The moral argument

[Wertbag]

I recently saw a two hour debate on Cosmic Skeptics YouTube channel regarding the moral argument.  Basically boiling down to Christians saying morals are objective because God and non-religious saying morals are subjective as seen all around us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ulnmb-4v2M (long video and I don't feel like anything was really resolved, but included for anyone with too much free time)

 

There was one statement the apologist made which stood out to me, where he said rape was objectively bad because there was never a situation where it could be good.  Which I just saw as a lack of imagination.  Three possible situations popped into my head:

- A thousand years ago an army captures a town, and wanting to make an example of the people decide to rape all of the women.  The alternative, which was commonly done, was to slaughter the population.  If you want to make a statement that those who surrender will receive mercy, but resistance will be dealt with harshly, and thereby attempt to save thousands of lives in from future needless battles/sieges, then this option is the less severe choice.  It is horrific for the captives, but if their suffering potentially saves tens of thousands of lives then I can certainly see how people could justify rape for the greater good.

- A country that has its justice system based on an eye for an eye catches a rapist.  The punishment is for the man to be tied down and raped in turn.  As a disincentive this one rape could stop many others from occurring.  The rape can be seen as justice and can be seen as helping protect those who would be at risk.

- An army marches for months to invade a neighbouring country, but upon taking the first town they find all valuables have been removed and they have no plunder with which to pay the army.  With their goals not achieved and morale low the army is at risk of mutiny, so the general gives the order that the soldiers can rape and plunder to their hearts content, thereby keeping his army together and satisfied enough to continue to the next battle.  This is an even easier choice if you think of your enemy as less than human and consider your glorious campaign to be perfectly just.

 

Each idea can be shown to be right or wrong from different perspectives, and while abhorrent to our modern thinking, you can guarantee those same examples would have been much less so in our recent past.

I can't think of a single activity that is universally considered wrong.  Cannibalism was the norm in some cultures, killing can be justified and genocide can be to the greater good if the people destroyed would have caused more harm than their elimination causes.  People can justify pretty much anything, and this to my mind makes morals clearly subjective.

 

[Geezer]

Morality is subjective & clearly differs from culture to culture, sometimes even within the same country. 

[Insightful]

I haven't reached a settled opinion yet on objective vs subjective morality, but I'm curious to know if any ex-Cs hold to objective morality?

 

Is it possible to believe in objective morality while still being agnostic or even atheist?

 

Please let me know if I'm hijacking the thread and I will repost this as a separate question...

[Wertbag]

5 hours ago, Insightful said:

 it possible to believe in objective morality while still being agnostic or even atheist?

I believe that is what Sam Harris argues for, that to a large extent we should be able to judge a situation on fixed criteria and thereby come to objective answers to moral questions. You start by defining good as that which provides the most benefits to society and the people in it (or something along those lines). Then attempt to statistically examine outcomes to say which one most aligns with that goal. By using criteria in this manner you attempt to remove opinion from the equation. 

The counter argument is that you are still basing your criteria on a subjective definition. Why is what benefits society good? If society itself is a man made idea then can you ever be objective on a human construct? Is society your local area, a national area or a global group? 

[Geezer]

7 hours ago, Insightful said:

I haven't reached a settled opinion yet on objective vs subjective morality, but I'm curious to know if any ex-Cs hold to objective morality?

 

Is it possible to believe in objective morality while still being agnostic or even atheist?

 

Please let me know if I'm hijacking the thread and I will repost this as a separate question...

 

No. How would such a thing as objective morality be achieved? There are just too many beliefs regarding what is and is not moral that varies from culture to culture and even person to person within the same culture. 

[disillusioned]

8 hours ago, Insightful said:

I haven't reached a settled opinion yet on objective vs subjective morality, but I'm curious to know if any ex-Cs hold to objective morality?

 

Is it possible to believe in objective morality while still being agnostic or even atheist?

 

Please let me know if I'm hijacking the thread and I will repost this as a separate question...

 

It's possible.  There are a atheists who do this.  Personally, I think they're just dressing up subjective morality in fancy clothes,  but they would disagree. Sam Harris is one, and Shelly Kagan is another. They have both debated William Lane Craig. The debates are worth a watch if you're interested in the topic. I think both of them have good things to say about ethics and morality,  but I don't think either succeeds in establishing true objective morality. Having said that,  I haven't read any of Kagan's books yet, so maybe he'll surprise me.

[ag_NO_stic]

It is absolutely possible to assert objective morality as an atheist or agnostic, if you're atheist or agnostic and believe it, there ya go. However I don't know that you'll have the strongest case. You can go even further than your examples: point blank "Who says rape is wrong?" You? Who are you to assert this over others?

 

@disillusioned and I could talk all day about morality, I believe that morality is socially constructed and "in between" objective and subjective.

[Wertbag]

6 hours ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

@disillusioned and I could talk all day about morality, I believe that morality is socially constructed and "in between" objective and subjective.

I've heard people describe it as a subjective viewing of objective facts, is that what you are leaning towards? 

[ag_NO_stic]

16 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

I've heard people describe it as a subjective viewing of objective facts, is that what you are leaning towards? 

 

There's definitely a great deal of subjective interpretation to objective occurrences, yes. "Facts" are also a subjective in some ways, right? I'm not referring to 2+2=4, but there's definitely a great deal of "professional" subjective opinions too. 

 

It has a lot to do with examining different tribes and cultures. As soon as you see some of the weird shit other groups of humans do (weird to us), it's hard to believe in "objective" morality.

 

I'll give you an example: The Etoro tribe in Papua New Guinea believes that sperm is a "life force" and must be ingested by young boys via fellatio. They believe the sperm is what helps these young boys grow into strong men. It's a normal practice for these 7year old boys to suck off older guys as a part of development, then they get turn around and return the favor.

 

Objectively, that's what these people believe. Objectively, it's just a sexual act between two descendents of primates. Subjectively, that's a criminal homosexual pedophilic act based on our "civilized" morality. But....that tribe doesn't have any morality "in their hearts" so are they wrong? 

[Wertbag]

24 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 give you an example: The Etoro tribe in Papua New Guinea believes that sperm is a "life force" and must be ingested by young boys via fellatio. They believe the sperm is what helps these young boys grow into strong men. It's a normal practice for these 7year old boys to suck off older guys as a part of development, then they get turn around and return the favor.

 

Objectively, that's what these people believe. Objectively, it's just a sexual act between two descendents of primates. Subjectively, that's a criminal homosexual pedophilic act based on our "civilized" morality. But....that tribe doesn't have any morality "in their hearts" so are they wrong? 

Fascinating, I'd never heard of that tribe before. A quote from Wikipedia "most men marry and have heterosexual relations with their wives. The fear that heterosexual sex causes them to die earlier and the belief that homosexual sex prolongs life means that heterosexual relations are focused towards reproduction." Feeling weak? Obviously haven't been gay enough and your life force has dwindled. 

You really can convince people of anything. Same goes for cannibalism, abhorrent to us but considered by some tribes a great way to grow strong. Empathy is a taught behaviour.