Objective/Intrinsic Values

[tirtlegrrl]

There seems to be a debate going on currently, regarding the nature of "objective" values and where they come from.

I've been wondering why some atheists feel it necessary to assert the existence of "objective" values outside of the determination of a deity.

Can someone tell me why this is important? Have I missed some crucial definition or argument? What is the/is there a difference between the "objective" morals as practiced by humans and "intrinsic" value as applied to same? Is it possible for humans to have "intrinsic" value at all, seeing as value is determined by the person doing the valuing?

Thanks folks. -TG

[darkumbra]

I do not believe in this notion of 'objective' values.

'Values' are an outcome of how we desire, as living things, to survive AND of our inherent nature.

Is it right for a wasp to lay eggs on a living insect which when they hatch? will consume the living insect? Given that that is the nature of the wasp? It's perfectly okay to do that. The conclusion would not change if the Wasp became a intelligent being of some sort.

Is it right for us to consume living things? To kill living things by the billions? We eat. more to the point we MUST eat, plants and animals. We kill bacteria and viruses. This is what we do. This is who we are.

Morality is relative to the society of entities being discussed. The value we place on life is relative to the morality (patterns of behaviour) that work to promote/are conducive to our survival as a society. We have far too many examples at our disposal to honestly claim otherwise.

[NH Baritone]

I may be simply restating what DU's argument, but here goes:

Objective values put forward by non-theists typically focus on commonly held human-centric values. However, it's pretty clear that if they're only commonly held, and not fully universal, you cannot say that they're recognizably objective. And if we key in on human-centric values, we can ignore values that some folks think of as objective from the perspective of all life, not just human life, now and in the future.

Others point to objective values as those that take into account social nature of human beings and thus promote living harmoniously in community. However, when you try to apply this standard to specific moral discussions, the argument can support opposite sides of the same issue, including abortion, medical marijuana, state-supported welfare, etc.

It is probably more advantageous to see human values (just like human bodies, human cultures, and human social structures) as evolving over time, modified by pressures from our environment and pressures that arise from our intrinsic needs to protect for ourselves, to provide for ourselves, and to link up with other folks who are trying to do the same thing.

[Richard]

I don't think there are "objective values", at least in the theistic definition. I think the fear of moral relativism pushes many to invent shaky arguments for objective values.

[Emery]

I don't think there are "objective values", at least in the theistic definition. I think the fear of moral relativism pushes many to invent shaky arguments for objective values.

Hey, I resemble that remark. I believe there are moral standards that are objective to humans. They are objective within the human condition and our common goals.They just start to get complex when more and more factors are introduced. But the fact that such complexity requires subjective value judgments to sort thru them doesn't destroy the underlying objective "truths."

This is true for the theist as well: love your neighbor, for example, is relatively simple when it's just you and your neighbor. But when your neighbor becomes the rest of the world, it becomes far more complicated, and requires subjective evaluation.

Where I disagree with the theist is that these objective values are cosmic and universal. They are objective only as to humans. Killing humans is wrong as to humans, but not to other animals or the rest of the universe.

[Richard]

Personally I agree with your definition of "objective values" and your arguments.

But when talking about the theist position you say:

Where I disagree with the theist is that these objective values are cosmic and universal.

You disagree on the definition. Therefore all your arguments become irrelevant in that context.

So, with a theist, the only argument is about the definition. The rest comes naturally once the definition is settled.

[Emery]

Good point, Richard. On the cosmic scale, they kick my butt. But, one thing I have going for me: they have yet to prove this cosmic moral realm exists.

However, they argue in the earthly realm, and use the futility of humanistic morality to prove their point. On that level, all I have to do is show that humanistic morality works as well as theirs, and I believe I have at least fought them to a standstill.

[Brad]

Tirtlegrrl.
Are there atheists other than Emery who make a case for "objective" values, in particular any who are well-known?
If so, I'd like to hear or read what they have to say, but as of now I'm not aware of them.

Emery's argument either doesn't quite make sense or is way over my head. The second of those possibilities is not at all unlikely.

But FWIW, my computer dictionary defines "objective" as follows (the relevant definitions, anyway):

1 (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts : historians try to be objective and impartial. Contrasted with subjective .
• not dependent on the mind for existence; actual : a matter of objective fact.

Based on those definitions, I'd have to agree with DU and NHB. It seems to me that values, morals, and ethics must either be,
1) Provided by an aware, purposeful being outside the realm of earthly existence, or
2) Solely the result of human considerations, i.e., dependent on our minds - our personal opinions in considering and representing facts, which is all to say subjective.

Theists, notably from the podcasts the insufferable Mr. Turek, of course advocate the former, which seems to offer them a sense of comfort and security. Comfort and security seem to be the prime motivators for theism in general, but that's another discussion. Anyway, beyond their unsupported assertions that such a being exists, virtually everything we observe points to the second possibility, does it not?

Contra also to the circular theist position**, the fact that values change and are not intrinsic in no way lessens their importance and necessity. In fact, if they couldn't change appropriately and with changing circumstances, they would become less useful over time, wouldn't they - ummm, rather like the laws put forth in that Hebrew book - what's it called again?

Then there is also the issue of exactly what are the values promoted by whichever deity happens to be favored. If values were truly objective, wouldn't clarity be one of their hallmarks?
Obviously, theists, not least Christians, say there is clarity in notions such as "love thy neighbor," but when you start asking them to apply such concepts, as someone mentioned above, the clarity quickly evaporates, thereby keeping theologians off food stamps and paving the way for impressive sounding terms like my recent pet word, "hermeneutic."
Given there is now and has always been constant disagreement among theists as to what those values are and which need be followed (see the ever-growing splits among the major religions), the values said to be objective are at best not very well described, which means the deity is either non-existent or incompetent, no?
Then comes the debate over whether "incompetent God" is an impossible oxymoron, and if not whether an incompetent God might be worthy of worship.
And if we are made in God's image, does that mean God looks like Moe or Curly?
And so forth.

**Our god exists. Therefore values and morals come from our god. We know that values and morals come from our god because our god exists.