A challenge to moral realists || Thoughts on the moral argument for God and a treatise on morality.
#moralrealism
#subjectivemorality
#objectivemorality
#atheism
#moralrealism
#subjectivemorality
#objectivemorality
#atheism
Here's my challenge to moral realists. Prove that objective morality exists. But here are 3 disclaimers before doing so;
1) You can't use the fact that you have a sense of morality as an argument. Different people might have varying sense of morals. That is in fact the definition of being subjective. Since you are vehemently opposed to subjective morality, personal opinions don't count.
2) You cannot use the consensus of a populace as proof since that is also subjective. The moral opinions that your derive from a populace will vary in different test samples and across different such populations. Morality is subjective to the culture and time period.
3) You cannot use consequentialism as an argument since that is exactly what atheists propose as the basis of morality. If you argue for consequentialism, you are conceding that a divine authority is not necessary for morality.
4) You cannot argue that God has endowed us with an objective sense of morality because this would make it a circular argument. The purpose of the moral argument is to prove God and you are bringing in God to prove morality. Round and round you go.
The fact that morality isn't fixed and real is quite obvious from the fact that its been constantly changing across cultures and time periods. Some actions like murder have been generally taboo across all time periods and cultures but this too is subjective to some extent.
Murder used to be justified in case of sacrifices, certain conflicts and contemporarily in wars. Where do we draw the line for murder? If a soldier kills the enemy soldiers, he's welcomed a hero. Where is the objective moral aspect of murder here?
But this can be easily explained by consequentialism. Ancient men who sacrificed kids would've outweighed the value of the child's life with the blessings they'd be getting from their God, (albeit misguided) which they were in dire straits for. Killing and stealing within....
....the tribe would have negative consequences for the well being and security of the members so it was promptly punished. The same tribe would find nothing wrong with pillaging and murdering other tribes since it was beneficial to them. The pros outweighed the cons.
It all boils down to empathy. We are able to put ourselves in others shoes and think of the consequences of a certain action. The people who lack this feeling suffer from antisocial personality disorder and have not sense of right and wrong. Empathy is an evolutionary advantage..
...for any social species and would have been actively selected for by natural selection. Read upon evolutionary game theory to get an idea on how certain behaviours are selected for and against and their equilibrium in populations.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not a nutjob anarchist advocating for individual's rights to make up their own moral stance and to give equal significance to them. I am also a moral objectivist, but my definition and method of deriving these objectives differ. I think a population...
... need to agree upon a common set of moral values that are all inclusive to the point that it's doesnt affect the general populace. It's based on the Golden rule and the harm principle. I don't think that morals are "real", but we need to agree upon a set of such...
...fictional entities purely for utilitarian purposes, to ensure stability and maximise happiness and well being. I also believe that the best way to determine such moral values is by science rather than scripture.
Evaluation of statistics, experiments and educated predictions based on the observations made are much more reliable and relevant that archaic doctrines that wither under the tiniest bit of scrutiny. The success of deriving moral values based on utilitarianism is apparent in..
...the real world, where secular democracies are much more advanced and free than theocracies.
There is a concept called the expanding circle, well illustrated by Peter Singer in his book of the same name. The central tenet of the book is that over the course of human history, people have expanded the circle of beings whose interests they are willing to value similarly....
....to their own. Originally that circle would've been self, family and tribe, but over time it grew to encompass all other humans. As the world is connected more than ever and us shrinking into a global village of ideas, it's necessary to find common ground between ideas of..
...morality and ethics of various cultures. And secular moral values are the only ones which can satisfy all these requirements without compromising individual liberty and freedom of expression.
