Morality: Objective or Subjective?

[Jamesican]

So, I go to a Catholic School and am currently learning the Church's stance on certain morals and morality as a whole. I honestly don't care what the Church teaches, but it made me do some thinking.

 

I've been thinking that if there is no God, then there is no set standard for morality. Therefore, morals would rely solely on opinion. Like I said, I haven't been thinking about this for too long, so I'm open to ideas and opinions.

 

Thanks!

[PatrickC]

In fairness asking this board to explain UPB for you would be quite the task. I suggest you field some more specific and pertinent questions around this philosophical formula of UPB. That way people can try and help you more accurately with any confusion you're having with it.

[Kevin Beal]

Hi Jamesican. Great question!

 

I'll limit my answer to addressing the objectivity of moral arguments, and if there actually is any.

 

First, I don't see how having a god means there is any objective morality. Why is something (im)moral? Because some deity said so? I never grew up with religion, so I could be missing something obvious, of course.

 

UPB is a way of having objective standards regarding behavior. An action cannot be true or false, right? A statement can be true or false, but what UPB describes is behavior and moral arguments regarding behavior. Instead of true/false, it says whether or not something is preferable or not. This is not "preferred" in the sense in which I have subjective preferences for certain bands over other bands. There isn't necessarily any logic to something like a subjective preference.

 

You can think of "preferability" in the UPB sense like this: it is preferable to take Birch st if you want to go to the donut shop. That is, it is "preferable" given some standard. There is a logic to this. "Preferability" is a condition of satisfaction. Taking Birch st satisfies the condition of going to the donut shop. It's equivalent to true/false in terms of being a condition of satisfaction.

 

So, it's preferable given what standard, you might ask? The answer is the "U" in UPB. Universals in philosophy describe things in terms of they means for all instances, as opposed to "particulars" which describe my car vs your car. Simply by defining an action like "murder", there are certain things that we can know about any particular instance. Logic and principles based on this knowledge is working from universals.

 

This does not mean that in every instance of stabbing a guy in the throat, it is immoral. It could be an emergency tracheotomy.

 

UPB is actually a broader category than morality. UPB can say whether something is (im)moral, but it covers the following categories:

• The Good
• Aesthetically Positive
• Personally Positive
• Morally Neutral
• Personally Negative
• Aesthetically Negative
• Moral Evil

UPB says where an action falls in these 7 categories according to the condition of satisfaction: preferability.

 

The fact that there is logic that can tell whether something is proof that objectivity is possible regarding behavior and how to reason about it. The specific categories listed above are defined at the beginning of Part 2: Application. Getting into the definitions and the logic of each category would take a long time to describe, but luckily the book is totally free.

 

You may wonder if the categories are arbitrary and thus subjective. The thing about that is, whether they belong in a particular category has logical consequences. For instance, in UPB, moral evils are actions where it is justified to use force in order to prevent. So, if someone is raping another person, or raping you, you are justified in smashing that person over the head in order to escape.

 

Here's a quotation to give you some idea of how logic is applied here:

 

 

 

If rape is defined as evil, then it must involve the initiation of the use of force, which clearly it does. Also, the proposition: “rape is evil,” passes the “coma test,” insofar as it is impossible for a man in a coma to rape someone.

In addition, if rape is evil, then not raping must be good – in this way, two men in a room can both be moral at the same time, simply by not raping each other.

Since avoidability is one of the key differentiators between “unpleasant” and “immoral,” and rape is clearly an unavoidable behaviour, the definition of “rape as evil” also conforms to this distinction.

Also, since there are times when it is physically impossible to rape someone – for instance, when an erection cannot be attained – the definition of “rape as evil” solves the problem of people being involuntarily immoral, which is by definition impossible, due to the criterion of avoidability.

The rapist may justify his actions by avoiding the proposition “rape is good,” and instead substituting another proposition that supports his desire to rape, such as: “It is moral to take one’s own pleasure, regardless of the displeasure of others.”

This proposition also fails the most basic logical test of UPB. If Bob believes that he should take his own pleasure by raping Doug – regardless of Doug’s displeasure – then Bob cannot rationally elevate his preference to a UPB.

If everyone should take their own pleasure regardless of their victim’s displeasure, then Bob has no right to rape Doug, since although Bob prefers to rape Doug, Doug most certainly does not prefer to be raped. If everyone should take their pleasure regardless of the displeasure of others, then there is no rational reason why Bob’s preference to rape Doug should take precedence over Doug’s preference to not be raped, regardless of the displeasure that refusing to be raped would cause Bob.

Thus Doug can say to Bob: “It is morally good for me to rape you, because personal preferences can be violently enforced.” Bob, of course, can then reply: “It is then morally good for me to violently resist your attack, since my personal preference to not be raped can also be violently enforced.”

Of course, few rapists are philosophers, but as we mentioned above, the primary danger to human beings is not the individual criminal, but irrational and exploitive moral theories. For instance, incarceration is inevitably justified through an appeal to a moral theory – and incarceration causes far more people to be raped than private criminals could ever dream of. If the moral theory that justifies incarceration is incorrect, then correcting this moral theory should be by far the highest concern of anyone wishing to reduce the prevalence of rape.

Thus it would seem that the only logical possibility for rape is that not raping is universally preferable behaviour – or that rape is universally banned behaviour.

[NotDarkYet]

Think of morality as a subset of logic.

[SWMA]

So, I go to a Catholic School and am currently learning the Church's stance on certain morals and morality as a whole. I honestly don't care what the Church teaches, but it made me do some thinking.

 

I've been thinking that if there is no God, then there is no set standard for morality. Therefore, morals would rely solely on opinion. Like I said, I haven't been thinking about this for too long, so I'm open to ideas and opinions.

 

Thanks!

you're being brainwashed. Of course the church says that you need a god for morality. But when you look at that, it's really, really pathetic. What they're saying is basically that without a god (in essence to punish them in the life after death without this life supposedly is meaningless blahdibla) they'd be immoral. Utterly pathetic.

[bitcoin]

Reading UPB would answer your questions. 

[RicardoMata]

I hope i'm not being too rude (still resolving my assertiveness problem) but it would be advisable to read Stef's book called "Universally Preferable Behavior - A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics" before asking to explain the book for you. If you have any doubt, comment, opinion or don't agree with any of the premisses or arguments put foward in the book then feel free to come back with some specific questions

Link to the book: https://freedomainradio.com/free

Happy Reading

[Kevin Beal]

I have a really great response, but it's taking for-fucking-ever to get approved. Just be patient!

[Jamesican]

I hope i'm not being too rude (still resolving my assertiveness problem) but it would be advisable to read Stef's book called "Universally Preferable Behavior - A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics" before asking to explain the book for you. If you have any doubt, comment, opinion or don't agree with any of the premisses or arguments put foward in the book then feel free to come back with some specific questions

 

Link to the book: https://freedomainradio.com/free

 

Happy Reading

Thanks, I'll take a look!

[Lars]

UPB is used to clarify evil. All actions which cannot be classified evil are neutral unless subjectively deemed otherwise depending on the values at play.

Evil is objective, virtue is contextual (usually an affirmation of favorable traits).