Morality: Do you agree

[LuisDantas]

Don't be silly, a hypothetical situation based on a imaginary scenario is not "dangerous nonsense".

The idea that an omnimax God could not create "rules" for his creation is nonsense though.

I always consider sayings that might lead people morally astray as dangerous.

In this case, you are taking for granted that a god-given morality is not only extant, but also supreme and static.

Those are self-contradictory and, yes, very dangerous assumptions.

 

[Koldo]

No, but the idea of God is capable of it as a potential agent for objective morality. A human is not. Whether God exists or not, is irrelevant when the topic is about whether objective morality gives a foundation for moral judgement, whereas subjective morality doesn't.

Whether God exists or not is another topic.

Why aren't humans capable of being a potential agent for objective morality?

Most likely not. But I think it is easier to twist it around so it fits actual morality as we experience it:

Would you murder someone if you didn't think it was morally wrong?

And my answer to that would be that you would most likely see little issues with murdering someone. But in that case, you would probably fall into the category of being a psychopath. But I fail to see how that is relevant in regard to objective and subjective morality?

If what really matters on how we are going to behave and judge morality is our personal subjective morality rather than objective morality, what is the value in objective morality?

 

[LuisDantas]

That's a different understanding of what objective morality means than I have. When people talk about objective morality, they seem to usually mean a moral code independent of individual moral judgment.

I'm aware. But I find that definition self-contradictory; morality requires taking the particulars of the situation into account to the best of everyone's ability.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Well, you are just you.

Some millionaires are devoting a great part of their fortunes to discover a way to prolong life. And most people get very happy when they listen some news about it.

They all die in those stories.

 

[Nimos]

Why aren't humans capable of being a potential agent for objective morality?

Because I would highly question that human morality extends beyond that of humans, at least, I think we would be able to see it clearly reflected in animals here on Earth, if that were the case. Also, I would think it would be more logical to extend it to some natural "entity" or natural law. But in all fairness, I would say that it would be impossible and contradictive to the very idea of objective morality.

If what really matters on how we are going to behave and judge morality is our personal subjective morality rather than objective morality, what is the value in objective morality?

Sorry if I get this wrong, but I get the feeling that you are not 100% sure what objective morality means.

Objective is defined as "relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers; having reality independent of the mind"

Said in another way, that something is objectively true regardless of whether humans existed or not.

An example could be, that if we imagine that every morning when people woke up they would go and try to kill their neighbour, eventually humans would go extinct if that were the case.

Now, something (morality) prevents humans from doing this, given the fact that we don't do it and we haven't gone extinct.

Some people will argue that the reason we don't do it, is because there is an objective morality within us or the concept of life, whatever way you want to put it, that makes sure that we don't do this. And that this is the best explanation. Morality is inherently written on us as lifeforms. Religious people will claim that this is God and atheists will rely on some other axiom as this agent.

People like me, which do not believe in objective morality as being the best explanation, will lean towards subjective morality as the best explanation. And that there is nothing in the Universe, God or no God, that controls this morality, but rather that it is evolved. In my case, without giving a full explanation of why I hold this belief. Is that, I think that life has evolved this way because it is in our own interest. There are a lot of benefits in it for you to trust that your neighbour won't stab you in the back and eat you and steal your stuff, the moment you turn your back to him. Equally, your neighbour has the same benefits when it comes to survival, even though one could argue that it would be an easy gain in the short run, it does not outweigh the benefit in the long run. For instance, it will be beneficial for you, when you go hunt for food, that you know that your children are taken care of. If you couldn't do that, you and the human race would most likely go extinct as hunting with small children is probably not going to work very well.

Therefore I would also make the argument that there is ultimately nothing in the universe that decide that murdering your neighbour is wrong. It is purely an evolved feature and it is only considered morally wrong if those people you are in a society with agree that it is immoral to do so. If such morality ever existed, I think we can be certain that such beings have gone extinct, not that I think it ever has.

Hopefully, you see, why the first and second questions kind of make me wonder if you are 100% certain what it means, as they make little sense in regards to objective morality.

 

[Koldo]

Because I would highly question that human morality extends beyond that of humans, at least, I think we would be able to see it clearly reflected in animals here on Earth, if that were the case. Also, I would think it would be more logical to extend it to some natural "entity" or natural law. But in all fairness, I would say that it would be impossible and contradictive to the very idea of objective morality.

Why would it be impossible and contradictive to the very idea of objective morality?

Sorry if I get this wrong, but I get the feeling that you are not 100% sure what objective morality means.

Objective is defined as "relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers; having reality independent of the mind"

Said in another way, that something is objectively true regardless of whether humans existed or not.

An example could be, that if we imagine that every morning when people woke up they would go and try to kill their neighbour, eventually humans would go extinct if that were the case.

Now, something (morality) prevents humans from doing this, given the fact that we don't do it and we haven't gone extinct.

Some people will argue that the reason we don't do it, is because there is an objective morality within us or the concept of life, whatever way you want to put it, that makes sure that we don't do this. And that this is the best explanation. Morality is inherently written on us as lifeforms. Religious people will claim that this is God and atheists will rely on some other axiom as this agent.

People like me, which do not believe in objective morality as being the best explanation, will lean towards subjective morality as the best explanation. And that there is nothing in the Universe, God or no God, that controls this morality, but rather that it is evolved. In my case, without giving a full explanation of why I hold this belief. Is that, I think that life has evolved this way because it is in our own interest. There are a lot of benefits in it for you to trust that your neighbour won't stab you in the back and eat you and steal your stuff, the moment you turn your back to him. Equally, your neighbour has the same benefits when it comes to survival, even though one could argue that it would be an easy gain in the short run, it does not outweigh the benefit in the long run. For instance, it will be beneficial for you, when you go hunt for food, that you know that your children are taken care of. If you couldn't do that, you and the human race would most likely go extinct as hunting with small children is probably not going to work very well.

Therefore I would also make the argument that there is ultimately nothing in the universe that decide that murdering your neighbour is wrong. It is purely an evolved feature and it is only considered morally wrong if those people you are in a society with agree that it is immoral to do so. If such morality ever existed, I think we can be certain that such beings have gone extinct, not that I think it ever has.

Hopefully, you see, why the first and second questions kind of make me wonder if you are 100% certain what it means, as they make little sense in regards to objective morality.

There are two very distinct things involved here: One is the objective morality as a purported fact of the universe (or even existence itself), and the other is our capacity to perceive it.

What I am saying is that the existence of an objective morality is not actually relevant, but rather our perception of it. As an example, it doesn't matter to us both if rape is objectively moral when we perceive it as immoral. None of us would rape people, or judge others as doing something moral, even if it was objectively moral to do so. It is our perception that actually matters even if objective morality exists.

 

[Bird123]

Was watching a debate between a Muslim and an atheist. And the Muslim make the argument that people that believe in subjective morality have no foundation for making moral judgements and are therefore not valid. Whereas people with a foundation in objective morality, meaning God as the moral judge are because this gives them a foundation for their morality.

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?

Hmmm? So what you are saying is that if an atheist witnesses a murder and proclaims murder is wrong that the atheist does not know what he is talking about?

In reality each person will decide which are the best choices. On the other hand, a group of people can get together and proclaim what is moral based upon what they believe God would say and of course their own agreement, however through their judging, blaming, condemning and such, could be committing a far greater moral crime they are blind to even see.

Multi-angular is reality that can not be ignored. It is God. It is what is and not based on beliefs of any holy book.


People can find many ways in their attempt to control others, however, in the end, each will decide from the results of their choices what the best choices really are. When one understands all sides, Intelligence will make the best choices. In the end, everyone is moral!!

This is God's system that requires no beliefs, following or holy books. Be who you must! It's a part of the plan!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Ponder This]

It's not about whether they are capable of making a moral judgement, but whether said judgement is worth anything because it is not founded in objective morality, such as God, it is merely your opinion.

Do you mean to say that the argument is not just that people have subjective opinions, but that people are incapable of having objective opinions (with regards to morality)?

 

[Nimos]

Hmmm? So what you are saying is that if an atheist witnesses a murder and proclaims murder is wrong that the atheist does not know what he is talking about?

No that is not what im saying.

But rather the argument is that the atheist with a subjective moral system has no moral ground for judging others as it is merely an opinion, meaning that his opinion is without real value. Whereas the Muslim argue that it is not the case with an objective morality grounded in God, because it goes beyond opinion, God is the moral judge.

In reality each person will decide which are the best choices. On the other hand, a group of people can get together and proclaim what is moral based upon what they believe God would say and of course their own agreement, however through their judging, blaming, condemning and such, could be committing a far greater moral crime they are blind to even see.

Ultimately that would be the case, but you would still be judged based on what God decided. So if you get it wrong, there would be a punishment. Furthermore, the assumption is obviously that, this Muslim's (the speaker) interpretation is correct and that all other Muslims agree with it. That is not something that he addresses in his speech. But the point he is making is as above.

 

[Nimos]

Do you mean to say that the argument is not just that people have subjective opinions, but that people are incapable of having objective opinions (with regards to morality)?

No, there seems to be a lot of confusing about objective morality vs subjective morality in general in a lot of these questions and comments people have

Here is a 5 minute video explaining the difference:

 

[Nimos]

Why would it be impossible and contradictive to the very idea of objective morality?

Because "objective" means that it is beyond or independent of the "subject". So by objective, in this case, it means it relates to the Universe and the "object" is whatever influence it, such as God. And whatever God has decided or created to be this objective truth applies to everything in the Universe. In the video above about the difference between objective and subjective, he uses an example:

"If a tree falls and no one hears it does it make a sound?"

If your answer to that, is yes, then you would support an objective view, meaning that the tree and the sound, don't rely on a subject to actually hear it in order for it to be true.

The same goes with objective morality, even if you or I or any other human weren't around, these would still apply to all other lifeforms because they are objective morals.

That is why I say that it is highly unlikely to think that human morality applies to the rest of the Universe as us being the creators.

There are two very distinct things involved here: One is the objective morality as a purported fact of the universe (or even existence itself), and the other is our capacity to perceive it.

Yes, but even if we are not able to understand them, doesn't mean that they are not objectively so if they are.

Atoms probably behaved exactly as they do now before we discovered them. Our knowledge of them didn't make them suddenly do something else. At least I don't think anyone thinks that.

What I am saying is that the existence of an objective morality is not actually relevant, but rather our perception of it. As an example, it doesn't matter to us both if rape is objectively moral when we perceive it as immoral. None of us would rape people, or judge others as doing something moral, even if it was objectively moral to do so. It is our perception that actually matters even if objective morality exists.

In that case, I agree.

The problem is when some people claim that God has told us what is right and wrong and that we ought to live by that, without providing any proof of such being. And again it becomes relevant when a Muslim, claim that atheists and probably people of other religions as well have no moral value because it is not grounded in the God he believes in.

But I do agree that ultimately, I don't think we can know the difference for certain unless someone could provide proof of God

 

[Heyo]

Thats game playing. Variations in defining God do not discredit the claim of deity.

It's evidence against some gods, namely those who are said to have a clear message for all people.
But disproving or discrediting gods isn't my intention. I stay with the humans and they are obviously ignorant of the nature and, by extension, existence of gods.
And as you know nothing about god, you also know nothing about its morality.

 

[Augustus]

In what sense would morality be present in the system itself in the first place?

We can say that certain mechanic exists by describing what it does when present and it's effect is perceptible, at least in principle.

Again, you are not appreciating the difference between our world and a hypothetical one where a God factually exists.

It doesn't matter what humans can perceive, the laws are there regardless. The same as the speed of light exists regardless of whether humans know about it or not.

We can say these exist because we are engaging in a discussion of a hypothetical scenario which is contingent on a God existing.

I can't change the rules of those lotteries.

Bingo

But I can create a new lottery with new rules and if everyone decides to play only in my lottery it becomes the only lottery that matters. Plus, an older lottery is not in any way more valid than a newer lottery. Multiple lotteries can exist at the same time. God's lottery matter as much as anyone else's.

Do you see any difference between creating a new lottery and creating a new universe external and unconnected to the one created by the God

This is the point you keep missing.

You exist in a closed system, and your "solution" is always "leave the system" which is impossible. You can't, unless you claim to be more powerful than the hypothetical omnimax God, and can create rival universes on command.

That is ludicrous.

It is important to distinguish between physical laws that would be akin to video game mechanics and morality. Much like a game designer, God can create mechanics. Morality is another beast though. It doesn't describe how objects behave. It is about how they should behave according to a certain standard.

It's only important if you doubt the existence of God, our discussion is contingent on God existing so this makes no sense.

The mechanics are 'judging' your move and applying the correct damage based on what you do. Some games even have good/evil mechanics based on your actions. They don't limit what you can do, but do change the endgame.

What can't an all-powerful God create definitive standards by which your behaviour is judged, given video games already do this?

You seem to assume video game designers are more powerful than God

 

[F1fan]

No that is not what im saying.

But rather the argument is that the atheist with a subjective moral system has no moral ground for judging others as it is merely an opinion, meaning that his opinion is without real value. Whereas the Muslim argue that it is not the case with an objective morality grounded in God, because it goes beyond opinion, God is the moral judge.

Except no Gods are known to exist. All we have are believers insisting their version of God is real, and none can demonstrate they are correct. This is how Lutherans and Catholics in Germany during the early 40's had no moral problem exterminating Jews. Or 19 Muslims hijack 4 airplanes and using them as bombs against innocent people. So how are these morals grounded in God, exactly? Shouldn't we see a remarkable and consistent moral actions from these believers, yet we don't. We even see many believers act in direct opposition to what their religions demand, and they justifiy it without any fear of their God.

Ultimately that would be the case, but you would still be judged based on what God decided. So if you get it wrong, there would be a punishment.

If I was a believer I would bend over backwards being a good person if I was in fear of being punished. Oddly many believers act as if they are God themselves and beyond judgment.

 

[Augustus]

I always consider sayings that might lead people morally astray as dangerous.

In this case, you are taking for granted that a god-given morality is not only extant, but also supreme and static.

Those are self-contradictory and, yes, very dangerous assumptions.

Are you aware this is a hypothetical conditional argument? It seems like you've misunderstood.

I'm not taking it for granted, I actively believe it is false.

A conditional argument doesn't require one to actually believe it is true or desirable: If America hadn't joined WW2, then Germany would have won in Western Europe.

Hence: If such a God existed, then morality would be objective.

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you aware this is a hypothetical conditional argument? It seems like you've misunderstood.

I'm not taking it for granted, I actively believe it is false.

A conditional argument doesn't require one to actually believe it is true or desirable: If America hadn't joined WW2, then Germany would have won in Western Europe.

Hence: If such a God existed, then morality would be objective.

No, sorry. I realize now that you are not proposing that as a true situation.

But the internal inconsistencies are still real and dangerous. Morality isn't static. It literally can not be.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I can agree with that. What is good or bad behavior is related to how that behavior causes harm or benefit to the overall well-being -in the broadest sense- of sentient creatures and / or groups / societies.

Cool. So, now that we agree on a basic standard... tell me: why do you need gods or messengers to come to moral judgements? Seems to me that this basic simple definition provides you with all the required tools for moral reasoning.

So what's missing in your opinion? And how does claiming it, whatever it is, comes from a god, solve anything - whatever it is that needs solving in your opinion?

So do you think there is something morally wrong with a person being unhappy?
Do you connect psychological suffering with morality? Is a depressed person immoral because they suffer?

Yes, psychological suffering is suffering. And you already agreed that how things affect suffering / well-being ultimately determines if those things are moral or immoral.

So, if you engage in an action, say cheating, and the result of which is your wife being really hurt and unhappy and betrayed, then your act of cheating was immoral for that reason.
Your actions raised suffering on innocent victims.

And no, the depressed person is not immoral because he is depressed
However, if the depression is the result of intense bullying at school or work for example, then the bullies' bullying was immoral.

I don't need to refer to them to come to these conclusions.

Then why are they part of the topic?

No, I do not agree with:
Well-being = good
suffering = bad

Not only is that overly simplistic, it is saying that a person is 'bad' because they are suffering and 'good' because they are happy, and I do not believe happiness and suffering have anything to do with morality.

I have a hard time taking you seriously here tbh. I'm having problems with accepting this could be misunderstood to this level.

I'm obviously not saying that. I'm obviously saying that ultimately, actions that result in higher well-being are good while actions that result in higher suffering are bad. Simplistically and generally speaking, off course.

Emotional states etc aren't moral or immoral.
Behavior is moral or immoral. Actions.

Religion is not required to know that a person causing harm to another person is always wrong, but that has been set down by religion throughout the ages.

That doesn't make sense and is self-contradictory.
Either it's required or it isn't. Make up your mind.

And do you really believe that people had to be told that suffering and harm, aren't desirable emotional and physical states to shoot for?

Yes, it would still be immoral because that was set down in the Law of God.

So when you agreed before to the statement that the difference in moral and immoral / good and bad / right and wrong, is in how it affects well-being and suffering... What's that about?

Apparently it's more like "that's how it works unless god says otherwise".
So you have no moral reasoning whatsoever to get to the point of saying "and that's why adultery is always immoral", but you are going to go ahead and say it's immoral anyway because a perceived authority says so.

Why?

So if the authority says genocide is okay, then genocide is okay?

Sure, everyone has standards, but they are all different, unless they follow the standards of a religion.

The standard I presented is an objective one.
There is no disagreement about what constitutes well-being and what constitutes suffering.
It's pretty straightforward.

Ironically, it's you who's bringing "special" and, from my pov, arbitrary standards into it... And it's even a standard that doesn't allow for critical thinking or proper moral reasoning. No. Instead, it's just "BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO. PERIOD!!!". We are expected to just accept it and that's final.
There's no argument for it. There's no way to get from A to B rationally. There is only the assertion of authority.

Meanwhile actual reasoning using the actually objective standard, concludes the opposite.

The secular standard of good and bad was derived from the religious standard

No.
The religious standard is an assertion of authority.
The secular standard explicitly rejects assertions of authority.

The reasoning behind the religious standard is "because says so".
With the secular standard, you are actually expected to make your case using actual reasoning. When you claim something is immoral, you actually have to argue why it is so. What harm is inflicted, what suffering is caused. WHY is it immoral. And assertions from authority are not allowed here. You require an actual reasoned reason.

 

[danieldemol]

It doesn't.

The question is not whether we will enforce it, but rather the reason why we would enforce it. If it is objectively based, the argument would be to do it because there is a universal rule, saying that killing is wrong which leads to us wanting to enforce it. God wrote that into us or how you want to put it.

If it is subjectively based, no universal rule exists that would cause us to enforce it. But rather the reason we would do it, is because our morality has evolved over time into wanting to enforce it, such as to punish people for killing each other.

But ultimately if it is subjectively based, there is nothing inherently wrong with killing each other apart from humans thinking that it is or having agreed on it as being the case, this also means that humans will punish each other for it and that is it, there will be no ultimate judgement, like that of God.

If it was objectively based, the reason it would be considered wrong is that some 3rd party, such as God or some other force or entity in the Universe has decided that it is wrong, and that is the reason we see a need to enforce it. This ultimately also means that a being such as a God could punish people for doing so, like throwing them in hell or what else one might do.

The initial result, like enforcing a given rule, such as punishing people for killing each other, would be the same regardless of it being objective or subjective and we can't really see a difference between them. It is merely in regard to the reason for it and also in regard to whether it is justified to point fingers at others who do not share the same moral code as oneself if people's morality is simply made up/evolved and no moral judge exists.

Does that make sense?

But I believe a moral judge does exist, it is just an evolved moral judge as opposed to a pre-existant moral judge.

And I also think it is justified to us as individuals to point the finger at those who do not share our moral code of not killing without due cause as we desire survival, so we are faced with the choice of point the finger if we value survival or do not and perish. So even though it may not be justified in some absolute sense it is still justified relative to us as individuals dependant on our values.

In my opinion.

 

[Koldo]

Because "objective" means that it is beyond or independent of the "subject". So by objective, in this case, it means it relates to the Universe and the "object" is whatever influence it, such as God. And whatever God has decided or created to be this objective truth applies to everything in the Universe. In the video above about the difference between objective and subjective, he uses an example:

"If a tree falls and no one hears it does it make a sound?"

If your answer to that, is yes, then you would support an objective view, meaning that the tree and the sound, don't rely on a subject to actually hear it in order for it to be true.

The same goes with objective morality, even if you or I or any other human weren't around, these would still apply to all other lifeforms because they are objective morals.

That is why I say that it is highly unlikely to think that human morality applies to the rest of the Universe as us being the creators.

How would you figure if morality created by humans doesn't apply to the rest of the universe?
How exactly is morality created by God any more objective than morality created by humans?
From your texts it looks like that since God is God, he can do anything. But you would first need to show that creating objective morality is logically feasible. In other words, that it can be done with enough power. And second, that humans don't have the power to create it.

Yes, but even if we are not able to understand them, doesn't mean that they are not objectively so if they are.

Atoms probably behaved exactly as they do now before we discovered them. Our knowledge of them didn't make them suddenly do something else. At least I don't think anyone thinks that.


In that case, I agree.

The problem is when some people claim that God has told us what is right and wrong and that we ought to live by that, without providing any proof of such being. And again it becomes relevant when a Muslim, claim that atheists and probably people of other religions as well have no moral value because it is not grounded in the God he believes in.

But I do agree that ultimately, I don't think we can know the difference for certain unless someone could provide proof of God

And even if there was proof of God AND proof of objective morality, our perception would be more be more important than objective morality. Wouldn't you agree? Would you rape people if it was proven that it is objectively moral to do so? You wouldn't, unless your moral perception itself changed.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Have diseases disappeared? Has hunger disappeared? Have wars been eliminated? Have they managed to prevent and avoid violence?

Has God? We’ve been doing better than how God is characterized.