Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Morality is by essence subjective. I have been convinced of that by reading the reasoned arguments on the other specific forums. Better minds than I have wrestled with it and I can follow their reasoning and concur. Mykcob, Nyarlothep, Sheldon, Cognostic, and many others all have very cogent arguments and reasoning. Go back and re read.
Morality is not given from an external source such as by some nebulous deity with rapine, genocide, incest, slavery, and a host of other immoral acts in their resume.
This discussion is better continued on those specific forums.
If there is an objective moral, it is to prevent unnecessary harm.
@Rotism
Morality is NEVER objective. It is subjective! That has been proven countless times on this forum.
@mykcob4
I remember you once taking offense at your moniker being misspelled. I personally don't mind it, but I expect you extend the same respect to other people's moniker as you demand for your own.
If morality is NEVER objective, how can you turn around and call my ideas of morality wrong. Would you say I am wrong if I like Picasso's paintings.... I don't think you would, because that's just a subjective opinion. Same with morality.
"If morality is NEVER objective, how can you turn around and call my ideas of morality wrong. "
Subjectively, obviously.
" Would you say I am wrong if I like Picasso's paintings...."
Define wrong? How is your liking of Picasso's worl going to harm anyone?
" I don't think you would, because that's just a subjective opinion. Same with morality."
As are your religious claims about morality, they're entirely subjective, and some of them are deeply pernicious.
@ROYISM: "I am yet to find someone explain to me an objective way of making moral judgments."
Ask a religious leader from any of the various forms of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. They'll all give you an "objective" morality, and they'll all be different.
Life would be so much easier if there was an objective morality, or if we had an extra hand or eyes in the back of our heads. It's wishful thinking. We just have to struggle along with what we have: two hands, two eyes, and subjective morality consisting of innate instincts refined by what we learn in our families and society. What more do you want?
@Algebe
You are saying that we need to make do with subjective morality because that's all we have got! But then the question is whose subjective morality? If morality is just subjective, then you can be as right or wrong as anyone else.
@ROYISM: "whose subjective morality?"
We each have our own subjective morality, which is refined through our experiences in our families and society. Society shapes us, and we shape society. If you want to live purely according to your own sense of subjective morality, you'll probably need to buy an island.
When you look for "objective" morality in holy books, you're simply subordinating your own moral sense to the subjective morality of people and societies that existed long ago and far away.
@Algebe
You said: “We each have our own subjective morality, which is refined through our experiences in our families and society. Society shapes us, and we shape society.”
I agree with you that society shapes our morality. But why should such a shaping be right? Society includes a whole range of factors (including religious beliefs). If what the society collectively accepted as moral at one point of time could be deemed immoral by us, what makes you think that centuries later we would be judged similarly by our progenies?
You said: “When you look for "objective" morality in holy books, you're simply subordinating your own moral sense to the subjective morality of people and societies that existed long ago and far away.”
Okay… but why should your subjective morality be any better than my subjective morality taken from people from far away? After all, both are equally subjective, isn’t it? BTW I don’t think that religious morality is subjective. I have my reasons for it, but that’s for another debate.
@ROYISM: "If what the society collectively accepted as moral at one point of time could be deemed immoral by us, what makes you think that centuries later we would be judged similarly by our progenies?"
That's exactly what happens. Weren't you disgusted when you learned about some of the things that happened in your country centuries ago? Did your country practice slavery, torture, execution... Did it engage in aggressive warfare?
A few hundred years ago, my country was burning people alive for believing in the wrong religion, hanging hungry children for stealing food, and taking slaves from Africa. Muslims from North Africa were meanwhile raiding coastal villages in my country and carrying people off into slavery or for ransom. These things were all fine with my ancestors and yours, but repugnant to us today.
Yet all through those centuries, the religions and their "holy books" haven't changed. People in the 16th century learned the same morality from the same religions that we still have today. So what is different now? How did we improve? The fact that we can look back at history and feel ashamed at some of our ancestors' behavior shows that our moral sense is evolving in step with society.
@Alegebe
You said: “That's exactly what happens. Weren't you disgusted when you learned about some of the things that happened in your country centuries ago?”
My getting disgusted is the result of all the conditionings that I have been through in life. So, it means nothing at all in our discussion.
You said: “These things were all fine with my ancestors and yours, but repugnant to us today.”
SO which of us is more correct – our ancestors or us! And why?
You said: “The fact that we can look back at history and feel ashamed at some of our ancestors' behavior shows that our moral sense is evolving in step with society.”
A 1000 years later the society might once again feel people of other religions have to be burnt at stakes… who knows… but just because they succeed us, does it make them right? If no, then what is your standard for deciding who is right?
@ROYISM: "My getting disgusted is the result of all the conditionings that I have been through in life."
So is your conscience. So is mine.
"SO which of us is more correct – our ancestors or us! And why?"
I think the answer's obvious. What do you think?
@Algebe
I said: "My getting disgusted is the result of all the conditionings that I have been through in life."
You said: “So is your conscience. So is mine.”
That’s true of a morality derived from mere conscience. If it is derived externally from another source, as I do, then it’s not the result of conditioning. I will not drink alcohol no matter what the society says. I will not indulge in interest no matter what the society says. You get the drift?
I said: "SO which of us is more correct – our ancestors or us! And why?"
You said: I think the answer's obvious. What do you think?
The answer is obvious to you because you are looking at it from your society-conditioned glasses. And someone who comes 1000 years later will look at you with his glasses and say your positions are so obviously wrong…
@ROYISM: "I will not drink alcohol no matter what the society says. I will not indulge in interest no matter what the society says. You get the drift?"
Alcohol? What about tobacco? Muslims don't drink liquor, but they certainly smoke. Is that OK? Is that because tobacco wasn't available when Mohammed lived so god didn't know about it?
What's the problem with interest? Finance allows us to build houses, create businesses and jobs, store value for the future, provide for retirement. Even Islamic countries recognize the importance of interest-based finance. That's why they developed sukuk bonds. That's pure hypocrisy in my view. It's also a moral hazard. One big bond issuer has suddenly declared its own sukuk bonds non-Shariah to escape repayment.
"someone who comes 1000 years later will look at you with his glasses and say your positions are so obviously wrong"
Well I hope so. I hope humanity will learn a lot over the next 1,000 years, starting with how to live in the real world without having their lives dictated by fictional gods and their mouthpieces.
@Algebe
You said: “Alcohol? What about tobacco? Muslims don't drink liquor, but they certainly smoke. Is that OK? Is that because tobacco wasn't available when Mohammed lived so god didn't know about it?”
You just don’t seem to understand my argument. I am saying that the standard you have with you is subjective, meaning it is influenced by personal factors like your upbringing, society etc. Therefore, you can’t with certainty if something is moral or not. Whereas, in my case, as I follow a book, no matter what my personal situation is, I would follow what is stated in it. I don’t drink, not because there are medical reports that vilify it, but because my book says so. It’s true that smoking has not been explicitly prohibited in Islam (but it is prohibited through indirect means) – however, my question is on what basis do you say that smoking is immoral? You can say it’s bad for health, but would become immoral on those grounds? What is your standard?
The same applies to all your other points.
@ROYISM: "on what basis do you say that smoking is immoral?"
Smoking damages the health not only smokers, but also of those around them. My father died of heart disease caused by passive smoking in his workplace. Because nicotine is highly addictive, people are forced to spend more than they afford on tobacco. This adversely affects their families and society. Smoking also causes many fires and consumes valuable health dollars that could be used to help people suffering from diseases through no fault of their own.
For all of those reasons, I say smoking and the sale of tobacco are immoral.You seem to be saying that smoking is ok because your god doesn't expressly forbid it. You are forbidden from consuming alcohol, pork, shellfish, etc., but tobacco is alright. As I said, Muhammad (and god) didn't know about tobacco because it's a New World plant. Only things that a 7th century Arabian would have known are banned. Isn't that odd?
@Algebe
You said: “Smoking damages the health not only smokers, but also of those around them.”
Would I be right in assuming that therefore your standard for morality is health? What affects your health adversely is immoral. In that case would you call a person who lives a sedentary lifestyle (lack of exercise) as immoral? Would you call an obese person immoral because obesity is bad for health? Once again, morality is a judgement of value, while what you are recommending is a correct course of action in order to achieve that value (which precedes action). Non-smoking becomes ‘moral’ only if you presume that ‘human health’ is valuable. My question is how did you arrive at that judgement? Why isn’t bacteria’s life more valuable?
You said: “You seem to be saying that smoking is ok because your god doesn't expressly forbid it.”
Two points: firstly, I didn’t say smoking is ok… I am just saying that there is a religious injunction (indirect) that prohibits smoking.
Secondly, even if I were to consider smoking as being morally okay… that doesn’t mean I would encourage smoking. Because there are many desirable actions that I endorse independent of their moral value. For example, I don’t think using mobile phones is immoral, although I wouldn’t recommend my children using them too much due to radiation. I recommend regular walking, but I wouldn’t say those who don’t walk are immoral. I hope you get the drift.
@ROYISM: "I am just saying that there is a religious injunction (indirect) that prohibits smoking."
Is that a typo? I thought you said the Quran was silent on smoking. Lots of Muslims smoke. Surely they aren't all violating god's law?
@Algebe
You said: “Is that a typo? I thought you said the Quran was silent on smoking. Lots of Muslims smoke. Surely they aren't all violating god's law?
No that was not a typo. You are right in that quran is silent on smoking. But I said there is only an “Indirect’ injunction that prohibits smoking. The injunction is based on a principle that says that what is known to be harmful with the harms outweighing the benefits, then using it or indulging in it becomes prohibited. Based on that principle we can say that smoking is immoral.
sounds pretty darn subjective
@Nyarl
sounds pretty darn subjective
It is subjective to the extent that facts regarding 'harms and benefits' might change. But the basic principle doesn't. If tomorrow, the medical experts discover that smoking is not harmful as previously thought, then smoking wouldn't be considered immoral. However, that's not because the principle of 'what is harmful must be avoided' has changed... the principle remains the same. Only the facts have changed.
Well it is nice to hear you confirm your morality is subjective; even though we've known that all along. I wonder how long it will be before you forget this, and claim it is objective again? My guess is you won't make it 24 hours.
@nyarl
I don’t know what if you have been following my arguments from the beginning. What I am basically questioning is your first principle for morality. For example when you say you value life, then I would like to know where you get that from? Of course, once you reach that premise, then based on factual info you can make reasonably sound decisions as to how you can save lives... these factual info may change with time and you may have to rethink new ways of saving lives. That I can understand. But the moot question is how did you arrive at that first principe. When you say it’s from conscience and so on, then I come back saying it’s subjective. Whereas in my case the first principle is not subjective. Human life is valuable because god said so. That principle will never change... but the ways I devise in order to attain that principle might change with time. Hope it’s clear.
When did I give principles of morality? What fantasy world are you living in?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
When did I say that? What fantasy world are you living in?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't reach a premise, they are what you start with. What fantasy world are you living in?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I already know the answer to the question I asked: you live in a fantasy world of an iron age religion.
@Nyarl
You said: "When did I give principles of morality? What fantasy world are you living in?"
When you suddenly jump into a debate that i am having with another individual and raise questions, I thought you would have the commonsense to figure out that by 'YOU' I mean the person(s) that i am engaged in a debate with.
If you didn't mean me, you probably shouldn't have written @nyarl.
@Nyarl
my post was indeed addressed to you. But the use of the term 'YOU" in it was in reference to my earlier engagements. Since you based your question on my statements posted in my engagements with others - i thought you would understand that by 'YOU' i mean those people i had engaged with. Elementary!
@ROYISM: "If tomorrow, the medical experts discover that smoking is not harmful as previously thought, then smoking wouldn't be considered immoral."
So people can subjectively decide whether or not smoking is immoral based on a balance of factors, including new knowledge, but alcohol is absolutely immoral in all situations? That doesn't sound like an objective principle to me.
Did you know that there's an old tradition of healing based on the use of various types of wine? Farmers traditionally used black beer to treat bloat in cattle. Alcohol can cause harm, but it also provides benefits. People can drink alcohol in moderation all their lives without suffering any harm. Tobacco is always harmful to users and those around them.
When people first encountered tobacco they didn't know that. They learned. Once we had that knowledge, the sale and use of tobacco became a moral issue. That's what I mean when I say that morality is learned and evolves in society.
Your holy book is illogical and inconsistent. It forbids a substance that is only harmful in certain circumstances and is silent on one that always causes harm, including harm to innocent children. Why doesn't the Quran tell parents not to smoke around children?
The only reason for that is that Muhammad (and god) didn't know about tobacco. Native Americans were smoking when the Quran was written. You said god sent a prophet there. So why was god only concerned about things that existed in 7th century Arabia, like alcohol and pork?
@Algebe
You said: “So people can subjectively decide whether or not smoking is immoral based on a balance of factors, including new knowledge, but alcohol is absolutely immoral in all situations? That doesn't sound like an objective principle to me.”
That’s not the principle. The principle says not to indulge in activities that has more harm than benefits. That principle does not change at all. It is only the actions we undertake in order to achieve that end that might change. This is not just with regards to smoking – if tomorrow we realize that polio is harmful to children, giving it to them will be considered immoral. If tomorrow air-travel is known to have negative effects that far outweigh the benefits, then it would also be deemed immoral.
You said: “People can drink alcohol in moderation all their lives without suffering any harm. Tobacco is always harmful to users and those around them.”
The reason alcohol is prohibited is not based on the same principle as that of tobacco. In the case of alcohol, it is prohibited based on the principle of ‘No Intoxicants.’ Even if medical science proves that is good for health, it would still be prohibited because it’s an intoxicant. Whereas, let’s say that tomorrow we find out that beer does not intoxicate, then it would become permissible.
You said: “When people first encountered tobacco they didn't know that. They learned. Once we had that knowledge, the sale and use of tobacco became a moral issue. That's what I mean when I say that morality is learned and evolves in society.”
No, in this instance, what evolved is our understanding of the right course of action towards achieving a set moral principle. The principle did not change, only our understanding of how to achieve it has changed. But more importantly, how did you arrive at that principle, is my question to you.
You said: “Your holy book is illogical and inconsistent. It forbids a substance that is only harmful in certain circumstances and is silent on one that always causes harm, including harm to innocent children. Why doesn't the Quran tell parents not to smoke around children?””
It is not inconsistent. In the case of alcohol, as I said, it’s based on the principle of ‘No intoxicants.” It’s not based on its effect on health. In the case of smoking, it gets prohibited under a general guideline of ‘harm’. We are talking of two different principles. You have conflated them and confused yourself.
You said: “The only reason for that is that Muhammad (and god) didn't know about tobacco.”
Islam is silent on a lot of issues – for example masturbation. It does not mean that Mohammed/God was ignorant of it. The bottom line is that the principles have been set in stone – and we have to continuously strive to work our way forward based on available knowledge in order to attain those principles.
@ROYISM: The principle says not to indulge in activities that has more harm than benefits
So your "objective" principles are ultimately based on subjective judgments, while your absolute principles prevent you from benefiting from new knowledge. How does that make any sense?
if tomorrow we realize that polio is harmful "
Explain to me who you mean by "we". Is it you and your family, or you and your community? The pronoun sounds very subjective to me.
(And by the way, polio has always been unambiguously harmful. A few years ago I helped to fund an international polio eradication campaign. It got very close to success until some Muslim fanatics in Nigeria started killing the vaccination teams. Now polio is spreading again. Causing children to suffer like that is the most immoral thing I can imagine.)
But it belongs to the infinite wisdom of god as to why some things have to been spelt out explicitly and some left unto us to be figured out.
As I said, the "infinite wisdom" of god appears to be defined by the subjective knowledge and experience of a man living in 7th century Arabia. Is there a single explicit principle in the Quran about something that an Arabian of that era couldn't have known?
Pages