If I was understanding your post correctly, you were trying to imply that cooperation and well being are objective. I disagree. Preference for cooperation over competition is subjective, and well being itself is subjective since it relies on us judging what humans want and need.
No, LOL.
No my claim is that in the same way that certain methodological ideals define science in modern times, the purpose of supporting the cooperation and the well being of communities and its members likewise define morality. All activities have such defining premises and to say that such premises make it subjective is absurd. I frequently hear the claim made for science, that because those ideals are subjective or because the definition is subjective then science itself must be subjective. But this is irrational because nothing defines itself or hold itself up by its own bootstraps. It is an empty argument.
When we look in old dictionaries for these words âscienceâ and âmorality,â we find something likeâŚ
science: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
morality: the concept of doing the right thing.
The problem is that these definitions have become inadequate as we continue to change our way of categorizing things. From thinking that theology is the queen of the sciences, the word science now refers to an activity dedicated to certain methodological ideals which are particularly suited to studying the natural world and how things work. Likewise, with a broader experience of the different forms morality has taken in different societies, we have to dig a little deeper than what people have assumed is the way people âoughtâ to behave â to take a more objective look as why different societies have a code of conduct in the first place.
Just saying that morality is subjective is simply unhelpful. It most certainly does not explain why different societies even have a code of conduct or why they are similar yet different.
I would suggest reading the entire blog post. Itâs pretty good.
As for science and morality, those are two different things. We use science to discover facts, what Hume would call the Is. Morality is about the way we want the world to be, what Hume would call the Ought. Is and Ought are different things.
I completely disagree. When we say that morality is subjective we are identifying the source of morality which is human psychology. I consider that to be extremely helpful.
That is antiquated philosophy which is just wrong. Science is not just observational science. It is also theoretical science. Thus it can be about things which cannot be found anywhere but which can be made. It uses abstraction to find an underlying order, even if that is not exactly what we see. Science is NOT just about what is â it is also also about what works.
No it is not that simple. It is also about what works. It is not about living in a dreamworld â it requires conforming what we want to the facts of our existence.
I do not. I am simply claiming that there are absolute and objective aspects to morality in addition relative and subjective aspects to morality. I am objecting to your oversimplification. Morality is not just invention. Morality is BOTH invention AND discovery.
Why is it wrong?
What are you on about? What does this have to do with the subjectivity of morality?
It is that simple. What works is what gets us to the goals we want just as I said earlier.
Discovery of what?
Explaining why what Hume said is wrong⌠duh!
We have been comparing science and morality and so you made claims about science which I have shown to be incorrect.
Morality is not about getting what you want. That is preposterous! It is about conforming to the necessities of a community.
The discovery of what works in community. Without community and the need for cooperation there is no need for morality. But like I said this doesnât need to be intraspecies. The community can be the entire ecosystem of the earth and the need for cooperation can be for the well being of that ecosystem. Morality is always relational.
Except that you didnât.
Where?
How do we determine what those necessities are? If the necessities is what we need to do to optimize well being for everyone then it is subjective.
How do we determine what works? If you say that increasing well being is what works then it is subjective because determining well being is subjective.
We can measure well being. Life expectancy is the start.
YES! There are NUMEROUS objective scientific measures of the well being of a community. Life Expectancy, Health, prosperity, criminal activity, mental illness, ⌠I think T is just being stubbornly contrary these days practically playing into the hands of religionist characterizations that atheists donât believe in any objective morality. Meanwhile I am arguing that any absolute & objective aspect to morality are not found in divine commands but in the premises of cooperation and community well being backed up by these numerous scientific measures.
Is morality completely 100% objective? No. Of course not. There are indeed many aspects to morality which are personal as well as having no way to objectively measure. We handle that with a division between public and personal morality â the latter of which applies only to the living of your own life and should not be forced on other people. But not all aspects of morality are personal and some can be supported with objective evidence, so we DO have the right to force these on other people. Example? Smoking in confined public areas, when we have scientific evidence of the harm done by second hand smoke.
Why is a longer, healthier life considered well being? Why is more money, less crime, and less mental illness considered well being? That is entirely subjective.
We can objectively measure the rate at which COVID-19 is spreading across the globe. Those measures will be objective whether infections are increasing, stabilizing, or decreasing. We could objectively determine what we would need to do to increase the rate of spread, or decrease the rate of spread. We can use objective science to grow more virus in the lab and give it to people so they can inhale it and get infected. We can also use objective science to put policies in place that slow the spread or create medications that stop the infection altogether. So which do we do? Science canât tell us. We subjectively choose the outcome we want.
Because they are well being. I couldnât care less whether thatâs âsubjectiveâ or not. My mobility is becoming more problematic, sorry, differently abled. Iâm abled with a lot more pain and discomfort. Is that objective enough?
Well, @mitchellmckain and I seem to care about that question, at least enough for an online discussion. 
You can make the same stubborn argument that science is not objective. I have heard this argument many many times.
Why is science objective? Because it is only reasonable to accept the results of written procedures which give the same results no matter what you want or believe â and thus it is reasonable to expect people to accept those results. ⌠So in the typical two year old why game they ask, But isnât this methodology by which you define science subjective? And isnât what is reasonable a subjective judgement? And arenât such expectations subjective? Isnât accepting the results of such procedures a subjective decision? And so onâŚ
The answer to all those questions is yes. Our basic access to reality is subjective. It is all a personal experience. That doesnât mean there is nothing objective about it. It doesnât mean the results are just a matter of invention and nothing is a matter of discovery.
The situation with morality is no different at all. Morality is founded on the same subjective access to reality and same subjective definitions of human words. This is just as irrelevant as the same facts about science. It cannot change the fact that morality is all about maintaining the cooperation and well being of the community, and that we have objective scientific measures of such things. The fact that the definitions ultimately stand on subjective judgements and definition is no more relevant for morality than it is for science.
I could, but Iâm not. I am saying that morality is subjective, not science.
Thatâs wrong. Science can objectively determine that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19. We use morality subjectively to determine if those infections are good or bad. They arenât the same thing.
Morality is not subjective, but indeed most humans believe it is. Most believe that what I want to do is moral, but what the other fellow wants to do is immoral if it is not what I like.
Objective morality comes from God, and is placed in each of us: to simply love others as we love ourselves.
Itâs as simple as that to one that believes and follows Christ, but indeed to one that does not morality will seem to be totally subjective - except for the fact that deep inside of all of us is a conscience that tells us we should not do certain things to others. But then when we keep on doing them anyway this conscience is killed, and is converted to a belief that what I want to do that person is good. That is when your morality indeed hits bottom.
Abiogenesis is interesting, but even if science determines that very low probability conditions can create life (and indeed this is indeed what most likely happened), the possibility remains that God intervened to create these conditions, AND quantum physics does open a door to how this can be done scientifically.
And comments about 40% of Christians do not believe the devil exists, I sadly must say that their form of Christianity is not based on doctrine as revealed in the bible, but based on their own doctrines. Yes it is hard to believe in demons in todayâs secular world but I am not talking about horns and hoofs. I am talking about how a man can shoot hundreds at a concert in Las Vegas for no apparent reason.
Regarding the Koran, indeed I am being judged as an infidel, and if I were in a Muslim country I would be persecuted for it. How would I feel about that you ask? I would hope I would embrace the words of Jesus and realize that I am being blessed with an eternal reward of great value. I only say âhopeâ because I have not been tested, and my physical self is a coward, but with the grace of God in my spiritual self I would put my trust in Him. As a believing Christian I have to realize every day that God has me covered, and my worst case scenario is eternal life in heaven. And that being the case my goal is not to think of myself but others and what I can do for them while here on earth. In that mission I am solely lacking but at least I am trying. What is your mission?
I take that to mean how this can happen consistent with what science shows to us⌠Yes I agree.
I sadly must say that your conclusion is not based on what is in the Bible but on your own interpretation of the Bible and your own doctrines which YOU are adding to the Bible. Again, just because I happen to agree with you on the existence of the devil doesnât mean this defines Christianity.
But while I agree with you on the existence of the devil, I do not believe in any power of the devil except that which we give to the devil by abdicating our own responsibility as Adam and Eve did. So not only do I disagree with you about Christianity requiring a belief in this person, but more importantly I do not think a Christianity which pushes belief in the power of the devil is a good and healthy Christianity. Our faith should be given to God exclusively. Godâs love and power is all that matters.
The bible has many references to Satan and the devil. A prime example is Matthew 4: 1-17 tells of Jesusâ temptation by Satan. I am certainly not adding this to the bible! If a recent converted Christian is surprised by this and questions it, that is ok. Doubt and questioning is good because it builds faith.
But I see you do agree on the existence of the devil. And indeed if you have faith in Christ you will overcome Satan, as Jesus said, âI have overcome the world.â God allows Satan in this world, so that we can rely on Him to overcome temptation. So I agree with you, that indeed Godâs love and power is all that matters.
How do you know it is objective?
Then that would be a subjective morality because it is based on what a person subjectively believes.
So you wouldnât feel as if you are trying to run away from your responsibility to follow the objective morality laid out in the Koran?
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.