On Objectivity

[R.F.]

Upon watching a debate between William Craig and Christopher Hitchens It seems either Dr. Craig, or I is entirely confused about what it means for something to be objective. It is the duty, it seems, of Dr. Craig to demand his opponent give an objective basis of morality or else not only is he [the opponent] wrong, but then it logically follows God [as in Yahweh] exists. This is by far the most fallacious claim ever made by a Christian apologist in my opinion. What’s more is his idea of objectivity is contradictory to what objectivity really is. He declares proudly in the discussion that if morality was simply a biological process which we have evolved to have, then morality cannot be objective. However is this not the perfect definition of objectivity? Is something in the realm of experience independent of opinion not objective?

My question is this- If morality is an evolutionary trait, [in the same way emotion, or the ability to feel pain is an evolutionary trait] isn’t that the epitome of objectivity?

Objective - Definition

[Cephus]

It's hardly the most fallacious claim, but it's up there. It's typical for Craig though, he's an irrational git with an overactive ego, but that seems typical for a lot of Christian apologists. They're supremely convinced they're right and make ridiculous claims, based on nothing, even if proven the claim is wrong. Logic and reason have nothing whatsoever to do with religious apologetics.

[el ايمان]

I'd think that if a general sense of morality was alleged to have arisen from evolution, then it would be objective. And of course from there, we would have more subjective leanings based on societal pressures from the dominant majority.

[Cephus]

I don't think you can even argue for a general sense of morality, except as a social means of enlightened self interest. We understand that we need to treat others in society the way we want to be treated, thus arises morality. There's no more morality in that than in a colony of ants working together being moral. It simply is their means to individual success through social cooperation, which leads to species success.

[R.F.]

I think it could be said that, in regards to a general morality, certain behaviors are innate. For example it's possible that ripping a baby in half is intrinsically inappropriate behavior, but perhaps it's not so objectively true that it's good to pay your taxes. Although the concern here is to the degree rather than the objectivity [of morality] it shows, I think, that if morals were evolved that we as humans are good without God.

But I suppose this doesn't preclude a higher power, which is not something I'm concerned with... I just wonder if people, animals, or any species for that matter actually need a higher power to behave appropriately.

[el ايمان]

I don't think you can even argue for a general sense of morality, except as a social means of enlightened self interest. We understand that we need to treat others in society the way we want to be treated, thus arises morality. There's no more morality in that than in a colony of ants working together being moral. It simply is their means to individual success through social cooperation, which leads to species success.

This is what I'm trying to convey by "general sense of morality". The more subjective specifics that I mentioned are things that are currently viewed by some people as "moral issues", like abortion.

[JimmyNic]

I don't think that morality is objective, but I don't believe that's a problem.

[Cephus]

This is what I'm trying to convey by "general sense of morality". The more subjective specifics that I mentioned are things that are currently viewed by some people as "moral issues", like abortion.

That's fine, that's why you really need to define what you mean by morality since the way most people use it doesn't really make much sense that way. We do have biological imperatives provided by evolution and we have societally-invented morals. I don't know that the two have much to do with each other.

[R.F.]

I've heard alot of people assert moral behavior is subjective. I've never known someone who could explain how they knew it was so.

Morality is merely appropriate or inappropriate behavior. The only thing perpexling about the issue, is that people think there has to a be a value system associated with moral decisions. I don't doubt certain concepts of what is ethical are subjective. But I don't see what that has to do with an objective foundation of right and wrong behavior.

[BlackSheep]

I believe what he means by objective is that it universal and not related to the individual, culture or species. If we evolved a genetic moral code for example it varies with the genes we possess. It is subjective to the species as well.

For example. Lets say we have a moral compunction in our genes to not kill people we know as family or friends. This is subjective to the individual. A objective moral code would be killing humans is wrong, regardless of how they relate to you or if you are eve human. This objective moral code would exist regardless of your genes.

Certainly I understand your confusion.

[BlackSheep]

I've heard alot of people assert moral behavior is subjective. I've never known someone who could explain how they knew it was so.

It is simple. What I think is appropriate is not the same as you. What Western society thinks in appropriate is not the same as Eastern society. Therefor morality is not universal. It is subjective.

Morality is merely appropriate or inappropriate behavior. The only thing perpexling about the issue, is that people think there has to a be a value system associated with moral decisions. I don't doubt certain concepts of what is ethical are subjective. But I don't see what that has to do with an objective foundation of right and wrong behavior.

By value system do you mean a rational framework to chose what is appropriate ad what is not? I agree that there is not always a rational framework. We can see this when asked why X is wrong and people say "It just is" or "If you don't see this is wrong there is something wrong with you" or "If you don't understand then I am sure I can't explain it to you."

[R.F.]

I believe what he means by objective is that it universal and not related to the individual, culture or species. If we evolved a genetic moral code for example it varies with the genes we possess. It is subjective to the species as well.

For example. Lets say we have a moral compunction in our genes to not kill people we know as family or friends. This is subjective to the individual. A objective moral code would be killing humans is wrong, regardless of how they relate to you or if you are eve human. This objective moral code would exist regardless of your genes.

Certainly I understand your confusion.

But even if it existed in various degrees from person to person, it does not mean that morality is subjective. Emotion varies from person to person, but I don't think anyone doubts it's existence as an objective phenomena. If genetic variance determined a things objectivity, then we could just as easily conclude any species can only exist subjectively- because genetic coding determines the nature of our existence. In the same way arms, legs, tears and smiles exist, morality exists; existing in various degrees from animal to animal, but nonetheless existing free from individual opinion. This is what it means to be objective.