Ciro Galli - Values Cannot Be Objective
We often here Dr. William Lane Craig utter the collocation: "objective moral values" or similar. Doesn't that round weird to anybody? That both the words "objective" and "value" are used together when they mean opposite things on the range? How could a value ever be objective? Does Dr. Craig even know what a value is and where the word value stems from? A value requires some form of conscious evaluation to exist because for whatever reason a value is what a mind "values" precisely. To say that a value is objective is to say that it can exist independently of a mind. Dr. Craig always refers to these objective moral values in relation to God. His personal god by the way. He claims that if God exists then He is the source of those moral values. I see many problems there.
Let's pretend God is the source of moral values. At that very moment they would stop being objective to become subjective since they exist in a mind. We might obey them or not but they wouldn't be our values unless we valued them the same. Values also can't exist independently of their environment. That is to say a value cannot be such without connection to anything else. Values are not random but determined by their implications. Otherwise they would be just whims. A value must be causally related to someone's well-being, misery and losses. So values can never be static or absolute but varying accordingly to what they produce. So values could never be objective, that is independent of everything else. Even if they exist in god's mind they exist in a mind and therefore subjective. We can obey them or not but to truly value them we must do it intrinsically and value them by what they are: by what they contribute or take away.
Reply - 1
ResponderBorrarWe often here Dr. William Lane Craig utter the collocation: "objective moral values" or similar…. To say that a value is objective is to say that it can exist independently of a mind. Dr. Craig always refers to these objective moral values in relation to God. His personal god by the way. He claims that if God exists then He is the source of those moral values. I see many problems there.”
WLC rarely interjects the Christian God when debating if there are morals and can they be grounded in God. He only deals with the ontological question.
Certainly he, as I do, believes in the Christian God as revealed by Jesus. But in his debates and papers, when speaking only about if morals can be grounded in God, he specifically speaks to just the “being” God, and not a particular God of any religion.
For one, Christian morality is contingent upon whether or not God exists. That is, Christian morality can ONLY exist if God exists – but they don’t have to. Another “set” of morals could exist. The ontological question is whether or not objective morals DO exist.
Hence, WLC argues that IF morals DO exist, only God can be the foundation for them.
The question of “which” morality is right and how do we know it – is the epistemological question.
For example, in his debate with Sam Harris, he debates only the ontological aspect of the question. Sam does try to bring in Christianity specifically, but that’s to stray from the topic and go into epistemological question: how do we KNOW which morality is correct.
Chris
Part - 2
Borrar“Let's pretend God is the source of moral values. At that very moment they would stop being objective to become subjective since they exist in a mind.”
It seems here you are equating God’s “mind” vs. our mind. And that only moral values are from God’s mind and not his very nature. Sure, if they just came from his mind – regardless of his nature – they could be subjective. This is how we operate. They don’t necessarily have to exist, he could have chosen them or not.
However, if morality is grounded in God’s nature – his natural goodness – then they are objective. There is no choice, because he IS the standard. He cannot command outside of his nature. That would be illogical.
But like WLC, I argue that morality emerges from God’s very nature, not his mind.
“We might obey them or not but they wouldn't be our values unless we valued them the same.”
True, but that doesn’t mean they AREN’T objective. Because we can think differently about them speaks not to their objectivity at all.
I might not like the rules to chess and wish not to play by them with friends…yet the rules of chess remain and if I wish to play true chess I will follow them, despite my feeling toward them.
Chris
And 3...
Borrar“Values also can't exist independently of their environment. That is to say a value cannot be such without connection to anything else. Values are not random but determined by their implications. Otherwise they would be just whims.”
Correct. On this we agree. That is why morality is grounded in God’s very nature. It’s his nature that good/evil are compared to.
After all, you need at least one straight line to know if another is crooked. God is that straight line.
“A value must be causally related to someone's well-being, misery and losses.”
This doesn’t necessarily follow. Why “must” it be? While certainly someone can value “well-being” they don’t have to.
In addition, you say “So values can never be static or absolute but varying accordingly to what they produce. So values could never be objective, that is independent of everything else.”
But you made an objective statement! You said values MUST be causally related to well-being, misery, and losses.
If values are not objective, then they don’t HAVE TO be causally related to anything.
And if they vary according to what they produce, you can produce a lot of misery for one group of people, yet produce MORE well-being for another. Thus, as long as one group has more people experiencing “well-being” than another, than…well, you see the problem.
“We can obey them or not but to truly value them we must do it intrinsically and value them by what they are: by what they contribute or take away.”
This doesn’t logically follow. If values aren’t objective, then there is no “MUST” despite our feelings toward them. Especially intrinsically. TO value something is not the same as something ACTUALLY having value.
I may value my wife, but that doesn’t mean she truly has value. And according to you, she truly doesn’t, since value cannot be objective.
The only way values and morals can be objective is if they are TRULY GROUNDED in something.
Even Sam Harris believes this. Which is odd since you promote his view, yet disagree that morality is objective.
You have morality grounded in “well-being.” But I can show you many things you would deem immoral or wrong, yet fall right within that def. Plus, you hold that values are NOT objective…thus, in reality, whether you like it or not, have just stated that all is permitted. Nothing is truly, ever wrong.
1st part.
Borrar"It seems here you are equating God’s “mind” vs. our mind. And that only moral values are from God’s mind and not his very nature. Sure, if they just came from his mind – regardless of his nature – they could be subjective. This is how we operate. They don’t necessarily have to exist, he could have chosen them or not."
Well, God, in the Christian mythology is conceived as a mind. Without going much further, the 1st building block of religion, according to anthropology of religion, what makes religions what they are, is: the distinctive beliefs in anthropomorphic agents, not only physically but mentally and emotionally. Admit it: having a "moral value" as part of your nature, and that value being objective at the same time, doesn't make much sense. And the contradiction carries on. If the value is part of a being, is not part of the other beings, therefore it is subjective whether is in a mind or not. If it's a value, requires by definition a mind or other cognitive evaluations that value it, because of its implications, and should change those implications, the values should change along. God's nature is described as immutable. So it's impossible to reconcile all of this.
"True, but that doesn’t mean they AREN’T objective. Because we can think differently about them speaks not to their objectivity at all.
I might not like the rules to chess and wish not to play by them with friends…yet the rules of chess remain and if I wish to play true chess I will follow them, despite my feeling toward them."
Again, the whole enterprise contradicts itself. Are we supposed to value God's objective moral values? In that case, they would become our values, whether God exists or not. And the only way in which God's values, if He's to exist, can become our own, is if we valued them because of their repercussions, and not because they come from God. I can't reconcile the idea that if a value is part of a being then it's objective. It's an oxymoron. But let's say God's values are objective. Once WE value them because of their repercussions, become subjective. And the only way we would value them is because we know those repercussions. That's the only way a moral value can stand on its own. An objective moral value that is imposed onto us, doesn't mean anything to us.
Your analogy is wrong, because is not about whether you play chess or not, but once you find yourself playing already, you value the precept: to eat as many pieces as possible" That precept is valued directly with the potential results of the game.
to be continued...
2nd. part.
Borrar"But you made an objective statement! You said values MUST be causally related to well-being, misery, and losses."
What I meant was "moral" values, which is the kind of values we're referring to here. The implications of moral values are objective, and are precisely those implications that make someone value it at all. Yes, implications (well-being, misery, etc.) are objective, and from those implications derive the subjective value. A value cannot exist objectively or be imposed.
"If values aren’t objective, then there is no “MUST” despite our feelings toward them. Especially intrinsically. TO value something is not the same as something ACTUALLY having value.
I may value my wife, but that doesn’t mean she truly has value. And according to you, she truly doesn’t, since value cannot be objective."
Again, I'm referring to moral values. Let's say I might value the moral precept: "you won't kill" Whether or not I value this moral precept is always on the basis of its implications. Because either it causes someone's level of well-being to go up or down, or someone's level of misery to go up or down. There are no moral precepts whose implications are neutral. It would lose its moral quality. Morality is about the living together of conscious creatures. Let's say: "you won't crack pebbles" could never be a moral precept, for it does not affect anybody's well-being or suffering. Whether I value your wife or not, if my actions alters one conscious creature's well-being or misery, including your wife's, I'm talking about a moral behavior, whether good or bad, from which I could, if I wanted to derive a moral precept.
You don't understand Harris's position. He doesn't claim that morality is objective. He claims that science can answer moral questions and makes us flourish. He claims that the things we value not always lead us to well-being or flourishing, and science and trial-and-error could help us make decisions, that some times albeit contrary to our values (religious or natural), would lead us to flourishing.
thanks for replying,
Ciro.
Let’s walk this through a bit slower…
ResponderBorrar“Admit it: having a "moral value" as part of your nature, and that value being objective at the same time, doesn't make much sense.”
It IS his nature. Not a part of his nature. IE – a straight line IS straight. Straightness is not part of the line – it IS the line. If it were to curve or change anywhere it would not be a straight line.
AND certainly it can still be objective. Because it’s His nature, despite his “feelings” “emotions” etc and independent of His mind.
Perhaps you are confused as to what objective means:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
A straight line is objectively straight as it fits each one of those def.
“If the value is part of a being, is not part of the other beings, therefore it is subjective whether is in a mind or not.”
The value IS the being. But your second part is incorrect and doesn’t follow logically at all. I’m not a straight line, however that doesn’t there aren’t straight lines or that they aren’t objectively straight.
God is the standard of morality. The “ruler” as it were to which my actions are compared to. I am NOT the standard, however, that doesn’t mean a standard doesn’t exist.
“. If it's a value, requires by definition a mind or other cognitive evaluations that value it, because of its implications, and should change those implications, the values should change along. God's nature is described as immutable. So it's impossible to reconcile all of this.”
Again, this doesn’t follow logically.
A definition is NOT the quality – it DESCRIBES the quality. That is the quality exists, the definition labels it.
A straight line is NOT straight because of it’s definition – the definition exists BECAUSE a straight line exists.
Sure, a mind is required to define or recognize a value, but the value MUST exist independent of the mind if it truly exists. Example: do you believe logic exists? Even if there were no minds to recognize it? Either logic truly exists, or it doesn’t regardless of a mind – which makes it objective.
Now I can change HOW I value something, but that doesn’t change the actual value of it. Say: I prefer curved lines to straight lines. That’s a value I hold of lines, but that does nothing to change the value of what a straight line IS. It still is a straight line.
You show me when a the value of what a straight line IS can and does change…then you might have a case.
But it seems you are just interchanging something’s true value, with that of what someone can value it for. Quite different.
“Again, the whole enterprise contradicts itself. Are we supposed to value God's objective moral values? In that case, they would become our values, whether God exists or not.”
ResponderBorrarHow is this a contradiction? The only problem with your scenario is that without God, they aren’t objective. They are values that we accepted and value for no other reason than we chose them. To accept God’s objective morals is to make a conscious choice, but that doesn’t mean the morals aren’t objective. They are TRUE REGARDLESS of what I decide about them, that’s WHY they are objective.
His morals are true despite my agreeing with them. That’s what it means to be objective, remember?
That my thoughts, values, opinions, etc. have no actual bearing on whether or not something is truly right/wrong. They either are right or wrong.
“And the only way in which God's values, if He's to exist, can become our own, is if we valued them because of their repercussions, and not because they come from God. I can't reconcile the idea that if a value is part of a being then it's objective. It's an oxymoron.”
Why can they not become my own because they came from God? A person searching for truth, that is, what is true morality, could certainly agree to God’s morality despite what the repercussions are. That statement doesn’t make sense.
I explained the last part of the sentence earlier.
“But let's say God's values are objective. Once WE value them because of their repercussions, become subjective.”
No they don’t.
Because regardless if we accept them, like them, want them, etc. They still exist!
The objective morals exists REGARDLESS of our values – that’s what makes them objective.
“ And the only way we would value them is because we know those repercussions.”
No, there are other ways we can value them. Truth for one. Second, you are bringing in theology where it currently doesn’t belong. Is something objective or not?
(also, your theology is wrong anyway as it pertains to Christianity if this is your argument. But I digress)
“That's the only way a moral value can stand on its own. An objective moral value that is imposed onto us, doesn't mean anything to us.”
No, EXISTS despite us and our thoughts, etc.
“What I meant was "moral" values, which is the kind of values we're referring to here. The implications of moral values are objective, and are precisely those implications that make someone value it at all. Yes, implications (well-being, misery, etc.) are objective, and from those implications derive the subjective value. A value cannot exist objectively or be imposed.”
ResponderBorrarIncorrect. As I have shown in the previous replies. It’s your misuse of “value” that gets you confused.
”Again, I'm referring to moral values. Let's say I might value the moral precept: "you won't kill" Whether or not I value this moral precept is always on the basis of its implications.”
That’s fine, but whether or not you value it is subjective. You can value that precept, but I don’t have to and you can’t say I’m wrong for not valuing it. That is, you can’t say your value of the precept is the TRUE and CORRECT view.
“Whether I value your wife or not, if my actions alters one conscious creature's well-being or misery, including your wife's, I'm talking about a moral behavior, whether good or bad, from which I could, if I wanted to derive a moral precept.”
I never said you couldn’t! I said it wouldn’t be OBJECTIVE to that you couldn’t say it was TRUE or CORRECT. It was a precept you created because YOU valued it, not because it truly exists or is right. Your morality would be subjective.
”You don't understand Harris's position. He doesn't claim that morality is objective.”
Oh, yes he does. Perhaps you should go watch the debate with him and WLC again. Even in the video he speaks of objectivity. Or read the book again.
It’s BECAUSE he believes in objectivity that he created this theory – a naturalistic answer.
“He claims that science can answer moral questions and makes us flourish.”
Correct. Objective moral answers – watch the video again.
I think you missed what Sam was trying to answer – where do we get objective morals from. He says science can answer that for us. Yet fails to show how, as you have as well.
But yes, Ciro, he does believe in objective morality.
His own words: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-myth-of-secular-moral-chaos
“Clearly, we can think of objective sources of moral order that do not require the existence of a law-giving God. In The End of Faith, I argued that questions of morality are really questions about happiness and suffering. If there are objectively better and worse ways to live so as to maximize happiness in this world, these would be objective moral truths worth knowing.” SH.
- Chris
Here's another link too: http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com/2010/05/sam-harris-goes-for-objective-morality.html
ResponderBorrarand a random one - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111205141203AAoEQKa
Perhaps you have misunderstood Mr. Harris' position.
You two are at odds, sorry.