constructs come from DNA and the environment. Survival is objective, its something life does. Morality comes from that. Your comment is a fail, its been told a thousand times, most atheist reject it. Your comment is completely arrogant, I doubt fully understand psychologyor ecology in biology.
I actually have my bachelors degree in psychology. I am entirely aware of what mental constructs are and how they arise from the brain. I don't need you to tell me.
Life doesn't 'do' survival. Survival is simply the reality in an organism that is alive and in a species that procreates.
There would be no morality without brains. That IS what makes it subjective. And if you don't understand that, then you simply do not know the meaning of the word 'subjective'.
@whyiaskyou79 You still don't know enough, i study biochemistry now you get community's of cell (example biofilms) which have evolved better ways of survival. Everything in life comes back to survival, and as cells do not have brains, the chemical process of survival is not subjective. Morality does come from the mind, but the mind is linked to survival. Its complex but no sorry, saying these things are subjective when they exist outside MY and YOUR mind is insane. Morality is neither sub or obj
How do you assume I don't know enough? A species that exists today does so because of the survival of previous generations. This has been achieved by survival mechanisms of the species (i.e. the pain of hunger motivates one to eat). For homo sapiens, 'morals' are the product of a desire to live cooperatively as a social species, with the understanding that being part of a group will yield a better chance to survive. That does NOT make it objective, however.
@whyiaskyou79 Right well I don't think it should be called objective, BUT it can't be called subjective. I only assumed you lacked knowledge as from my experience, its rare to find individuals who have the knowledge. Also the way you presented your views, seemed arrogant, and we can't learn or check ourselves for mistakes. Sorry for my assumption i was wrong. Anyway i believe it is wise that we continue this convo in private, as we are limited to how much we can write in these video comments
If you don't think it should be called objective, I don't see how the title of your video makes any sense. I do not understand why you think it 'can't be called subjective'. If values vary between different people (which they do, even if to a small extent), then different moral frameworks are going to develop.
Ex: some people think same-sex relations are perfectly fine, while others think they are a 'sin'.
Don't worry about your assumption. We all make them now and then.
Wait a minute. I agree that you can test actions by using standards (divine command theory could be an objective standard as in action x is wrong by this standard, an objective fact and the same thing goes for utilitarianism). However, the goal here is to prove that utilitarianism is objective and something that all humans should agree upon.
I'm an atheist and a moral nihilist. I think the theist faces the same issue an atheist would in determining objective morality.
@SaturdaySoundOffsTV "I'm an atheist and a moral nihilist. I think the theist faces the same issue an atheist would in determining objective morality. " i agree.
You agreed that ethical systems are based on value systems which go back to subjective valuation.
In this case all that is objective about your morality is the relationship between an action and the value (i.e. a certain action objectively supports a certain value). However, the value itself is not objective.
Like buying chocolate ice cream objectively leads to the pleasure I get from eating chocolate ice cream but the pleasure is still subjective.
This video is awful. Any atheist who isn't delusional will tell you objective morality cannot possible exist in completely natural universe. There are no objective standards or goals in the universe.
Apart from the fact that utilitarianism is riddled with holes. There is no reason to believe that it is true. One may as well propose some kind of anti-utilitarianism where the most suffering is the aim of morality. Then how would an atheist know which is true. There is no way to judge which is "right". (of course it's obvious which a sane person would prefer but that's irrelevant)
Sure it is, (a particular variety of) utilitarianism offers an objective moral standard--in that sense it allows objective morality. But, like any moral system, it cannot legitimize itself.
You're saying that there can be objective morality in a subjective outer framework. Then it's not really objective. True objective morality can only exist with God.
Theistic morality faces exactly the same problem, it cannot legitimize itself (how do you know that God is good? how do you know that his commands are good?).
If no variety of utilitarianism cam be counted as an objective moral system, then neither can (for instance) divine command theory.
@awesomewelles90 The problem with your argument is that is only in the case where a God makes himself known and understood objectively which is not what we have. That is why the belief in God requires faith. However, there can be an objective morality in a subjective outer framework because there are objective facts out the subjective experience.
@awesomewelles90 "True objective morality can only exist with God." Shut up theist, god murders in the fairy tale, orders men to rape, any morality that comes from god is subjective. FAIL FAIL FAIL. Soon atheism will replace religion, we will use science to understand human morality and we will destory the corrupt power and authority of organised religion!!
You can be an atheist and believe in objective morality as long as that objective morality does not come from a god.
You can believe that goblin physicists have found good and evil subatomic particles and the study of these has led to a form of mathematics which describes an objective moral code.
an atheist can believe that because there is no god in that explanation, however it would be irrational to believe it without evidence.
I'm a naturalist, I utterly reject objective morality.
On utilitarianism, judgments about what will actually maximise wellbeing do not affect what will, as a matter of fact, maximise wellbeing. So in this sense utilitarianism does have an objective standard.
Different schools of thought define wellbeing differently, but at any given moment, with all the subjective preferences and desires of people taken into account, there is a course of action that will lead to maximised wellbeing (however you've defined it), and that's an objective fact.
No doubt you would argue that the happiness of the majority is more important, but that is a subjective viewpoint.
Why is the happiness of the majority more important?
There are no objective facts which support this, it is purely a subjective value judgement that the happiness of the many is more important than the happiness of the few.
This is no doubt due to the fact you live in a democracy.
You will always come back to a subjective value judgement on what is desirable and what is not.
Your last sentence isn't about a problem unique to utilitarianism. Any choice of meta-ethical system is doomed to be arbitrary. It's not only utilitarians who'll have trouble explaining why we should regard their system as the correct one.
Exactly, and that is why no single moral system can claim to be objective.
ALL moral or ethical systems are ultimately based on value judgements, which are by and large, subjective.
Utilitarianism in pursuit of eudaemonia is subjective because it is based on the premise that happiness is a good thing, and this is a subjective statement (the fact it is shared by most humans is irrelevant).
acceptance by the majority does not equal objective.
'ALL moral or ethical systems are ultimately based on value judgements, which are by and large, subjective.
I think you're right about that.
Within those systems though there is room for the existence of objective standards. With any particular version of utilitarianism: however wellbeing is defined, as long as it is defined, then there's the objective standard of the good.
The problem, as i think we agree, is justifying belief in utilitarianism in the first place.
Your definition of objective as "not influenced by emotion" is wrong.
Objective means "mind independent" which is not the same thing, utilitarianism is still based on human assessment.
What's useful and what's not, therefore it's still based on the subjective opinions of the person who says "cannibalism is useful, rape is not".
the only objective morality that can exist is one which exists independently of a mind,it must be a property of the external universe (like electrostatic charge).
I don't understand your objection. How would it follow that us being unable to know what is objectively moral mean that objective morality does not exist?
But there is a difference between knowledge and existence. Even if we cannot know what God's objective moral standard is, that does not mean the standard does not exist.
If I am unaware that there is life on planet X, that does not mean there is not life on planet X.
We do know what god(s) would think - If they were immortal and omnimpotent, they wouldn't value anything nor possess any kind of moral code, nor would they get angry or feel the need to reward or punish anyone. Why, for instance, would a god value human life when he could just conjure up another identical one in its place (at no cost to itself), if it was ever lost?
LoL this is my thought too, the only idea of personal god makes me laugh :-)
But in that moment I was assuming the hypothesis "there is a personal God who want us to act in a certain way" to make clear that, anyway, his/her/its existence doesn't matter.
On utilitarianism the project of trying to discover moral facts is dependent on subjective value judgments (just as it is on divine command theory), but a moral fact doesn't change depending on whether people are aware of it or not. So morality is not necessarily based on subjective value judgments.
Under utilitarianism what is right for you may not be right for me. I could value my wellbeing as a greater good than that of Mr X. and Mr X could values his wellbeing as the greater good.
In what way is divine command theory dependent on any subjective value judgements? Right and wrong exist outside of what I value or prefer. Humans would have no impact on determinining right or wrong in that view.
This doesn't challenge my claim. Under utilitarianism there's still an objective fact of the matter about what is the right thing to do in any given situation.
The practical problem of figuring out what's right, is one shared by adherents to divine command theory. DVC theorists have to use subjective judgment: to deal with the bible's incompleteness (wrt modern moral questions), to determine the meanings of the bible, and to make judgments about the relative importance of competing commands.
The difference is that under DVC what is right for me is right for everyone and nothing I think can change that.
Under utilitarian viewpoint there is no objective good. There is only good according to my subjective value judgement. If morality is impacted by my subjective value judgement, it is then subjective.
'If morality is impacted by my subjective value judgement, it is then subjective. '
What may be best for your wellbeing may not reflect your subjective value judgments. On U, morality in the sense of how we should try to determine the good is not affected by your value judgments. Although the best thing to do in a particular situation may be.
U is objective in the sense that the right thing to do does not depend on who is considering the question.
Could you clarify your position for me? Are you arguing that under utilitarianism we all have an individual scale of benefits and consequences? Could individuals have a different yet also accurate assessment of "the greater good"? Would different standards of "greater good" exist, or would there be one objective standard?
'Could individuals have a different yet also accurate assessment of "the greater good"?'
Not according to utilitarians who believe that the greatest good is the maximisation of overall wellbeing. And disagreements notwithstanding, there is an objective fact about what situation would maximise any given persons wellbeing.
Disagreement on a topic does not mean there is no truth to find however.
Thank you very much for this discussion over morality. Im happy to have learned more about the different views on it. Hope u have a "good" night. or well rest of ur life lol
"wouldnt you say [the claim that everyone has knowledge of moral facts] can be justified by people coming up with things like moral fictionalism to explain them away?"
No. Moral fictionalism grows out of moral nihilism. The case for moral nihilism is strengthened when we notice that moral realists disagree about right and wrong (see opinions on slavery through the ages). This kind of disagreement makes it implausible that we all have access to moral facts.
so moral fictionalism calls us to be unrational? to do something that we know there is no basis for is irrational. if we are thinking in a philosophical context then everything should be based on rationality and logic. to keep a moral language when there is none is not logical
"so moral fictionalism calls us to be unrational?"
Far from it. Moral fictionalism is a consequence of a rational examination of moral impulses. It recognises that we are capable of suspension of disbelief. The immersion in, and enjoyment of, a film does not necessitate irrationality. Neither does the pretense that moral facts exist.
but if it is saying that moral facts are just a pretense then why would there be any need to follow them? since there is no actual basis for them therefore their is no basis for the moral language, also the question needs to be answered of "where did we get the moral language?
"but if it is saying that moral facts are just a pretense then why would there be any need to follow them?"
Need isn't quite the right word, but it makes pragmatic sense for an agent to adopt a policy of acting as though moral facts do exist (say moral fictionalists) because adopting this stance will tend to be in the long-term interest of that agent, for reasons beyond the scope of this post.
"It makes pragmatic sense for an agent to adopt a policy of acting as though morals facts do exist"
it only makes sense because they do exist and everyone has knowledge of moral facts. to pretend that something exists solely to make life better is to live a lie. very irrational and fails to stand up to criticism
"it only makes sense because they do exist and everyone has knowledge of moral facts."
Even if moral facts did exist the claim that everyone has knowledge of them cannot be justified.
"to pretend that something exists solely to make life better is to live a lie."
I can understand why you'd say that. But I don't consider this to be a lie, it's more like a conceptual shortcut. It's like thinking in terms of Newtonian physics even though we know that Einstein's model is more accurate.
ill have to get a hold of those. a good one u might try is "Can we be Good without God?" it goes over all the major theories but in a really cool way.
Is a world of subjective morals something worth living in though? can there not be something that we all conform to even when we dont realize it? we cant even condemn hitler for what he did. a society without morals would fail
"can there not be something that we all conform to even when we dont realize it? we cant even condemn hitler for what he did. a society without morals would fail"
I agree that a society without morals would fail, it'd be an unpleasant and dangerous place to live. Moral fictionalism proposes that we keep our moral language, and don't deny our moral feelings, but that when we're in a philosophical context we acknowledge that these feelings are not based on transcendent facts.
We can use it in the context of moral fictionalism. It's a bit beyond the scope of a comments thread, but 'Ethics: Inventing right and wrong' by J.L mackie and 'The Myth of Morality' by Richard Joyce are both very good reads that explain how it can make sense to continue using moral language even if moral facts don't exist.
What is it that makes trying to achieve a general well-being good though? you only state that we should achieve it. also if u pursue well-being then who's well-being should be pursued? Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews for the world's well being. does that make it moral. and ur right that theres obj morals even with disagreement. but what really explains why they are there.
If you mean what reason do we have to believe that objective moral standard exists, then my answer is that I don't think we have a good reason to believe that such a thing does, whether or not any invisible superbeings exist.
(just for example) if I insulted you right now wouldnt you feel offended or at least angry at me for saying something against you? if you accept subj. morality you would not have a reason to do so. I could not have "wronged" you any way.
"if you accept subj. morality you would not have a reason to do so. I could not have "wronged" you any way. "
Yes you would have wronged me. Just not with respect to some eternal absolute standard. And i might be angry, but my anger wouldn't be legitimised by an eternal absolute standard either (there are other ways it would make sense).
But without any standard how could there have been any wrong done? Wouldnt it be that wrong would not exist if there was not a standard to judge the wrong or right by.
and i am just talking about subj vs. obj morals I am not bringin "invisible superbeings" into this. and just wanted to say i respect how much uve defended this video on these comments. uve had a lot
"Wouldnt it be that wrong would not exist if there was not a standard to judge the wrong or right by. "
The kind of wrong i think you're talking about (which remains wrong regardless of who's considering it, wrong with a capital 'W') wouldn't exist. But there are other ways that we can still use the word wrong, and have it make sense.
"I'm not going to argue whether or not atheism is compatible with objective morality"
oh really?
"As far as I know, the only moral 'system' atheism is compatible with, is Moral Nihilism - because we do not have any reasons for morals"
Moral nihilism might seem like the most likely situation, given atheism. But that in no way makes atheism _incompatible_ with an ethics that assumes objective moral facts exist, even if we think that such a system is unlikely to reflect reality.
if atheism is true? objective morality? what? atheism is not an organized religion. its only a word for a person that does not believe in god (you know, a man-made myth).
Oh my... Do you even have ANY IDEA how many famous atheists have admitted that they can't have objective ethics? Any idea whatsoever? This is ridiculous...
No, i have no idea, nor do I care. The fact remains that atheism, in itself, does not preclude an objective foundation for morality. (for clarity, i don't believe such a foundation exists--but this is not an inevitable consequence of atheism)
Bitbuter: You made a video named "Theistic morality is arbitrary, or it doesn't need God". In this video you are giving a really good explanation why God is not a source for objective morality. But the same argument applys to any form of objective morality.
Let's say X is claimed to be the basis for objective morality. Is X the basis for morality because X is valuable due to an underlying moral framework or is X just moral due to the way it is? But in this case morality is arbitrary.
No matter what you offer as a source for objective morality this counter argument always works. It's basically an argument against objective morality.
I.e. let's say pragmatism is the source for objective morality. Is something good because it is useful for us ? In this case there has to be an underlying moral framework according to which something useful is good which means that pragmatism can not be the source for absolute morality.
Or is something useful just defined as good ? But in this case you are arbitrarily defining usefulness as good. The same argument actually refutes objective morality itself.
It refutes it on the basis of deontological judgment. Namely, a set of satisfactory (emotionally, rationally, whimsically) moral laws that are applied consistently throughout the universe.
However, if you use a utilitarian measuring stick of what makes the most ppl happy, thats something you can measure and judge. You could actually perform a baseline comparison.
The point is with his with-morals-we-don't-need-god argument is that if morality is handed down by authority its not satisfying.
Utilitarism lacks a normative component... That is what the Christians complain about and I have to agree: How would one justify the belief in normative morality if not dogmatically ?
Sure, and Christians have exactly the same problems trying to magic objective moral facts into existence in their w/view. The point here is to say that, _if_ objective morality can exist (i'm not convinced that it can) there's nothing specific about atheism that precludes it.
Christians claim that goodness is intrinsic to God's character.
One can argue against this claim by saying that it is dogmatic and unjustified.
Explaining how atheists can have descriptive morality does nothing to defend against the Christians' criticism though...it doesn't even address what they are complaining about.
Atheists 'can have' prescriptive morality just as successfully as Christians can (which is not very successfully imo). The fact remains that there's nothing _about atheism itself_ that precludes the existence of something as queer as a moral fact.
Yes...that is another valid objection (I argued this way in my video named "Where do Christians get their morality from ?").
Unfortunately this doesn't change anything about the fact that the defense given in this video I am responding to right now fails badly and contradicts your other video (which is much better). I mean the one named "Theistic morality is arbitrary, or it doesn't need God"
If morality comes from the human mind, and the human mind changes every second of every day, the we can conclude that the objective measurement of morality also changes every second of the day.
Therefore, while morals do exist, I think that calling them objective is like calling the level of water in the ocean objective.
Thankyou very much for your replies. May I just ask whether you think religious ethical claims fall under the same problems that moral error theory proposes? That is, why do you think deists believe divine command has an objective status as ethics, that atheistic ethical claims do not?
"May I just ask whether you think religious ethical claims fall under the same problems that moral error theory proposes?"
I hope i understood you properly: I think moral error theory solves a problem that theistic systems of ethics also suffer from. In the case of theism, its hard to see how (eg.) the commands of a divine being could be shown to be identical with the good, instead of merely being asserted as such.
Thank you for the time and energy you have spent creating such an excellent video; it is much appreciated. I just wanted to raise a few thoughts that your video has inspired. Does not utilitarianism still fail under the is/ought dilemma, and the naturalistic fallacy? That is, isnt even a definition of the good, namely the greatest amount of well-being for the greatest amount of people still a subjective and unjustified definition? Thanks again.
"isn't even a definition of the good, namely the greatest amount of well-being for the greatest amount of people still a subjective and unjustified definition?"
Yes, its hard to see how any way of defining the good can be rationally preferred over any other. This is the problem that makes moral error theory look promising (though not exactly attractive, at first glance).
Since there has never been a supernatural god, there has only ever been human morality. Most of the religious values are, in fact, oriented toward universalism but there is still disagreement and that's where it ALWAYS breaks down. Whether it's "secular" or "religious".
Even though I don't buy the whole objective/subjective dichotomy, I think you make an excellent observation here, being that you can consider human emotional responses rationally in order to arrive at a decision on the 'right' thing to do without having to refer to an absolute authority such as a 'god' and that such a decision should be communicable and intelligible.
Thanks rb. I'm not at all committed to the existence of objective morality, but i think its simple to show how theists attempts to claim its impossibility, given atheism, fail.
Well bitbutter...but in this case your entire video fails. I mean you tried to demonstrate that atheists can have objective morality, too. Obviously utilitarianism is based on the subjective assumption that making the greatest amount of people as happy as possible is valuable so it's clearly not objective. What is the point of your video then ?
"you tried to demonstrate that atheists can have objective morality, too."
They can, in several ways. _If_ utilitarinism is true, (and maximising wellbeing is in fact, good) then there is objective morality in an atheistic universe. That's just one of the ways.
Utilitarianism certainly seems no less likely than divine command theory as a source of morality.
NB. i'm not trying to make the argument that utilitarianism is in fact true.
No...since utilitarianism is based on the subjective valuation of life no objective morality follows from utilitarism.
The argument should really be that Christians provide no argument for the existence of God's intrinsic goodness. Therefore their claim that they can have morality is not sufficiently justified.
I disagree. A given version of utilitarianism itself need not be subjective (even though that version may have been formulated to match subjective intuitions about what the good is).
My argument is that ALL possible versions of utilitarianism are either subjective or they contain dogmatic assertions which is something that we as atheists reject.
Utilitarianism - and I mean every version of it - supposes that humans or what supports them is valuable. This valuation is either subjective or asserted (dogmatically). Since atheists reject dogma how would you possibly establish an objective version of utilitarism ?
"or they contain dogmatic assertions which is something that we as atheists reject."
No, see Stalin's Russia. You're making atheism do something that it can't. The word talks about disbelief in gods, nothing more.
re. Subjective assertions of U theorists: The fact remains that if a given version of utilitarianism were true, it would be objective. Atheism doesn't rule out U, therefore atheism is not incompatible with objective morality.
Dude...that makes no sense. If I had wings then I could fly. Atheism doesn't rule out that I have wings. Therefore atheism is compatible with my ability to fly. However, this doesn't mean that atheists can fly. Similarly the fact that moral nihilism is not explicitly a part of atheism does not mean that atheists can actually have morality.
"If I had wings then I could fly. Atheism doesn't rule out that I have wings. Therefore atheism is compatible with my ability to fly. However, this doesn't mean that atheists can fly."
Correct on both counts. There's nothing in atheism that makes it incompatible with being able to fly, or with objective morality (there may be independent reasons that an atheist thinks that these things are unlikely).
"But theists don't claim that moral nihilism is part of the atheist belief. They claim that there is no basis for objective morality other than God."
Yes, and they put this idea in other ways too, like: if atheism is true, there can be no objective morality. That's what i showed was false in this vid.
To expand on that: We have no more reason to suppose that divine command is true (pretending that there is a god) than to assume that utilitarianism is true.
...because God is the only source for morality according to them. You have not shown that another source actually exists so you have not defended against their claim.
But the claim you are defending against is not what Christians argue. Let me quote from Wikipedia:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position.
While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Show me a video of someone arguing that moral nihilism does not only lie in the nature of atheism but is in fact part of the definition of atheism and I'll apologize :D
I'm actually quite happy with no objective morality. The Christians can claim to have objective moral truth all they want, but since they can't show any evidence of this, they are left in the same subjective boat as everyone else.
Even the increase in well-being is a goal which is assumed to have intrinsic value. Many objective systems, such as Christianity, are not utilitarian in practice.
Hi Bit:I'll put the claim this way. You can't have objective morality w/out god. I may be a weak- knead agnostic but the claim makes my skin crawl because it always comes from a loud-mouthed, fast talking Christian presupp who's ilk I've decided belong at carnivals as barkers or high pressure salesmen of some sort because their trade is pushing a hard sell. I can't dissect, analyze and respond to the philosophical, epistemological aspects of their arguments as well as you.
If the definition of objective morality is morality that exists outside the mind of man, I'm comfortable saying as far as I can see it doesn't exist. It's all relative or subjective. Christian morality is proof of that. It's changed with time, they just won't admit it.
I would disagree with your defn of objectivity. I prefer "valid or binding outside of human interpretation". Objective means as independent of human beleif as say - gravitation - to me.
Do you think similar ethical theories (e.g. duty, rights, virture) are replaceable with utilitarianism in your argument because they define right/wrong beyond emotion/preference?
You seemed to equivocate the definition of objective, first saying uninfluenced by emotion or something but then at the end you seemed to suggest that objective morality exists 'out there' in some unreachable place. Those usages seem incompatible.
I may be wrong, but the more I think about it, it seems morality is really just aesthetics.
Even if you are right though, pragmatically, morality in practice will be subjective, as it is for the theist.
"You seemed to equivocate the definition of objective, first saying uninfluenced by emotion or something but then at the end you seemed to suggest that objective morality exists 'out there' in some unreachable place."
Given atheism, ethical truths might exist 'out there', or we might already have access to them.
I don't see any incompatibility between the two definitions (I understand the morality of utilitarianism to match both) can you elaborate?
I understand that there are different versions of utilitarianism and you are arguing that if we choose one and use it, then that becomes the objective morality.
But then at the end you jettison this idea and suggest that there is some Moral Truth out there that we may not have access too. But you just said we can choose an ethical system, so of course we would have access to it.
(Finally, I like intersubjective rather than objective. It's less confusing.)
"I understand that there are different versions of utilitarianism and you are arguing that if we choose one and use it, then that becomes the objective morality."
My point isn't that that act of choice makes a moral framework objective, but that utilitarianism schemes are objective independent of their truth value. Our uncertainty about their truth has no bearing on whether atheism can support an objective morality or not.
Utilitarianism is generally defined by the principle "the greatest good for the greatest number." Maximize pleasure and minimize pain or maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness depending if you follow say Bentham or Mill. But what makes that objectively true and not a subjective opinion? Like what makes that opinion better than Immanuel Kant who believed in following principles that are universalizable for all. No, the premise is still subjective.
blamtasticful 1 month ago
@blamtasticful "But what makes that objectively true and not a subjective opinion?"
I have no idea. I'm a moral nihilist.
bitbutter 1 month ago
Christianity is INCOMPATIBLE with objective morality. Why else would Adam and Eve be PUNISHED for obtaining Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why else could the Bible teach that God should be obeyed WHATEVER He commands? Why else would Christians think it OK for Abraham to be willing to ritually sacrifice his own son because God had asked him to? Religion REPLACES rational and empathic morality and personal moral responsibility with blind amoral obedience.
EqualAndFree 4 months ago
Utilitarianism is false. The Experience Machine? Robert Nozik? Plus regardless of whether of it being true or not, it's still a culmination of subjective views. Further more, making friends can mean happiness for some while killing may equate to happiness for others.
TheHumpadump 7 months ago
@TheHumpadump This vid isn't about the truth or falsity of utilitarianism.
bitbutter 7 months ago
@bitbutter Well, actually, it is. You're using utilitarian concepts; happiness equals moral good and suffering equates to moral evil.
TheHumpadump 7 months ago
@TheHumpadump I talk about utilitarianism but I don't need to assume the truth of utilitarianism.
bitbutter 7 months ago
@bitbutter But you use the concepts of it to prove your point. If Utilitarianism isn't true (happiness isn't moral good, etc.) then your whole point is false and means nothing. So do you believe that Utilitarianism is true?
TheHumpadump 7 months ago
@TheHumpadump Since my point is that there's nothing about atheism as such that makes it incompatible with objective morality, your claim that my "whole point is false" if utilitarianism is false, is false!
"do you believe that Utilitarianism is true?"
No. I don't believe that moral facts exist.
bitbutter 7 months ago
@bitbutter You're saying that objective morality can exist through Utilitariansim, correct?
If so, then if Utilitarianism is false your claim that objective morality can exist through Utlitarianism is false too.
If you believe that no moral facts exist (which is wise) then why are you arguing for there being a possibility of an objective morality.
TheHumpadump 7 months ago
@TheHumpadump "You're saying that objective morality can exist through Utilitariansim, correct?"
Not quite. I'm saying that there's nothing about atheism in particular that precludes utilitarianism (and thus objective morality) being true.
bitbutter 7 months ago
@bitbutter What? That makes no sense. You just said that atheism doesn't preclude Utilitarianism as being true. Fine. But you just said that means it is possible for Utilitarianism to be true and therefore objective morality to be true also, which was original question. So you do think Utilitarianism constitutes for objective morality.
TheHumpadump 7 months ago
@TheHumpadump "So you do think Utilitarianism constitutes for objective morality"
In principle, yes. I don't know where I've suggested otherwise.
bitbutter 7 months ago
@bitbutter Firstly it's based around subjective concepts. Secondly it's whole ideology is proven to be false.
Therefore it is not objective and even if it was, happiness is proven to not be the center of morality in any way.
Fail.
TheHumpadump 7 months ago
Nothing is compatible with objective morality faggots. Not theism, not atheism. Nothing.
painkillerzman 8 months ago
Probelm is that claiming obejctive morality is useless without proof.
Saying something is obejcitvely moral is just like saying "my girlfriend is the most beautiful girl in the world"
It is meaningless .
badpanda84 8 months ago
Atheism is compatible with Objective Morality. In contrast, Religion is INCOMPATIBLE with Objective Morality. If morality is genuinely objective, like mathematics, then just as 2=2=4 remains unchangeable irrespective of the wishes or existence of a deity so would morality remain unchangeable. If it's objectively wrong to ritually sacrifice your child then it remains wrong for Abraham to do it even if God requests it. If Abraham believed in objective morality he would have rejected God's request.
EqualAndFree 9 months ago
@EqualAndFree Religion is compatible with OM too. It may not be wrong to ritually sacrifice your kid if commanded to by the creator of the universe, but wrong under other conditions.
Full disclosure: I don't see good reason to believe that moral facts exist.
bitbutter 9 months ago
@bitbutter That doesn't make sense. If the Creator of the Universe commands you to sacrifice your kid He's made a moral mistake - just as if He said "2+2=3" He would have made a mathematical mistake. You can't have objective morality AND acts that can be moral or immoral purely depending upon the wishes of a divine being. Religious "morality" is not about doing what is right - it's about unquestioningly doing what you're told to do even if it's wrong. That's the message of the Abraham story.
EqualAndFree 9 months ago
@EqualAndFree "He's made a moral mistake"
Nobody can know that.
"You can't have objective morality AND acts that can be moral or immoral purely depending upon the wishes of a divine being."
I understand the objection. Religionists reply by insisting that god's wishes are not like human wishes, they follow necessarily from the fact of existence, they couldn't be other than what they in fact are. So 'subjective' doesn't fit as a description of god's will.
bitbutter 9 months ago
@bitbutter If God's wishes "follow necessarily from the fact of existence" then God would have no free will and His wishes would be universal and unchanging. Therefore if He wished Abraham to sacrifice his child He would wish all of us, at any time in history, to sacrifice our children - which is a rather problematic conclusion. If you assume that God universally and eternally wills whatever is rational and in the best interest of all then you might as well forget "God" and use reason instead.
EqualAndFree 9 months ago
@EqualAndFree "and His wishes would be universal and unchanging. Therefore if He wished Abraham to sacrifice his child He would wish all of us, at any time in history, to sacrifice our children"
Non sequitur. There's no logical barrier to contextual factors being relevant in determining the moral status of any action.
bitbutter 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bitbutter "There's no logical barrier to contextual factors being relevant in determining the moral status of any action"
Exactly -- which mean you belive moral are subjective and I fully agree..
badpanda84 8 months ago
First off, morality cannot be objective even if god were to exist, because objectivity requires that ALL individuals must possess a moral sense. This is falsified by the fact that psychopaths have no sense of morality. The argument proposed by theists that "without god there isn't any objective morality" is a very weak because it insinuates that subjective morality is inherently "bad". Subjective morality is neither better nor worse, as it relies on each individual's perception.
naatee 1 year ago
Morality and all of those associated ideals are rooted entirely in a presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
-
Nature is pure war with every man against another, so man is only civilized by the threat of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor.
-
Utilitarianism is a religion just passing the collection plate at gunpoint for the gods of communism.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill "Nature is pure war with every man against another, so man is only civilized by the threat of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor."
I don't call that civil. Rather: man is civilized by the realisation that society isn't a zero-sum game.
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter
Do you really think I give a damn about what you call "civil"???
-
Have you ever seen the Hellraiser movies? The Pinhead character says (after his next victim cries "Oh, my God"); "Do you really think I give a damn about what God thinks?"
-
I was prowling the streets in a large city late one evening and was confronted by someone who told me they were an anarchist. I left him on the concrete in a bloody pulp and simply said, "me too," immediately thereafter...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
There is no objective morality. Utilitarianism is a system, but the choice to accept the assumptions of utilitarianism is subjective. One might take altruism as another "objective" system. But, while it is a system, and if it were true irrespective of personal opinions, then it would be objective. But, neither utilitarianism nor altruism are true irrespective of personal opinions because the decision to accept or reject their basic premises is personal and therefore subjective.
PeytonFarquhar1 1 year ago
@PeytonFarquhar1 The freedom of choice there doesn't in and of itself mean that there is no objective morality, any more than the freedom to choose what to eat for dinner implies there is no objective need to eat.
nightvidcole 10 months ago
@nightvidcole - I didn't say that the freedom of choice in and of itself means there is no objective morality. There simply is no objective morality. None. Morality is a value judgment about the right and wrong of a thing or action. There is no moral judgment that is objective - they are all individual judgments.
A Spartan, for example, thought it was quite moral to leave a defective baby out to die of exposure. Today, we think that grossly immoral and evil.
PeytonFarquhar1 10 months ago
fail.
ethical systems are dependent on values which are mental constructs. meaning they are subjective.
the end.
whyiaskyou79 1 year ago
@whyiaskyou79 I agree with you, but there's nothing about _atheism_ per se that commits a person to this view of ethics--the topic of this video. So I think you failed ;)
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter
The stance on whether or not gods exist is irrelevant.
There is no sound argument for objective morality.
Atheism is the default position on the question of whether gods exist, so i don't see the compatibility of that with accepting an oxymoron.
is the idea that a person can be correct on a certain position (in this case, not accepting the existence of a god), and also be incorrect on another position (in this case, thinking objective morality exists)?
whyiaskyou79 10 months ago
@whyiaskyou79
An ethical system doesn't have to be "moral". Imagine a situation where "you are tortured by some people for fun" I bet that whatever other folks think of this, in the moment of torture you will think that the action of people torturing you for fun is immoral. That's kind of the essence of objective morality. Suffering can be in some cases subjective in a case of love relation etc - but imho, the idea that causing needless suffering is bad is kind of "universal".
Andyba2000 10 months ago
@Andyba2000
note how you say 'imho'. Exactly, and 'humble opinions' are not objective.
i dont think you know what is meant be 'objective morality'. if you did, you would be able to recognize it as an oxymoron.
whyiaskyou79 10 months ago
@whyiaskyou79
You are probably right I don't fully understand what objective morality is and why it is an oxymoron.
Andyba2000 10 months ago
@Andyba2000 objective morality pretty much mean -- something is moral just because it is. (typically because my holy book said so) its not like you can prove morals or measure them.
badpanda84 8 months ago
@whyiaskyou79 Mental constructs come from DNA and the environment. Survival is objective, its something life does. Morality comes from that. Your comment is a fail, its been told a thousand times, most atheist reject it. Your comment is completely arrogant, I doubt fully understand psychologyor ecology in biology.
MrKingatheist 6 months ago
@MrKingatheist
I actually have my bachelors degree in psychology. I am entirely aware of what mental constructs are and how they arise from the brain. I don't need you to tell me.
Life doesn't 'do' survival. Survival is simply the reality in an organism that is alive and in a species that procreates.
There would be no morality without brains. That IS what makes it subjective. And if you don't understand that, then you simply do not know the meaning of the word 'subjective'.
whyiaskyou79 6 months ago
@whyiaskyou79 You still don't know enough, i study biochemistry now you get community's of cell (example biofilms) which have evolved better ways of survival. Everything in life comes back to survival, and as cells do not have brains, the chemical process of survival is not subjective. Morality does come from the mind, but the mind is linked to survival. Its complex but no sorry, saying these things are subjective when they exist outside MY and YOUR mind is insane. Morality is neither sub or obj
MrKingatheist 6 months ago
@MrKingatheist
How do you assume I don't know enough? A species that exists today does so because of the survival of previous generations. This has been achieved by survival mechanisms of the species (i.e. the pain of hunger motivates one to eat). For homo sapiens, 'morals' are the product of a desire to live cooperatively as a social species, with the understanding that being part of a group will yield a better chance to survive. That does NOT make it objective, however.
whyiaskyou79 6 months ago
@whyiaskyou79 Right well I don't think it should be called objective, BUT it can't be called subjective. I only assumed you lacked knowledge as from my experience, its rare to find individuals who have the knowledge. Also the way you presented your views, seemed arrogant, and we can't learn or check ourselves for mistakes. Sorry for my assumption i was wrong. Anyway i believe it is wise that we continue this convo in private, as we are limited to how much we can write in these video comments
MrKingatheist 6 months ago
@MrKingatheist
If you don't think it should be called objective, I don't see how the title of your video makes any sense. I do not understand why you think it 'can't be called subjective'. If values vary between different people (which they do, even if to a small extent), then different moral frameworks are going to develop.
Ex: some people think same-sex relations are perfectly fine, while others think they are a 'sin'.
Don't worry about your assumption. We all make them now and then.
whyiaskyou79 6 months ago
Anyway, if you don't want to continue this in public that's fine.
whyiaskyou79 6 months ago
Wait a minute. I agree that you can test actions by using standards (divine command theory could be an objective standard as in action x is wrong by this standard, an objective fact and the same thing goes for utilitarianism). However, the goal here is to prove that utilitarianism is objective and something that all humans should agree upon.
I'm an atheist and a moral nihilist. I think the theist faces the same issue an atheist would in determining objective morality.
SaturdaySoundOffsTV 1 year ago
@SaturdaySoundOffsTV "I'm an atheist and a moral nihilist. I think the theist faces the same issue an atheist would in determining objective morality. " i agree.
bitbutter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution supplies all that is needed for the development
of codes of conduct that preserve and facilitate
survival and co-operation,
which is precisely what these "laws" do.
Such sensitivities in no way support any particular god.
In fact, as Christians believe that their most heinous acts
will be magically vanished and forgotten via human sacrifice,
they actually have very little incentive to act in a moral manner.
Hmmm..
That just might explain a hell of a lot.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Bitbutter:
You agreed that ethical systems are based on value systems which go back to subjective valuation.
In this case all that is objective about your morality is the relationship between an action and the value (i.e. a certain action objectively supports a certain value). However, the value itself is not objective.
Like buying chocolate ice cream objectively leads to the pleasure I get from eating chocolate ice cream but the pleasure is still subjective.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
FGB: my own view is that moral facts don't exist. The point of this video was that it's not _atheism_ that leads to that conclusion.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Utilitarianism is often described as "greatest good for the greatest number" This makes utilitarian morality subjective.
I am an atheist and I do believe in objective morality, but utilitarianism isn't it.
Objectivism provides the proof for objective morality
Sam26100 1 year ago
This video is awful. Any atheist who isn't delusional will tell you objective morality cannot possible exist in completely natural universe. There are no objective standards or goals in the universe.
Fleefles 2 years ago
An atheist doesn't necessarily believe that the universe is completely 'natural'.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Apart from the fact that utilitarianism is riddled with holes. There is no reason to believe that it is true. One may as well propose some kind of anti-utilitarianism where the most suffering is the aim of morality. Then how would an atheist know which is true. There is no way to judge which is "right". (of course it's obvious which a sane person would prefer but that's irrelevant)
awesomewelles90 2 years ago
"There is no reason to believe that it is true."
Agreed.
bitbutter 2 years ago
In that case utilitarianism is not a form of objective morality.
awesomewelles90 2 years ago
Sure it is, (a particular variety of) utilitarianism offers an objective moral standard--in that sense it allows objective morality. But, like any moral system, it cannot legitimize itself.
bitbutter 2 years ago
You're saying that there can be objective morality in a subjective outer framework. Then it's not really objective. True objective morality can only exist with God.
awesomewelles90 2 years ago 2
Theistic morality faces exactly the same problem, it cannot legitimize itself (how do you know that God is good? how do you know that his commands are good?).
If no variety of utilitarianism cam be counted as an objective moral system, then neither can (for instance) divine command theory.
bitbutter 2 years ago
@awesomewelles90 The problem with your argument is that is only in the case where a God makes himself known and understood objectively which is not what we have. That is why the belief in God requires faith. However, there can be an objective morality in a subjective outer framework because there are objective facts out the subjective experience.
Fishqueen1972 9 months ago
@awesomewelles90 "True objective morality can only exist with God." Shut up theist, god murders in the fairy tale, orders men to rape, any morality that comes from god is subjective. FAIL FAIL FAIL. Soon atheism will replace religion, we will use science to understand human morality and we will destory the corrupt power and authority of organised religion!!
MrKingatheist 6 months ago
You can be an atheist and believe in objective morality as long as that objective morality does not come from a god.
You can believe that goblin physicists have found good and evil subatomic particles and the study of these has led to a form of mathematics which describes an objective moral code.
an atheist can believe that because there is no god in that explanation, however it would be irrational to believe it without evidence.
I'm a naturalist, I utterly reject objective morality.
Giradius 2 years ago
On utilitarianism, judgments about what will actually maximise wellbeing do not affect what will, as a matter of fact, maximise wellbeing. So in this sense utilitarianism does have an objective standard.
bitbutter 2 years ago
But what causes wellbeing is subjective!
Some people like being beaten with whips, some like being insulted, some people smoke knowing that it causes them harm.
Your premise is flawed because you assume that the desire for wellbeing is objective, it is not, it is subjective.
Utilitarianism is not objective because the idea that useful is preferable to not useful is a subjective value statement in itself.
You cannot build an objective morality on a subjective premise.
Giradius 2 years ago
'But what causes wellbeing is subjective!'
No, its not.
Different schools of thought define wellbeing differently, but at any given moment, with all the subjective preferences and desires of people taken into account, there is a course of action that will lead to maximised wellbeing (however you've defined it), and that's an objective fact.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Yes it is!
Ones mans meat is another mans poison!
To claim otherwise is to make a massive generalization which I will require evidence for.
Don't get me wrong, utilitarianism is an OK system, but it's not objective.
One could argue that Eugenics is good for society as it reduces risk of genetic disorders and promotes health (thus happiness).
However others may not see it that way.
utilitarianism is just as subjective as any other system, because whose happiness is more important?.
Giradius 2 years ago
No doubt you would argue that the happiness of the majority is more important, but that is a subjective viewpoint.
Why is the happiness of the majority more important?
There are no objective facts which support this, it is purely a subjective value judgement that the happiness of the many is more important than the happiness of the few.
This is no doubt due to the fact you live in a democracy.
You will always come back to a subjective value judgement on what is desirable and what is not.
Giradius 2 years ago
and thus no moral system can claim objectivity!
Giradius 2 years ago
Your last sentence isn't about a problem unique to utilitarianism. Any choice of meta-ethical system is doomed to be arbitrary. It's not only utilitarians who'll have trouble explaining why we should regard their system as the correct one.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Exactly, and that is why no single moral system can claim to be objective.
ALL moral or ethical systems are ultimately based on value judgements, which are by and large, subjective.
Utilitarianism in pursuit of eudaemonia is subjective because it is based on the premise that happiness is a good thing, and this is a subjective statement (the fact it is shared by most humans is irrelevant).
acceptance by the majority does not equal objective.
Giradius 2 years ago
'ALL moral or ethical systems are ultimately based on value judgements, which are by and large, subjective.
I think you're right about that.
Within those systems though there is room for the existence of objective standards. With any particular version of utilitarianism: however wellbeing is defined, as long as it is defined, then there's the objective standard of the good.
The problem, as i think we agree, is justifying belief in utilitarianism in the first place.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Your definition of objective as "not influenced by emotion" is wrong.
Objective means "mind independent" which is not the same thing, utilitarianism is still based on human assessment.
What's useful and what's not, therefore it's still based on the subjective opinions of the person who says "cannibalism is useful, rape is not".
the only objective morality that can exist is one which exists independently of a mind,it must be a property of the external universe (like electrostatic charge).
Giradius 2 years ago
I agree that atheism is compatible with objective morality (because atheism is not a belief system).
People often confuse naturalism (a rejection of the supernatural) and atheism (lack of belief in god/s).
You can be an atheism and subscribe to pseudoscientific nonsense, belief in the supernatural and all manner of other nonsense.
All Naturalists are atheists, not all atheists are naturalists.
Giradius 2 years ago
There are very serious issues with Utilitiarianism.
The argument that morality is based on the solar wind cycle is also an 'objective' moral theory.
Theologica37 2 years ago
I agree. But there is nothing special about atheism in particular that leads to these problems.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Great video man.
SirPwn4lot 2 years ago
"Well being" is completely subjective. It is a value judgment and value can only ever be a judgment, never a fact.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
An unsupported assertion. I see no reason to accept it.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Then support how value can exist without a valuer.
That is the crux of my argument - value is definitionally and necessarily a judgment by one who values.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
I disagree that well being is necessarily a value judgment.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Wow. Well, if you can make the case for that.... I've seen valiant attempts...
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
Since you've made the positive claim that well being is necessarily a value judgment, the onus is on you to try to defend that claim.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Effectively, my first comment wasn't clear at all... ^_^
Maicol912 2 years ago
Theism is incompatible with objective morality. Since we don't know what god(s) could think...
Maicol912 2 years ago
Maicol921
I don't understand your objection. How would it follow that us being unable to know what is objectively moral mean that objective morality does not exist?
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Probabily I was not clear (and I'm not anglophone too).
My state is that even if there is a god, it's a fact we don't know what it want (faith is not knowledge):
so the existence of god(s) doesn't matter about the issue of the existence of objective morality.
Maicol912 2 years ago
Maicol
But there is a difference between knowledge and existence. Even if we cannot know what God's objective moral standard is, that does not mean the standard does not exist.
If I am unaware that there is life on planet X, that does not mean there is not life on planet X.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
I'm agree with you that non-knowledge doesn't imply inexistence, my 1st comment wasn't clear, but then I corrected the error.
Maicol912 2 years ago
We do know what god(s) would think - If they were immortal and omnimpotent, they wouldn't value anything nor possess any kind of moral code, nor would they get angry or feel the need to reward or punish anyone. Why, for instance, would a god value human life when he could just conjure up another identical one in its place (at no cost to itself), if it was ever lost?
Guncriminal 2 years ago
LoL this is my thought too, the only idea of personal god makes me laugh :-)
But in that moment I was assuming the hypothesis "there is a personal God who want us to act in a certain way" to make clear that, anyway, his/her/its existence doesn't matter.
Maicol912 2 years ago
It sounds like you are saying morality can be objectively based on subjective value judgments.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
On utilitarianism the project of trying to discover moral facts is dependent on subjective value judgments (just as it is on divine command theory), but a moral fact doesn't change depending on whether people are aware of it or not. So morality is not necessarily based on subjective value judgments.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Under utilitarianism what is right for you may not be right for me. I could value my wellbeing as a greater good than that of Mr X. and Mr X could values his wellbeing as the greater good.
In what way is divine command theory dependent on any subjective value judgements? Right and wrong exist outside of what I value or prefer. Humans would have no impact on determinining right or wrong in that view.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
This doesn't challenge my claim. Under utilitarianism there's still an objective fact of the matter about what is the right thing to do in any given situation.
The practical problem of figuring out what's right, is one shared by adherents to divine command theory. DVC theorists have to use subjective judgment: to deal with the bible's incompleteness (wrt modern moral questions), to determine the meanings of the bible, and to make judgments about the relative importance of competing commands.
bitbutter 2 years ago
The difference is that under DVC what is right for me is right for everyone and nothing I think can change that.
Under utilitarian viewpoint there is no objective good. There is only good according to my subjective value judgement. If morality is impacted by my subjective value judgement, it is then subjective.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
'If morality is impacted by my subjective value judgement, it is then subjective. '
What may be best for your wellbeing may not reflect your subjective value judgments. On U, morality in the sense of how we should try to determine the good is not affected by your value judgments. Although the best thing to do in a particular situation may be.
U is objective in the sense that the right thing to do does not depend on who is considering the question.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Could you clarify your position for me? Are you arguing that under utilitarianism we all have an individual scale of benefits and consequences? Could individuals have a different yet also accurate assessment of "the greater good"? Would different standards of "greater good" exist, or would there be one objective standard?
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
'Could individuals have a different yet also accurate assessment of "the greater good"?'
Not according to utilitarians who believe that the greatest good is the maximisation of overall wellbeing. And disagreements notwithstanding, there is an objective fact about what situation would maximise any given persons wellbeing.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Disagreement on a topic does not mean there is no truth to find however.
Thank you very much for this discussion over morality. Im happy to have learned more about the different views on it. Hope u have a "good" night. or well rest of ur life lol
ballinben13 2 years ago
wouldnt you say it can be justified by people coming up with things like moral fictionalism to explain them away?
and so in ur newtonian vs. Einstein example it could be considered that real morals are more accurate than the fictional or "fake" morals?
ballinben13 2 years ago
"wouldnt you say [the claim that everyone has knowledge of moral facts] can be justified by people coming up with things like moral fictionalism to explain them away?"
No. Moral fictionalism grows out of moral nihilism. The case for moral nihilism is strengthened when we notice that moral realists disagree about right and wrong (see opinions on slavery through the ages). This kind of disagreement makes it implausible that we all have access to moral facts.
bitbutter 2 years ago
so moral fictionalism calls us to be unrational? to do something that we know there is no basis for is irrational. if we are thinking in a philosophical context then everything should be based on rationality and logic. to keep a moral language when there is none is not logical
ballinben13 2 years ago
"so moral fictionalism calls us to be unrational?"
Far from it. Moral fictionalism is a consequence of a rational examination of moral impulses. It recognises that we are capable of suspension of disbelief. The immersion in, and enjoyment of, a film does not necessitate irrationality. Neither does the pretense that moral facts exist.
bitbutter 2 years ago
but if it is saying that moral facts are just a pretense then why would there be any need to follow them? since there is no actual basis for them therefore their is no basis for the moral language, also the question needs to be answered of "where did we get the moral language?
ballinben13 2 years ago
"but if it is saying that moral facts are just a pretense then why would there be any need to follow them?"
Need isn't quite the right word, but it makes pragmatic sense for an agent to adopt a policy of acting as though moral facts do exist (say moral fictionalists) because adopting this stance will tend to be in the long-term interest of that agent, for reasons beyond the scope of this post.
bitbutter 2 years ago
"It makes pragmatic sense for an agent to adopt a policy of acting as though morals facts do exist"
it only makes sense because they do exist and everyone has knowledge of moral facts. to pretend that something exists solely to make life better is to live a lie. very irrational and fails to stand up to criticism
ballinben13 2 years ago
"it only makes sense because they do exist and everyone has knowledge of moral facts."
Even if moral facts did exist the claim that everyone has knowledge of them cannot be justified.
"to pretend that something exists solely to make life better is to live a lie."
I can understand why you'd say that. But I don't consider this to be a lie, it's more like a conceptual shortcut. It's like thinking in terms of Newtonian physics even though we know that Einstein's model is more accurate.
bitbutter 2 years ago
ill have to get a hold of those. a good one u might try is "Can we be Good without God?" it goes over all the major theories but in a really cool way.
Is a world of subjective morals something worth living in though? can there not be something that we all conform to even when we dont realize it? we cant even condemn hitler for what he did. a society without morals would fail
ballinben13 2 years ago
Thanks for the tip.
"can there not be something that we all conform to even when we dont realize it? we cant even condemn hitler for what he did. a society without morals would fail"
I agree that a society without morals would fail, it'd be an unpleasant and dangerous place to live. Moral fictionalism proposes that we keep our moral language, and don't deny our moral feelings, but that when we're in a philosophical context we acknowledge that these feelings are not based on transcendent facts.
bitbutter 2 years ago
what ways are those?
ballinben13 2 years ago
We can use it in the context of moral fictionalism. It's a bit beyond the scope of a comments thread, but 'Ethics: Inventing right and wrong' by J.L mackie and 'The Myth of Morality' by Richard Joyce are both very good reads that explain how it can make sense to continue using moral language even if moral facts don't exist.
bitbutter 2 years ago
What is it that makes trying to achieve a general well-being good though? you only state that we should achieve it. also if u pursue well-being then who's well-being should be pursued? Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews for the world's well being. does that make it moral. and ur right that theres obj morals even with disagreement. but what really explains why they are there.
ballinben13 2 years ago
If you mean what reason do we have to believe that objective moral standard exists, then my answer is that I don't think we have a good reason to believe that such a thing does, whether or not any invisible superbeings exist.
bitbutter 2 years ago
(just for example) if I insulted you right now wouldnt you feel offended or at least angry at me for saying something against you? if you accept subj. morality you would not have a reason to do so. I could not have "wronged" you any way.
ballinben13 2 years ago
"if you accept subj. morality you would not have a reason to do so. I could not have "wronged" you any way. "
Yes you would have wronged me. Just not with respect to some eternal absolute standard. And i might be angry, but my anger wouldn't be legitimised by an eternal absolute standard either (there are other ways it would make sense).
bitbutter 2 years ago
But without any standard how could there have been any wrong done? Wouldnt it be that wrong would not exist if there was not a standard to judge the wrong or right by.
and i am just talking about subj vs. obj morals I am not bringin "invisible superbeings" into this. and just wanted to say i respect how much uve defended this video on these comments. uve had a lot
ballinben13 2 years ago
"Wouldnt it be that wrong would not exist if there was not a standard to judge the wrong or right by. "
The kind of wrong i think you're talking about (which remains wrong regardless of who's considering it, wrong with a capital 'W') wouldn't exist. But there are other ways that we can still use the word wrong, and have it make sense.
bitbutter 2 years ago
"I'm not going to argue whether or not atheism is compatible with objective morality"
oh really?
"As far as I know, the only moral 'system' atheism is compatible with, is Moral Nihilism - because we do not have any reasons for morals"
Moral nihilism might seem like the most likely situation, given atheism. But that in no way makes atheism _incompatible_ with an ethics that assumes objective moral facts exist, even if we think that such a system is unlikely to reflect reality.
bitbutter 2 years ago
if atheism is true? objective morality? what? atheism is not an organized religion. its only a word for a person that does not believe in god (you know, a man-made myth).
HolySpringRolls 2 years ago
Oh my... Do you even have ANY IDEA how many famous atheists have admitted that they can't have objective ethics? Any idea whatsoever? This is ridiculous...
braino2000 2 years ago
No, i have no idea, nor do I care. The fact remains that atheism, in itself, does not preclude an objective foundation for morality. (for clarity, i don't believe such a foundation exists--but this is not an inevitable consequence of atheism)
bitbutter 2 years ago
Part 1:
Bitbuter: You made a video named "Theistic morality is arbitrary, or it doesn't need God". In this video you are giving a really good explanation why God is not a source for objective morality. But the same argument applys to any form of objective morality.
Let's say X is claimed to be the basis for objective morality. Is X the basis for morality because X is valuable due to an underlying moral framework or is X just moral due to the way it is? But in this case morality is arbitrary.
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
Part 2:
No matter what you offer as a source for objective morality this counter argument always works. It's basically an argument against objective morality.
I.e. let's say pragmatism is the source for objective morality. Is something good because it is useful for us ? In this case there has to be an underlying moral framework according to which something useful is good which means that pragmatism can not be the source for absolute morality.
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
Part 3:
Or is something useful just defined as good ? But in this case you are arbitrarily defining usefulness as good. The same argument actually refutes objective morality itself.
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
It refutes it on the basis of deontological judgment. Namely, a set of satisfactory (emotionally, rationally, whimsically) moral laws that are applied consistently throughout the universe.
However, if you use a utilitarian measuring stick of what makes the most ppl happy, thats something you can measure and judge. You could actually perform a baseline comparison.
The point is with his with-morals-we-don't-need-god argument is that if morality is handed down by authority its not satisfying.
Kreadus005 2 years ago
Utilitarism lacks a normative component... That is what the Christians complain about and I have to agree: How would one justify the belief in normative morality if not dogmatically ?
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
Sure, and Christians have exactly the same problems trying to magic objective moral facts into existence in their w/view. The point here is to say that, _if_ objective morality can exist (i'm not convinced that it can) there's nothing specific about atheism that precludes it.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Christians claim that goodness is intrinsic to God's character.
One can argue against this claim by saying that it is dogmatic and unjustified.
Explaining how atheists can have descriptive morality does nothing to defend against the Christians' criticism though...it doesn't even address what they are complaining about.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
Atheists 'can have' prescriptive morality just as successfully as Christians can (which is not very successfully imo). The fact remains that there's nothing _about atheism itself_ that precludes the existence of something as queer as a moral fact.
bitbutter 2 years ago
> Atheists 'can have' prescriptive morality
> just as successfully as Christians can
Yes...that is another valid objection (I argued this way in my video named "Where do Christians get their morality from ?").
Unfortunately this doesn't change anything about the fact that the defense given in this video I am responding to right now fails badly and contradicts your other video (which is much better). I mean the one named "Theistic morality is arbitrary, or it doesn't need God"
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
"and contradicts your other video"
I don't see that it does.
bitbutter 2 years ago
If morality comes from the human mind, and the human mind changes every second of every day, the we can conclude that the objective measurement of morality also changes every second of the day.
Therefore, while morals do exist, I think that calling them objective is like calling the level of water in the ocean objective.
Sepero1 3 years ago
(oh ya- i'm an atheist)
Sepero1 3 years ago
Dear Mr. Bitbutter,
Thankyou very much for your replies. May I just ask whether you think religious ethical claims fall under the same problems that moral error theory proposes? That is, why do you think deists believe divine command has an objective status as ethics, that atheistic ethical claims do not?
Thanks again.
Barmyarmy111 3 years ago
"May I just ask whether you think religious ethical claims fall under the same problems that moral error theory proposes?"
I hope i understood you properly: I think moral error theory solves a problem that theistic systems of ethics also suffer from. In the case of theism, its hard to see how (eg.) the commands of a divine being could be shown to be identical with the good, instead of merely being asserted as such.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Dear Mr. Bitbutter,
Thank you for the time and energy you have spent creating such an excellent video; it is much appreciated. I just wanted to raise a few thoughts that your video has inspired. Does not utilitarianism still fail under the is/ought dilemma, and the naturalistic fallacy? That is, isnt even a definition of the good, namely the greatest amount of well-being for the greatest amount of people still a subjective and unjustified definition? Thanks again.
Barmyarmy111 3 years ago
Thanks Barmyarmy.
"isn't even a definition of the good, namely the greatest amount of well-being for the greatest amount of people still a subjective and unjustified definition?"
Yes, its hard to see how any way of defining the good can be rationally preferred over any other. This is the problem that makes moral error theory look promising (though not exactly attractive, at first glance).
bitbutter 3 years ago
Since there has never been a supernatural god, there has only ever been human morality. Most of the religious values are, in fact, oriented toward universalism but there is still disagreement and that's where it ALWAYS breaks down. Whether it's "secular" or "religious".
Barklord 3 years ago
Even though I don't buy the whole objective/subjective dichotomy, I think you make an excellent observation here, being that you can consider human emotional responses rationally in order to arrive at a decision on the 'right' thing to do without having to refer to an absolute authority such as a 'god' and that such a decision should be communicable and intelligible.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Thanks rb. I'm not at all committed to the existence of objective morality, but i think its simple to show how theists attempts to claim its impossibility, given atheism, fail.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Indeed it is
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Well bitbutter...but in this case your entire video fails. I mean you tried to demonstrate that atheists can have objective morality, too. Obviously utilitarianism is based on the subjective assumption that making the greatest amount of people as happy as possible is valuable so it's clearly not objective. What is the point of your video then ?
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
"you tried to demonstrate that atheists can have objective morality, too."
They can, in several ways. _If_ utilitarinism is true, (and maximising wellbeing is in fact, good) then there is objective morality in an atheistic universe. That's just one of the ways.
Utilitarianism certainly seems no less likely than divine command theory as a source of morality.
NB. i'm not trying to make the argument that utilitarianism is in fact true.
bitbutter 3 years ago
> They can, in several ways. _If_
> utilitarinism is true, (and maximising
> wellbeing is in fact, good) then there is
> objective morality in an atheistic universe.
No...since utilitarianism is based on the subjective valuation of life no objective morality follows from utilitarism.
The argument should really be that Christians provide no argument for the existence of God's intrinsic goodness. Therefore their claim that they can have morality is not sufficiently justified.
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
I disagree. A given version of utilitarianism itself need not be subjective (even though that version may have been formulated to match subjective intuitions about what the good is).
bitbutter 3 years ago
My argument is that ALL possible versions of utilitarianism are either subjective or they contain dogmatic assertions which is something that we as atheists reject.
Utilitarianism - and I mean every version of it - supposes that humans or what supports them is valuable. This valuation is either subjective or asserted (dogmatically). Since atheists reject dogma how would you possibly establish an objective version of utilitarism ?
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
"or they contain dogmatic assertions which is something that we as atheists reject."
No, see Stalin's Russia. You're making atheism do something that it can't. The word talks about disbelief in gods, nothing more.
re. Subjective assertions of U theorists: The fact remains that if a given version of utilitarianism were true, it would be objective. Atheism doesn't rule out U, therefore atheism is not incompatible with objective morality.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Dude...that makes no sense. If I had wings then I could fly. Atheism doesn't rule out that I have wings. Therefore atheism is compatible with my ability to fly. However, this doesn't mean that atheists can fly. Similarly the fact that moral nihilism is not explicitly a part of atheism does not mean that atheists can actually have morality.
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
"If I had wings then I could fly. Atheism doesn't rule out that I have wings. Therefore atheism is compatible with my ability to fly. However, this doesn't mean that atheists can fly."
Correct on both counts. There's nothing in atheism that makes it incompatible with being able to fly, or with objective morality (there may be independent reasons that an atheist thinks that these things are unlikely).
bitbutter 3 years ago
But theists don't claim that moral nihilism is part of the atheist belief. They claim that there is no basis for objective morality other than God.
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
"But theists don't claim that moral nihilism is part of the atheist belief. They claim that there is no basis for objective morality other than God."
Yes, and they put this idea in other ways too, like: if atheism is true, there can be no objective morality. That's what i showed was false in this vid.
bitbutter 3 years ago
To expand on that: We have no more reason to suppose that divine command is true (pretending that there is a god) than to assume that utilitarianism is true.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Yes...if you would have argued this way it would have been a good video ;)
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
I argued this way a while ago...see:
watch?v=uOCavP-4bls
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
> if atheism is true, there can be no
> objective morality
...because God is the only source for morality according to them. You have not shown that another source actually exists so you have not defended against their claim.
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
"You have not shown that another source actually exists "
As i said before, that wasn't the aim of the video.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Part 1:
But the claim you are defending against is not what Christians argue. Let me quote from Wikipedia:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position.
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
Part 2:
While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
;)
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
This vid addresses claims made by humbleorthodox (and ones ive seen elsewhere).
No straw men. And it's not very charitable of you to have assumed that.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Show me a video of someone arguing that moral nihilism does not only lie in the nature of atheism but is in fact part of the definition of atheism and I'll apologize :D
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
I've had enough of this conversation.
bitbutter 3 years ago
I'm actually quite happy with no objective morality. The Christians can claim to have objective moral truth all they want, but since they can't show any evidence of this, they are left in the same subjective boat as everyone else.
h8uall66 3 years ago
Quite so.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Even the increase in well-being is a goal which is assumed to have intrinsic value. Many objective systems, such as Christianity, are not utilitarian in practice.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
Hi Bit:I'll put the claim this way. You can't have objective morality w/out god. I may be a weak- knead agnostic but the claim makes my skin crawl because it always comes from a loud-mouthed, fast talking Christian presupp who's ilk I've decided belong at carnivals as barkers or high pressure salesmen of some sort because their trade is pushing a hard sell. I can't dissect, analyze and respond to the philosophical, epistemological aspects of their arguments as well as you.
owheydusoapsk 3 years ago
If the definition of objective morality is morality that exists outside the mind of man, I'm comfortable saying as far as I can see it doesn't exist. It's all relative or subjective. Christian morality is proof of that. It's changed with time, they just won't admit it.
owheydusoapsk 3 years ago
Thx bitbutter.
I would disagree with your defn of objectivity. I prefer "valid or binding outside of human interpretation". Objective means as independent of human beleif as say - gravitation - to me.
Do you think similar ethical theories (e.g. duty, rights, virture) are replaceable with utilitarianism in your argument because they define right/wrong beyond emotion/preference?
spAdeman1001 3 years ago
I have some issues with this.
You seemed to equivocate the definition of objective, first saying uninfluenced by emotion or something but then at the end you seemed to suggest that objective morality exists 'out there' in some unreachable place. Those usages seem incompatible.
I may be wrong, but the more I think about it, it seems morality is really just aesthetics.
Even if you are right though, pragmatically, morality in practice will be subjective, as it is for the theist.
UnBeguiled 3 years ago
"You seemed to equivocate the definition of objective, first saying uninfluenced by emotion or something but then at the end you seemed to suggest that objective morality exists 'out there' in some unreachable place."
Given atheism, ethical truths might exist 'out there', or we might already have access to them.
I don't see any incompatibility between the two definitions (I understand the morality of utilitarianism to match both) can you elaborate?
bitbutter 3 years ago
"can you elaborate?"
I understand that there are different versions of utilitarianism and you are arguing that if we choose one and use it, then that becomes the objective morality.
But then at the end you jettison this idea and suggest that there is some Moral Truth out there that we may not have access too. But you just said we can choose an ethical system, so of course we would have access to it.
(Finally, I like intersubjective rather than objective. It's less confusing.)
UnBeguiled 3 years ago
"I understand that there are different versions of utilitarianism and you are arguing that if we choose one and use it, then that becomes the objective morality."
My point isn't that that act of choice makes a moral framework objective, but that utilitarianism schemes are objective independent of their truth value. Our uncertainty about their truth has no bearing on whether atheism can support an objective morality or not.
Yes, intersubjective is a useful word.
bitbutter 3 years ago