Wise Windu wrote:Is it possible to explain further?
Sure, definitely.
The words objective and subjective do get confusing in philosophy since they can mean different things in the same sentence sometimes. xD
Objective Morality is just the name of the idea that there is a moral code that exists even when there is no one left to believe in this moral code. And in that sense, that moral code is as objective, real, and true as 1+1=2. Even when there's no one left, it will still hold true.
Atheists are not opposed to this idea, they are opposed to utilizing and living by this idea before it has been proven. Thus, the burden of proof is now on people who believe in an objective morality. They have to prove to the atheist that there is in fact, some kind of moral code that exists in the objective, rather than the subjective. In other words, this moral code must be capable of being subjected to scientific testing, and cannot only exist because it exists in the minds of men.
If such moral codes are so deeply ingrained in the nature of the universe, that a law such as "thou shall not bangeth thoust neighbor's wife" would perpetuate timelessly, there has to be some kind of source for this law. Where did such a moral code come from?
Saying God's rules are objective, and basing this only on your religion, is highly subjective, and I don't see how that would be considered "the objective morality", unless it's just being named that for the sake of having an official title for religious morality. So I guess I don't see the conundrum. The atheist is rejecting the "objective morality", but that shouldn't mean he is immediately accepting the subjective morality, should it?
The vast majority of people who choose to believe in an objective moral code are members of Judeo-Christian religions, and thus, often find themselves backed into a corner where they are forced to reference the Ten Commandments/the Beatitudes when pressured to come up with empirical evidence for Objective Morality, which, as you pointed out, is
completely subjective.
Thus, usually, at this point, the Atheist can claim victory over the Theist, and do a victory dance, as he has proven that Objective Morality cannot exist as it has no empirically determinable origin.
But the problem is that Atheists, generally speaking, do not like acting on subjective notions. They dislike the idea that they cannot work on Sundays because that's the day when God took a break, because this notion is entirely subjective and to them, arbitrary and frivolous. They also dislike the idea that driving faster than 100kmph is morally wrong because some dudes said so.
By rejecting that an objective morality exists after a spar with the theist who cited divinity as the source of this morality, the atheist, ironically, creates a situation where he now has to defend objective morality, the very thing he just rejected, because the alternative, subjective morality, is basically the same thing as religion, which the atheist wants nothing to do with. That's the conundrum.
You do raise an interesting point, however, here:
The atheist is rejecting the "objective morality", but that shouldn't mean he is immediately accepting the subjective morality, should it?
Why doesn't the atheist just adopt the view of a moral nihilist and believe that morality is neither subjective nor objective, but that it simply does not exist? In other words, why not believe that there is no intrinsic value, good or bad, to any action taken?
There are multiple answers to this question, and I'm afraid I can't give you all of them. I can tell you with absolute certainty, however, that many of my atheist/agnostic friends are moral nihilists(whether they know it or not).
That being said, the best answer I can give you for why a real atheist should reject moral nihilism is not because moral nihilism is wrong, but rather the fact that it, like subjective morality, is a poor substitute for an objective morality for the atheist. The basic tenets of atheism more or less rest on the idea that only what can be scientifically proven should be believed and acted upon.
In addition, if one interprets Moral nihilism as a subjective belief(as I do), there are further issues. A lot like what many "atheists" on the internet(scare quotes because they're really anti-theists) who run around making posts telling people how God doesn't exist, etc... moral nihilists make the assertion that morality does not exist and thus the burden of proof is on them to prove that it does not exist. This may seems simple, but failure to produce proof of existence is not the same as proof that something does not exist(see gravity back in 1400s). Thus, in my opinion, moral nihilism is actually quite subjective, and thus, unacceptable for an atheist.
Should the Atheist accept a subjective moral code, he is essentially committing himself to a code of beliefs held only because the vast majority of people hold these beliefs to be true. This is the ultimate irony for the atheist, because in rejecting objective morality, he has committed himself to subjective morality, which is, give or take, virtually the same as ascribing to some kind of religion.
I phrased this part poorly, and I believe that some of your confusion stems from this. This was largely to provide emphasis on the fact that the atheist is stuck between two equally bad choices.
The conundrum is not that the atheist has to choose between one of the options, but that he is really ultimately forced to try to prove what he has just proven false, and that it is incredibly difficult for him to prove that objective morality exists, whether it is really a length moral code, or just moral nihilism. In other words, while the atheist generally rejects objective morality by rejecting its traditional source, the atheist simultaneously would want to find/research an objective morality due to his desire to live in an objective world - one governed by empirical data and science.
Going back to Torpid's question - I never tried to answer it, and I don't think that there really is a good answer for it. I think he was being a bit cheeky, but I don't know him well enough to know!
The issue he brings up is ultimately somewhat similar to the Anti-theists complete rejection of religion and God(s) - that ironically, in their absolutist rejection, they are actually holding a subjective belief(aka, religion) that there is 100% no chance of a supreme being/god existing. That's a completely different problem, but the idea is that they have to rectify it, but have a really, really hard time doing so.
KanKrusha wrote:Does "Moar Dakka!" count as an objective moral code?
Yes, absolutely.
Addendum:
Actually, KanKrusha brings up an interesting facet to this discussion. In the world of wh40k, there exists the Warp/Immaterium. Gork and Mork, the gods of the Ork race, actually exist in this immaterium because of the collective unconscious beliefs of the Orks that they do actually exist.
Thus, if "Moar Dakka" was in fact the will of Gork and Mork, then the moral code would certainly be objective in the sense that it has an origin, but there is a further problem:
Because of the fact that there are multiple races in the universe and thus, conflicting ideologies/cultures, it could be said that the morality of the Orks is unique to them alone, and thus, is subjective.
Furthermore, because of the fact that Gork and Mork are creations manifested by the unconscious desires of the Orks in general, technically speaking, they are not infinite. And thus, anything that would bring the favor of Gork and Mork would also, be finite, and as a result, be subjective morality.
In the wh40k universe, objective morality ultimately has to be something extremely simplistic(if it does exist) that every race in the galaxy subscribes to it.
