Morality: Do you agree

[Truthseeker]

Do you agree with this, that without God there is no moral foundation for judging right from wrong? And therefore people not believing in objective morality is not allowed or invalid when judging others?

What is objective morality anyway? I don't know what that is. I believe that atheists have morals too.

 

[Truthseeker]

I certainly think religion claiming morality for itself is morally wrong.

Agree.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If I believed in a deity, I would consider the first quite possible, but the second not to be.

I'm the opposite of these. For all we know, a universe might have Laws that can be tweaked and adjusted, but it could be out a millions ways it can happen this is one of the few or only that can provide long term stability (or not and this too is a short lived failure).
But how we function is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. If we were solitary animals, for example, if that's how god made us then nothing really changes except we'd probably be like other solitary animals and murder likely wouldn't bother us as much and taking care of others a deadly liability.

 

[Augustus]

My question is: What is the distinction between a regular human being decreeing what is the objective morality and God doing the same?

I see no distinction. It is just an arbitrary set of rules created by someone.

Not if you see the god as external to the universe we live in.

Getting checkmated is objectively bad in a game of chess (assuming you are playing to win which is the purpose).

In the game the rules aren't arbitrary, they are facts that must be worked with.

That the rules were arbitrary when created, doesn't make them arbitrary within the game so that any claim by a player says is equally valid.

If God exists then our world is sandboxed and can have rules like a game of chess.

 

[sayak83]

Not if you see the god as external to the universe we live in.

Getting checkmated is objectively bad in a game of chess (assuming you are playing to win which is the purpose).

In the game the rules aren't arbitrary, they are facts that must be worked with.

That the rules were arbitrary when created, doesn't make them arbitrary within the game so that any claim by a player says is equally valid.

If God exists then our world is sandboxed and can have rules like a game of chess.

Usually objective morality is not meant that way. For example within Afganistan you can say that the morality imposed by the Taliban is actually objective as they have set the rules. The case of God setting the moral rules for the universe is also a similar case. Here objective is meant as "independent of the personal subjective preferences of any entity whatsoever ". If the moral rules of this universe is dependent on personal preferences of God then they are subjective regardless of his capability to impose it on everything.

 

[Nimos]

What makes it so that God's moral views cannot be wrong?

Because he is the very foundation for it, it is from him the claim that objective morality comes.

Equal to asking who/what decides that 2 + 2 = 4 and not 5.

 

[AppieB]

There are many strategies to deal with the Hume problem. My favorite approach is to discover an axiomatic foundation for good and bad. Then you have a basis for objective ethics. It's up to each person themselves to determine whether they "ought" to do the good thing or the bad thing. So, as long as we are talking about good and bad, we are being descriptive and my example is apt. Of course there are many objections to this approach. I don't mean you should just accept my answer based on what I've said here. I'm just giving you the basic gist. G.E. Moore also has a compelling solution to the is/ought problem.

But you are smuggling in a value statement ("good and bad") that is not mind independent. There is no cosmic descripte law that says something is good or bad.

I have an ongoing discussion with Brian, Ella, and others in the philosophy subforum in this thread. If you are as obsessed with objective ethics as we are, feel free to join us. I have written several essay-length answers to the questions your asking to Ella over the past two weeks, so I hope you'll forgive me for not wanting to repeat myself.

I will take a look. As well as the YouTube clips. Thanks!

 

[Nimos]

What is objective morality anyway? I don't know what that is. I believe that atheists have morals too.

Objective morality in this sense means that something is wrong whether you believe so or not or said in another way whether you exist or not.

Subjective morality means that it is from the point of view of a subject (a human, alien, you or me etc.) and that it changes depending on the subject, meaning that you might think killing someone is morally right, while I think it is wrong because we are different subjects.

If God exist and as claimed is the moral judge, he has decided or is the creator of what is right and wrong and if he says that killing is immoral then that is wrong regardless of what you think. You deciding to kill someone or "celebrate" the killing of someone is inheritably wrong because God says that it is and therefore you would basically go against the will of God.

This obviously goes the other way as well, so when God say that certain sexuality is wrong and should be punished by death, you are not doing anything immoral for following that statement, because God says that it is good.

People like me for instance, which don't believe objective morality exists, but that it is subjective, will make the claim that there is no moral judge like a God or anything else for that matter which are capable of making a such judgement call, but rather that our morality is based on what society or individuals believe is morally right or wrong, based on evolution, our environment meaning where we were raised etc. And if said person is raised to believe that killing people of a given sexual orientation is morally right, that might only apply to that specific society. But ultimately there is no right or wrong, meaning that you won't find a universal moral judge, like a God, holding people accountable for breaking these moral rules, because they are man-made or evolved. Said in a simple way, morality is merely an agreed-upon set of rules of how to behave.

And this open up for all the fun questions like:

Stealing is immoral.

But if a starving kid steals in order to survive is that also immoral and should they be punished for it?

And questions like these

 

[Augustus]

Usually objective morality is not meant that way. For example within Afganistan you can say that the morality imposed by the Taliban is actually objective as they have set the rules. The case of God setting the moral rules for the universe is also a similar case. Here objective is meant as "independent of the personal subjective preferences of any entity whatsoever ". If the moral rules of this universe is dependent on personal preferences of God then they are subjective regardless of his capability to impose it on everything.

The Taliban are not external to the world, they are part of it. They can be replaced. There are numerous competing governments with different values.

An omnimax God made the world and everything in it according to their own design. Even the ability to conceptualise an idea of morality is entirely reliant on their will.

To all humans this God's moral laws are objective standards by which their actions can be judged, just as checkmate objectively ends a chess match.

They are independent of any subjective preferences of anyone in the world.

In this designed world, they are as objective as scientific laws. If you insist moral laws are subjective as god chose them, the scientific laws are also subjective as they are dependent on God's will also.

On a meta level, whether an Omnimax God's choices can ever be considered subjective depends on your theology. There are arguments that it couldn't be considered subjective, but arguments based on theologies of gods I don't believe in aren't really that meaningful

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But if God is real and is the moral judge, which is obviously the assumption. Such a being would give a foundation for objective morality.

This assumes God dictates objective morality, which is a subjective axiom. It's possible for God to exist and yet do no such thing. It's also possible for God's standards to change. So you can't really escape subjectivity even if we accept the axiom.

But if no such judge exists, what would the foundation for objective morality be?

You can't. You just have to accept that, at a fundamental level, morality is subjective. Or, at the very least, based on subjective axioms.

 

[Augustus]

Could he have created a different morality? Say, one where murder is good and caring for others is bad?

If I believed in a deity, I would consider the first quite possible, but the second not to be.

Some animals would have a "morality" that is akin to "murder is good/caring is bad".

Why, hypothetically, couldn't humans have been made that way?

 

[AppieB]

I do agree with most of what you say, I personally do not see any evidence for objective morality at all. And I do agree that well-being, despite how vague of a term it is, is to some degree what morality is based on. However, I think well-being is far more egoistic than one would assume. For instance, it is difficult to argue that a person like Putin, Hitler or Stalin etc. is especially concerned about the well-being of other humans. These are obviously extreme examples, but a person choosing to drive drunk, too fast etc. knowing the potential risk of doing so, is not having the well-being of other humans at heart. So in the greater scheme of things, I think that well-being as far as it benefits oneself is probably accurate.

I would agree that the fundamental motivation (consciously and/or unconsciously) is egoistic. The same that altruism for the most part is egoistic. I don't see this as something problematic. But we humans are social creatures with the capacity to feel empathy. And we can reason.
As for your examples: I'm pretty sure that even Putin, Hitler and Stalin are/were persons that not only cared about their own well being, but also about the ones close around them (family and friends) and that they wouldn't want the things happen to them like they did to others. I would argue they have/had a disturbed view of reality and morality that is not reasonable and empathetic.
Are they wrong in a cosmic objective sense? No.
Are they wrong on the bases of my (or our) morality? Yes.

And also why I say that "well-being" is a muddy term, and have heard other atheists like Sam Harris etc. use it as a foundation for a "created" objective morality. But well-being can mean a lot of things, depending on whose perspective we look at it from.

Sure, so is health (mental and phisical). But we don't generally view this as a 'problem'. And we even built a whole science around it. Sounds to me like a red herring.
Granted, we should do more research about the definitions and implications of "well being", there is a lot to learn. But I don't see it as an obstacle to define morality.

 

[Nimos]

This assumes God dictates objective morality, which is a subjective axiom. It's possible for God to exist and yet do no such thing. It's also possible for God's standards to change. So you can't really escape subjectivity even if we accept the axiom.

No, because this claim isn't the only one. I agree if you look at it isolated, but I think believers would run into a whole lot of issues if God could be wrong and especially if what is written in the scriptures is not really true. In that case, everything that is written there could potentially be wrong because God could have made a mistake or changed his mind.

Therefore the claim that God is all good also applies, which means that God wouldn't do that I think one could argue that it would be evil if God just randomly changed his mind and people would have no way of knowing how they would be saved.

You can't. You just have to accept that, at a fundamental level, morality is subjective. Or, at the very least, based on subjective axioms.

Well that is not really an argument against those that believe in objective morality. That is merely a claim that it is subjective and that God doesn't exist.

 

[Nimos]

Sure, so is health (mental and phisical). But we don't generally view this as a 'problem'. And we even built a whole science around it. Sounds to me like a red herring.
Granted, we should do more research about the definitions and implications of "well being", there is a lot to learn. But I don't see it as an obstacle to define morality.

I don't think it is a red herring, even though I agree that well-being should be easily understood. I think the best example of this is by looking at past history. We know that humans pretty much all over the world have done human sacrifices to please gods. I don't think these people were less interested in the "well-being" of each other than we are, in fact, they might have been far more concerned because they were fewer and diseases, starvation due to bad seasons etc. could really kill off a lot of people. So sacrificing humans to the gods, I think was done with the best intentions, for the well-being of their society.

Even if you take Nazi Germany, a lot of them supported him and his ideas, because ultimately they thought that his ideas were good, and if their reason is based on "well-being" clearly their perception of what that means is vastly different than others. So unless there is a clear definition of what is meant by "well-being" it will be muddy.

Let's say that well-being covers the mental and physical well-being of humans. Does that apply to a murderer as well? or do we need to make an adjustment to which type of humans it refers to?

 

[Augustus]

Let's say that well-being covers the mental and physical well-being of humans. Does that apply to a murderer as well? or do we need to make an adjustment to which type of humans it refers to?

"Well-being" arguments have the problem of explaining which level the "well-being" applies to?

My well-being? My in-group's? All of Humanity's?

These often operate at cross purposes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, because this claim isn't the only one. I agree if you look at it isolated, but I think believers would run into a whole lot of issues if God could be wrong and especially if what is written in the scriptures is not really true. In that case, everything that is written there could potentially be wrong because God could have made a mistake or changed his mind.

Therefore the claim that God is all good also applies, which means that God wouldn't do that I think one could argue that it would be evil if God just randomly changed his mind and people would have no way of knowing how they would be saved.

But the axiom "God is all good" is also a subjective axiom. God COULD change their mind and it would still be good, and there is no objective standard against which you can assess God to necessarily be axiomatically good, so you are merely subjectively DETERMINING that God must be good.

Well that is not really an argument against those that believe in objective morality.

It isn't. It's just a different moral standard. You don't have to argue against the belief in objective morality in order to accept that morality is subjective.

That is merely a claim that it is subjective and that God doesn't exist.

Not really. Both could be true.

 

[Nimos]

"Well-being" arguments have the problem of explaining which level the "well-being" applies to?

My well-being? My in-group's? All of Humanity's?

These often operate at cross purposes.

Agree that is how I see it as well.

It is kind of like throwing the words "Good" and "Evil" around, they are descriptive words that are easily understood at a general level but are poorly defined or unspecific.

I would probably prefer "Quality of life" or "Living standard" as it would be easier, I think to define exactly what is meant and they would apply from a general perspective rather than an emotional perspective or opinion-based one.

Like healthy living conditions (house), access to medical services, security etc. Regardless of one's political view or potential hate towards certain groups of people, these things would apply regardless. Obviously one would have to spend more time defining them than I have done here.

 

[AppieB]

I don't think it is a red herring, even though I agree that well-being should be easily understood. I think the best example of this is by looking at past history. We know that humans pretty much all over the world have done human sacrifices to please gods. I don't think these people were less interested in the "well-being" of each other than we are, in fact, they might have been far more concerned because they were fewer and diseases, starvation due to bad seasons etc. could really kill off a lot of people. So sacrificing humans to the gods, I think was done with the best intentions, for the well-being of their society.

Sure, that's what they believed. But they were objectively wrong about what was beneficial to human well being.
The example you are giving is not about the clearity of the definition of well being, but about the assessment of actions regarding the matter of well being.

Even if you take Nazi Germany, a lot of them supported him and his ideas, because ultimately they thought that his ideas were good, and if their reason is based on "well-being" clearly their perception of what that means is vastly different than others. So unless there is a clear definition of what is meant by "well-being" it will be muddy.

Same here.

Let's say that well-being covers the mental and physical well-being of humans. Does that apply to a murderer as well? or do we need to make an adjustment to which type of humans it refers to?

In order to be reasonble and rational one must me consistent is his/her worldview. So no, we shouldn't make adjustments to which type of humans it refers to. It applies to everyone. That does not mean that per indivual there aren't differences to what someone likes or not.

 

[Nimos]

But the axiom "God is all good" is also a subjective axiom. God COULD change their mind and it would still be good, and there is no objective standard against which you can assess God to necessarily be axiomatically good, so you are merely subjectively DETERMINING that God must be good.

I would agree.

But a believer in God I think would disagree because they believe that God exists and "God is good". Again, if God suddenly changed his mind, let's say about homosexuality being wrong. What would that make God? How many people today don't suffer and have suffered due to this? It would be impossible to claim that God is good if he for whatever reason would turn around like this. So if you would claim that God could change his mind, which he could as he can do pretty much whatever he wants, it would also mean that he was wrong and eventually evil for allowing people to suffer for this. So God and subjective morality wouldn't work as I see it, it would destroy the believer's position, to claim that God simply changes his mind whenever he feels like it.

You don't have to argue against the belief in objective morality in order to accept that morality is subjective.

Yes, I think you have. I don't see how these would be compatible with each other.

Not really. Both could be true.

Sure they could, but doesn't change that it is still a claim. God could also exist and objective morality is true, doesn't change that it is also just a claim.

 

[Nimos]

Sure, that's what they believed. But they were objectively wrong about what was beneficial to human well being.
The example you are giving is not about the clearity of the definition of well being, but about the assessment of actions regarding the matter of well being.

But if they were wrong, what makes you sure that we will be right?

Sure we have a better understanding, but I'm pretty sure that they back then were as certain as we are today that they were right.

In order to be reasonble and rational one must me consistent is his/her worldview. So no, we shouldn't make adjustments to which type of humans it refers to. It applies to everyone. That does not mean that per indivual there aren't differences to what someone likes or not.

Will quote what I wrote to someone else, as I think this would be better than well-being:

It is kind of like throwing the words "Good" and "Evil" around, they are descriptive words that are easily understood at a general level but are poorly defined or unspecific.

I would probably prefer "Quality of life" or "Living standard" as it would be easier, I think to define exactly what is meant and they would apply from a general perspective rather than an emotional perspective or opinion-based one.

Like healthy living conditions (house), access to medical services, security etc. Regardless of one's political view or potential hate towards certain groups of people, these things would apply regardless. Obviously one would have to spend more time defining them than I have done here.