I have sympathy for the idea of suffering-ethics. It is based on the fact of suffering. At the end of the day it’s some kind of consequentialism. These are well-thought-out theories and except for a few wrinkles are very appealing.
Apologies. And no, because that wasn’t my point.
Here are some definitions, for everyone’s reference:
Objective typically means mind‑independent and perspective‑invariant. Objective claims are, in principle, assessable in the same way by different observers. In epistemology, objectivity can refer to methods that minimize personal bias and are governed by public standards of good reasoning.
Subjective typically means mind‑dependent and perspective‑relative: Subjective claims are true or false only relative to a particular subject or perspective. In epistemology, subjectivity can refer to judgments that are heavily influenced by personal bias or limited information.
Intersubjective is a mediating category, constituted by relations among multiple subjects, such as shared practices, agreements, or norms. Meanings depend on communal frameworks (language, institutions, conventions) but are not reducible to any single individual’s mind.
We may find that certain ethical propositions fulfill the criteria mentioned above in different ways. My favorite is “respect the dignity of humans”. This is universal in principle. Ethics is not my main interest so whether universality amounts to objectivity is an open question. There is a case to be made that evolutionary processes secure some form of objectivity for some forms of ethical propositions.
I’ll put it in Euthyphro terms:
If things are moral only because god says they are, then morality is subjective – subject to the mind of god – and the whole rest of your argument about objective morality becomes an irrelevance.
If things are good or bad independent of god, then the conclusion of “therefore, god” falls down, because god is not needed.
It’s just a bad argument for God. And we didn’t even get as far as naming a specific god, which would enable us to look at scripture and see if the morals there still seem true to us (hint: no).
2 Likes
I fully appreciate Euthyphro’s dilemma. I mentioned my take on it: God is unnecessary or God is undesirable. After that I stated the retort: God = Goodness. Some people were confused about what that meant, questioning substitutional equivalence. Further discussion wasn’t productive.
The post above you defines the concepts that we’re using.
Some are fully aware of the situation regarding objective morality, as is obvious from their posts. Human morality isn’t objective. I hope we can concur that there’s a problem.
Humans are not the same as animals. We have minds and language and self awareness, and the ability to protect ourselves from the forces of Nature, and one another- that is what separates us from animal life. Is morality then objective for humans? What is the goal of living morally? It is to protect us from Nature, and one another. And so, we must establish a moral code that is objective for the benefit of all people.
Our society cherishes freedom, but where do we draw the line? We need objective morals to protect ourselves, as all civilized societies do.
It is simply a matter of not harming another persons health, wealth, or liberty. Emotional and mental, as well as physical health. Our behavior and art should be based on this. To say that morality is subjective is to fail at establishing order, and it is simply not true in the workings of our Laws.
God is a concept that has guided human beings. Do we no longer need God? Look around at this world, there is crime and there is suffering. Obviously our theories and Wisdom has not met a satisfactory state that has solved these problems.
No. I have no issue with subjective morals.
Note that subjective ≠ arbitrary.
Ok, then why the difficulty?
You are making the case for intersubjectivity. Objectivity is usually reserved for scientific descriptions and there is currently no known logical way to bridge the fact-value distinction.
If morality is subjective, then how do you measure your response? If person A does the same thing as person B, do you respond differently, and if so, then why?
No difficulty on my part. I was just elaborating on one of the reasons why this particular proof of god fails.
Conditioned behavior based on the moral code that we have constructed to ensure or prolong our survival is not evidence of a God. Better evidence is the complex nature of life and the order of the Universe. Even if you believe this all came from random nothingness combining and churning and settling into what it is today, after endless billions of years of evolution- one could then use that to say that God evolved as well,and took on the role of a being outside of our material reality,confined to the physical body. This does not mean that God was the Creator, though it could be true as well.
1 Like
Yes, then we’re agreed on human morality not being objective. I too don’t think it’s difficult so long as certain conditions are maintained. I was referring to when these conditions don’t exist.
The proof would’ve failed under certain circumstances. IMHO these circumstances haven’t arisen or haven’t been demonstrated to do so.
I don’t just choose not to do evil things; I don’t want to do evil things. This want is not a choice I made.
So the relevant question isn’t “why does God allow us to do evil things” but “why does God allow for some humans to be psychopaths?”. Surely an all-powerful, all-good God would ensure that each of us has empathy and a conscience whilst also allowing us to choose to do bad things (which we’d never choose to do, because we have empathy and a conscience).
And the question of evil isn’t just about the choices we make but about the things that happen to us; why allow young children to die of cancer? Why allow cancer at all? Surely it’s within God’s power to make it so that our cells don’t grow uncontrollably.
1 Like
Side note. Psychopaths don’t disprove objective morality because they’re exceptional aberrations. In my definition of objectivity, I said “in principle”, not in actuality. Reality/nature is imperfect. Allowances must be made for dialogue to continue.
But I still adhere to “objectivity” being the domain of science and science alone. That excludes morals.
Why allow death at all? The Bible says we were once immortal and that death came to us after our ancestor’s disobedience.
I would say that I have learned a great deal from the fact that we can die, that there may be no Heaven, and from suffering at the hands of disease. The struggles of life; the contests of life and of learning and building- I am sure it contributed to the theory that the strong will prove fit to evolve and to lead.
E.g. Any human who protects a baby from abuse or prevents a child from being raped is far more moral than a “God” that allegedly has the power to stop every instance of these crimes yet does not.
Again: Suffering is a natural fact; therefore, to the degree morality (re: moral agency) is based on – derived from – suffering, it is objective (i.e. subject/culture-invariant).
1 Like
Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, claimed to be the fulfillment of the law, he announced the kingdom of God.
Canonized fairytale. Big whup.
1 Like
I haven’t met an atheist who denies Jesus’ existence. However they reject his divinity though accepting his message - love thine enemies - but the best they have to say about him is that he was a deluded rabbi who lived in 1st century Palestine.
The point is that God is also suffering-focused. In a sense God and us … we’re on the same page.
According to biblical scripture, “God” causes the vast majority of suffering. Also, there’s almost no evidence or mention by contemporaneous writers of a lynched rabbi Yeshua from Nazareth in 30s CE.