Objective Morality Without God

[Ella S.]

I must confess I have little regard for mental monism.

Me too. Mental monism is the root of much of religion and theology, and you can almost discount entire lineages of religions because their concepts are founded on it or some form of mind-body dualism. It's a classic case of mistaking the map for the territory and projectionism.

It's an implied axiom of theology, though, and it's why theologians see God as the only way we can have "objective" morality. It's not that the morality itself is objective, but that objectivity becomes subjective to God.

 

[dybmh]

Your example is interesting because a square has, by definition, four straight sides. But you won't find perfectly straight sides. A square of crocodiles would have slightly different sides compared to a square of pencils.

Perfectly straight sides? No. That's not part of the definition.

@@@@@@
@@@@@@
@@@@@@
@@@@@@
@@@@@@

But they are hierarchy in different senses of the term. Animals don't give orders to each other in the food chain, unlike in your business hierarchy example, they just kill and eat. Likewise, the hierarchy in business has nothing to do with killing and eating.

But both are heirarchies. They don't need to be exact replicas in my proposal.

By what means do you determine whether something is relevant to the concept of hierarchy?

What makes unjustified harm immoral?

It's not really part of my proposal. I was trying to help explain. Since you don't seem to actually want to discuss this in good faith. I'm dropping it.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Without a moral authority then morality is a human construct that

differs from culture to culture because of that.

I would like to focus on this point for a moment. A lot of intelligent people think that this statement is true

(atheists and theists alike). In my early 20s, *I* used to think this claim was true. So I don't think it's

"obviously false" or anything. But I do think it's false. But it took me some careful study and some convincing to

get me out of my former position. You are asking all the right questions. You are getting to the heart of the

issue. So I'm inclined to engage you on this.

I'm going to try to present an abridged version of those arguments that finally changed my mind.

Morality is no more a human construct than math is a human construct. Sure, in some ways, math is a human

construct. We as humans created it, so to speak, so that we could make sense of quantity and space. Arithmetic

helps us understand quatity. Geometry helps us understand space. But, in a sense, mathematics, though ultimately a

human constuct, allows us to understand objective things about quantity and space.

Likewise, morality (may) help us understand objective things about how to do good (or bad) to others. Understanding

what is good and bad for other people (or perhaps even oneself) is a confusing and difficult endevor. I don't deny

that. It's very difficult and problematic to try to arrive at universal maxims concerning good and bad. A

controversial topic to be sure.

And, like with math, ethics may even contain insoluable problems. But none of this makes ethics necessarily

subjective. At the very least, morality is only as objective as math is. If someone wants to insist that math is a

human construct, fine. But math DOES give us a real (and objective) understanding of quantity and time. That's a

premise that I will stand by. It's hard to deny that.

Do people make errors when doing math? Yes. Do people misunderstand how best to do good to one another? Yes. But

that doesn't mean that morality can't have its basis in objectivity. It very well could.

James Rachels presented the problem like this:

1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
2. Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong
are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.

As Rachels goes on:

"We may call this the Cultural Differences Argument. To many people, it is
persuasive. But from a logical point of view, is it sound?
It is not sound. The trouble is that the conclusion does not follow from the
premise—that is, even if the premise is true, the conclusion still might be false.
The premise concerns what people believe. In some societies, people believe one
thing; in other societies, people believe differently. The conclusion, however,
concerns what really is the case. The trouble is that this sort conclusion does not
follow logically from this sort of premise."

https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1100/Rachels1.pdf

So, to me, moral relativism is just as useless as ever.


We can debate this if you wish. Do you find any problems with Rachel's objections? If so, we should work them out.

But that's only one prong of a two-pronged argument concerning God's necessity concerning moral objectivity. The next step is for me to demonstrate that, even if God existed and made moral pronouncements, does that make God's pronouncements objectively true or not? I say that God's pronouncements CAN'T be what makes morality objectively true. If that were the case, God's pronouncement would be the only deciding factor in what makes something right or wrong. But then we have to consider absurdities. There is nothing wrong wit hrape accept that God forbids it. Otherwise, there is no other thing that makes rape wrong. Let's say that God appears in the sky and says he is taking a vacation. While he is gone, he says that all his moral commandments are temporarily suspended. (They weill be reinstated when he gets back.) If that happens, does that mean that there is nothing wrong with rape until God returns? I would like to say that rape is wrong because something is wrong with rape. God's determination on the matter doesn't really matter as to the ultimate truth about rape. Whether God exists or not, there is something wrong with rape

 

[wellwisher]

At the end of the day, that is just saying that objective reality doesn't exist. Objective morality would therefore be a misnomer.

Objective morality only requires a way to quantify the output results, such as the social costs, so we can compare different systems. As we do with statistical models, we place all the moral systems into black boxes and look at the output; their social costs. How and why it works can stay in the black box. The output is what impacts all of us not how the system looks on paper.

In the USA, there is a huge national debt, as well as separation of church and state. This huge debt tells us secular morality is not a very good system due to the high social output costs. The separation of church and state tells us without sufficient religious moral influence, there has been an objective decline in morality due to the escalating costs. This math is straight forward. What is in the black box is not important, until we can all agree if the costs are too high it is not a good system. Fancy on paper is not objective. Once we agree coat is a better criteria, we can open the black box to see why.

For example, illegal immigration is adding to the social costs. Breaking immigration law is not moral, so there are higher social costs. Since this is driven by the political Left; false promises, their system of morality is not only immoral but appears to be at the bottom of the objective cost scale based on their high social costs.

The philosophical approach to this problem is based on being able to reason each aspect of each moral system. However, moral systems do not always deal in logic. Laws was not made for the righteous man, but rather are made for the criminals and transgressors. We need to deal more with irrationality than objectivity.

Moral system are designed to help regulate irrational emotions and impulses, which will add to social costs. If we were all rational without emotions or impulses, this would be easier to do. Emotions are not always objective, but are more subjective and ego-centric. However, at the end of their day, the best moral systems by best regulating subjective emotionality, is reflected in the lowest social costs.

Atheist will not accept this objective standard of costs since they rate lower than religion. They prefer to dwell on the front end before there is any data about operating costs. They are more concerned if the system looks more modern, even if at designer prices. One can not normalize the data based on the subjectivity of fads or designer prestige. That is connected to irrationality.

If you loo at the decline in academic test scores of children in the USA, since the 1960's, this is a social cost, which is has gotten worse as religious influence has declined. A dumber population adds cost to all.

 

[Brian2]

I would like to focus on this point for a moment. A lot of intelligent people think that this statement is true

(atheists and theists alike). In my early 20s, *I* used to think this claim was true. So I don't think it's

"obviously false" or anything. But I do think it's false. But it took me some careful study and some convincing to

get me out of my former position. You are asking all the right questions. You are getting to the heart of the

issue. So I'm inclined to engage you on this.

I'm going to try to present an abridged version of those arguments that finally changed my mind.

Morality is no more a human construct than math is a human construct. Sure, in some ways, math is a human

construct. We as humans created it, so to speak, so that we could make sense of quantity and space. Arithmetic

helps us understand quatity. Geometry helps us understand space. But, in a sense, mathematics, though ultimately a

human constuct, allows us to understand objective things about quantity and space.

Likewise, morality (may) help us understand objective things about how to do good (or bad) to others. Understanding

what is good and bad for other people (or perhaps even oneself) is a confusing and difficult endevor. I don't deny

that. It's very difficult and problematic to try to arrive at universal maxims concerning good and bad. A

controversial topic to be sure.

And, like with math, ethics may even contain insoluable problems. But none of this makes ethics necessarily

subjective. At the very least, morality is only as objective as math is. If someone wants to insist that math is a

human construct, fine. But math DOES give us a real (and objective) understanding of quantity and time. That's a

premise that I will stand by. It's hard to deny that.

Do people make errors when doing math? Yes. Do people misunderstand how best to do good to one another? Yes. But

that doesn't mean that morality can't have its basis in objectivity. It very well could.

James Rachels presented the problem like this:

1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
2. Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong
are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.

As Rachels goes on:

"We may call this the Cultural Differences Argument. To many people, it is
persuasive. But from a logical point of view, is it sound?
It is not sound. The trouble is that the conclusion does not follow from the
premise—that is, even if the premise is true, the conclusion still might be false.
The premise concerns what people believe. In some societies, people believe one
thing; in other societies, people believe differently. The conclusion, however,
concerns what really is the case. The trouble is that this sort conclusion does not
follow logically from this sort of premise."

So, to me, moral relativism is just as usekess as ever.


We can debate this if you wish. Do you find any problems with Rachel's objections? If so, we should work them out.

But that's only one prong of a two-pronged argument concerning God's necessity concerning moral objectivity. The next step is for me to demonstrate that, even if God existed and made moral pronouncements, does that make God's pronouncements objectively true or not? I say that God's pronouncements CAN'T be what makes morality objectively true. If that were the case, God's pronouncement would be the only deciding factor in what makes something right or wrong. But then we have to consider absurdities. There is nothing wrong wit hrape accept that God forbids it. Otherwise, there is no other thing that makes rape wrong. Let's say that God appears in the sky and says he is taking a vacation. While he is gone, he says that all his moral commandments are temporarily suspended. (They weill be reinstated when he gets back.) If that happens, does that mean that there is nothing wrong with rape until God returns? I would like to say that rape is wrong because something is wrong with rape. God's determination on the matter doesn't really matter as to the ultimate truth about rape. Whether God exists or not, there is something wrong with rape

There is something wrong with rape. It goes against God's moral imperative of loving others as we want them to love us. That is objective enough yes and it does not change with a little make believe of God going on holidays. It is based on God and who He is and what He is and that is what decides what He says. God is love and that does not change.
What changes is humanity's ideas about what is or is not OK.
If we took all those subjective views of morality and took the commonalities together we might find something that humanity generally sees as moral imperatives in society.
Have you a way to work out what objective morality is without a moral authority to tell us?
If you had a way to do that does it mean that someone who breaks that objective code of yours is always morally wrong or are there shades of grey in there which we don't know how to deal with?

 

[Koldo]

Perfectly straight sides? No. That's not part of the definition.

@@@@@@
@@@@@@
@@@@@@
@@@@@@
@@@@@@

What is a straight side?
A side with no curves or bends.
By saying 'perfectly' straight I am just emphasizing what it means to be truly straight. None of those examples you have provided are actual squares, even though they all alude to a square.

But both are heirarchies. They don't need to be exact replicas in my proposal.

View attachment 70344

They do because you are effectively saying that creating a representation of the divine order equals to saying the truth. But only an exact replica would be truth, else it would contain falsehood.

It's not really part of my proposal. I was trying to help explain. Since you don't seem to actually want to discuss this in good faith. I'm dropping it.

I am seeking to discuss it in good faith. But this is a philosophical subject that requires questioning morality from the ground up. Even if we don't agree on what counts as unjustified harm, we agree that doing unjustified harm is immoral. But what exactly is the relation between unjustified harm and morality? Why do we think of it this way? And how does it relate to objective and subjective morality?

I would say that empathy is the major drive behind thinking of unjustified harm as immoral. Not what any god says. And since we share this empathy, for it is a common trait among humans, we come to an agreement that doing unjustified harm is immoral. But this empathy leads to a subjective value (or intersubjective, since we share it), thus leading to the conclusion that morality is subjective/intersubjective rather than objective.

 

[Koldo]

There is something wrong with rape. It goes against God's moral imperative of loving others as we want them to love us. That is objective enough yes and it does not change with a little make believe of God going on holidays. It is based on God and who He is and what He is and that is what decides what He says. God is love and that does not change.
What changes is humanity's ideas about what is or is not OK.
If we took all those subjective views of morality and took the commonalities together we might find something that humanity generally sees as moral imperatives in society.
Have you a way to work out what objective morality is without a moral authority to tell us?
If you had a way to do that does it mean that someone who breaks that objective code of yours is always morally wrong or are there shades of grey in there which we don't know how to deal with?

But what if God is not love, but rather hatred?
What if God had the moral imperative of raping others as much as possible? Would rape then be moral?

 

[Koldo]

Objective morality only requires a way to quantify the output results, such as the social costs, so we can compare different systems. As we do with statistical models, we place all the moral systems into black boxes and look at the output; their social costs. How and why it works can stay in the black box. The output is what impacts all of us not how the system looks on paper.

In the USA, there is a huge national debt, as well as separation of church and state. This huge debt tells us secular morality is not a very good system due to the high social output costs. The separation of church and state tells us without sufficient religious moral influence, there has been an objective decline in morality due to the escalating costs. This math is straight forward. What is in the black box is not important, until we can all agree if the costs are too high it is not a good system. Fancy on paper is not objective. Once we agree coat is a better criteria, we can open the black box to see why.

For example, illegal immigration is adding to the social costs. Breaking immigration law is not moral, so there are higher social costs. Since this is driven by the political Left; false promises, their system of morality is not only immoral but appears to be at the bottom of the objective cost scale based on their high social costs.

The philosophical approach to this problem is based on being able to reason each aspect of each moral system. However, moral systems do not always deal in logic. Laws was not made for the righteous man, but rather are made for the criminals and transgressors. We need to deal more with irrationality than objectivity.

Moral system are designed to help regulate irrational emotions and impulses, which will add to social costs. If we were all rational without emotions or impulses, this would be easier to do. Emotions are not always objective, but are more subjective and ego-centric. However, at the end of their day, the best moral systems by best regulating subjective emotionality, is reflected in the lowest social costs.

Atheist will not accept this objective standard of costs since they rate lower than religion. They prefer to dwell on the front end before there is any data about operating costs. They are more concerned if the system looks more modern, even if at designer prices. One can not normalize the data based on the subjectivity of fads or designer prestige. That is connected to irrationality.

If you loo at the decline in academic test scores of children in the USA, since the 1960's, this is a social cost, which is has gotten worse as religious influence has declined. A dumber population adds cost to all.

Do you mean you define objective morality in terms of monetary cost?

 

[dybmh]

What is a straight side?
A side with no curves or bends.
By saying 'perfectly' straight I am just emphasizing what it means to be truly straight. None of those examples you have provided are actual squares, even though they all alude to a square.

No, the sides don't need to be truly straight. That's a strawman.

They do because you are effectively saying that creating a representation of the divine order equals to saying the truth. But only an exact replica would be truth, else it would contain falsehood.

Misrepresenting my position. When you say "effectively" that is where you are mistranslating my words, ignoring the qualifications that I have repeatedly made.

What is a straight side?
A side with no curves or bends.
By saying 'perfectly' straight I am just emphasizing what it means to be truly straight. None of those examples you have provided are actual squares, even though they all alude to a square.



They do because you are effectively saying that creating a representation of the divine order equals to saying the truth. But only an exact replica would be truth, else it would contain falsehood.



I am seeking to discuss it in good faith. But this is a philosophical subject that requires questioning morality from the ground up. Even if we don't agree on what counts as unjustified harm, we agree that doing unjustified harm is immoral. But what exactly is the relation between unjustified harm and morality? Why do we think of it this way? And how does it relate to objective and subjective morality?

I would say that empathy is the major drive behind thinking of unjustified harm as immoral. Not what any god says. And since we share this empathy, for it is a common trait among humans, we come to an agreement that doing unjustified harm is immoral. But this empathy leads to a subjective value (or intersubjective, since we share it), thus leading to the conclusion that morality is subjective/intersubjective rather than objective.

Whether or not sin is moral or immoral, whether or not causing harm is moral or immoral is completely irrelevant. And discussing in good faith requires discussing / debating the position I actually hold.

 

[Koldo]

No, the sides don't need to be truly straight. That's a strawman.

What...?
They do. If you were to calculate the area of a square without truly straight sides by using the typical formula the result would very likely be off.

Misrepresenting my position. When you say "effectively" that is where you are mistranslating my words, ignoring the qualifications that I have repeatedly made.

What am I misrepresenting?

Whether or not sin is moral or immoral, whether or not causing harm is moral or immoral is completely irrelevant. And discussing in good faith requires discussing / debating the position I actually hold.

Did this last part of the post cease to be about objective morality?

 

[dybmh]

What...?
They do. If you were to calculate the area of a square without truly straight sides by using the typical formula the result would very likely be off.

The *typical* forumla of calculating the area is *derived* *assuming* the sides are perfectly straight. But, you really don't need a formula to calculate area. All you need to do is count.

Here is a square:

@@@
@@@
@@@

It's area is 3 @s x 3 @s otherwise known as "9@ squared" or "9@^2". Super duper simple.

That's the definition of "area". The formula is a shortcut to counting. Nice try though.

What am I misrepresenting?

I am describing objective opposites as immoral. I have repeatedly stated this. It is clearly qualified in my original proposal. For example, the 3x3 figure above is NOT a circle, it's NOT a triangle. It's NOT a hexagon.

Now, you may object and say, "wait a minute, wait a minute, the figure on my screen is not a connected closed shape, which means it can't be a square. I would argue that this is true for any square. If you zoom in close enough, everything is constructed of particles held together by atomic forces. In between those particles is empty space, thus, there are no closed shapes anywhere at any time. If so, is all geometry a lie? Does this mean squares don't exist? No, that's silly. I purposefully excluded those sorts of ideas from my proposal. You keep adding them back in.

Did this last part of the post cease to be about objective morality?

First of all, it's a distraction. I shouldn't have said anything about it in the first place since we're having so much trouble with accurately discussing my proposal.

Second, my claim originated with proposing an objective to the laws as written in the Hebrew bible. It's clear to me that causing harm at times in the story is permissible in establishing God's version of a hierarchy. That means harm is irrelevant.

Third, your claim is there is no such thing as an objective moral system. Refuting this only requires 1 plausible counter example. That plausible counter example has been given. Talking about sin and harm just muddies the water. Once you have conceded that my proposal is valid. We can talk about sin and how that fits in.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Have you a way to work out what objective morality is without a moral authority to tell us?

Yes. I can give examples of how (in principle) an objective moral system may exist WITHOUT God and WITHOUT concern for people's individual and cultural opinions. Does that mean that I have ethics all figured out? No.

I have given the example of hedonism above that does not require a God or moral authority to make objective normative statements about morality. It was my first reply to Rival I think. But I don't want to get caught up on hedonism or some other moral theory that needs no God because each of those theories DOES have problems. And I could go on and on about those problems and possible solutions (and would love to do so) BUT, at the end of the day, all that is important to answer your question is if I could (in principle) define a system of objective ethics that needs no moral authority.

If you had a way to do that does it mean that someone who breaks that objective code of yours is always morally wrong or are there shades of grey in there which we don't know how to deal with?

Short answer, yes.

If you need the long answer:

A hedonist might hold the moral view that shooting and killing an innocent person is wrong. You cause that person to suffer and die. That's morally bad according to a hedonist. BUT! What if that innocent person had a highly contagious horrible disease that would wipe out humanity and cause large amounts of pain and suffering if it were allowed to spread? What if that innocent person was running toward a crowd of people and (if they reach them) it is certain that they all will be infected, and might in turn lead to the disease spreading worldwide? In that case, a hedonist would be inclined to shoot the innocent person.

We are assuming in this example there is no other way to stop the person from reaching the crowd. If there were a way to safely contain the individual, of course, a hedonist would have a moral duty to pursue that course of action.

***

I could talk all day about how ethics works without God or an authority figure. All you need are axioms, logic, and resulting normative claims to realize a godless system of ethics. Once you HAVE that, you still have all your work ahead of you to argue that your ethical system is correct.

I'd rather sidestep that conversation (for now) and laser beam focus on the issue of what role God (or some moral authority) has on objective ethics. I promise to be meticulously logical in my efforts. Thus far in our exchanges, you have shown to be a logical person, so I figure you'll appreciate that. In any case, I'm not trying to "win" our debate here. I'm trying to examine arguments from both sides and then explain why I have reached the conclusions that I have reached.

Anyway, I'm going to borrow some arguments from this video to get us started. You don't have to watch the video or anything. It's an hour long lecture. I'm just citing my sources.

First, let's define "moral objectivity." The video defines it as the view that "Morality applies regardless of our endorsements, regardless of whether they get us what we want. Moral claims are true independent of any human attitude or opinion regarding them." (I LOVE this definition, and it is what I mean when I say objective morality.)

Now, with that definition in mind, let's look at two logical expressions that argue IN FAVOR OF YOUR POSITION:

Argument A:

1. If morality is objective, humans didn't create it.
2. If humans didn't create morality, then God did.
Therefore: If morality is objective, then God created it.

Given the definition of objective morality, you and I MUST agree that premise 1 is true. From what I understand, you agree with the argument's conclusion. I, of course, disagree with the argument's conclusion.

If I'm going to be meticulously logical, I have two strategies for showing how the conclusion of argument A is false. First, I could say that the reasoning in the argument is fallacious. (ie. it has an error in logic). But I can plainly see that the logic used in the argument is flawless. So the only other recourse I have if I want to disagree with the conclusion is to assert that either premise 1 or 2 is false.

I think premise 1 is true. So the only counter I have to the above logical expression is: premise 2 is false. And that IS in fact my position.

But if I say "premise 2 is false" there is a pretty good response to me that supports your thesis:

Argument B (two part argument):

1. If there is a law, there is an author.
2. Morality involves laws.
Therefore: Morality needs to have an author.

3. There are only two possible authors of morality: humans or God.
Therefore: If humans didn't create morality, then God did.

What is your opinion on Arguments A and B? Do they do a good job of explaining your position? I would like to clear up any issues before proceeding.

 

[vulcanlogician]

In God's system, each will decide for themselves which are the best choices. God will return our actions and choices to us so that one understands what one's choices really mean. When one understands all sides, Intelligence will make the Best choices.

Since, in time, everyone will make the Best choices, there is no need to define good or evil or the vague line that separates. This, of course, spans many lifetimes. The time-based causal nature of the universe is Perfect for this. That is why it exists!!

One of the petty thing mankind values is control. In an attempt to control, it is mankind attempting to define what is good and what is bad. Mankind also values the petty things of intimidation, coercion and payback in an attempt to alter the actions of others. It's a melting pot of everybody wants to rule the world.

God has Great Intelligence. Instead of trying, like mankind, to draw the fine line between good and evil, it is easier and more Intelligent just to teach others to choose the Best choices. With God's way, there is no need to judge or hate others. On the other hand, mankind has a long road to Discover what all those petty things they value really are. This is when mankind will let them go.

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

I think there is a lot of merit to seeing things that way. Especially as it pertains to judging others. I don't think one person has the right to stand in moral judgment of another. But that STILL doesn't mean morality is subjective. Nor is it dependent on God.

As humans, we sometimes want to ask ourselves what is good and bad (ethically speaking). But not always to control others. Sometimes, for whatever reason, we wish to "do the right thing" in our lives morally speaking. Then the question remains, "How do we figure that out? What is objectively the "right thing" morally speaking?" It's a very good and very important question.

Are we ever going to arrive at a perfect answer to that question? No. But we can come up with a pretty good answer, I bet. And we don't need commandments from God to do so. We can use our brains to figure a lot of it out.

I'd never advocate drawing some specific line between good and evil. That's nonsense. Both are a matter of degrees. It would be like insisting that "hot" and "cold" be drawn at a specific temperature. And everyone had to agree on that. That's absurd. Celsius isn't more accurate than Fahrenheit. It's just easier to do math with.

 

[vulcanlogician]

There is a sort of monism to much of Christian theology that's similar to Panentheism, which they adopted from Platonism. That's because he's both immanent and transcendent. I don't think this is a contradiction, though.

I see the Platonic influence on Christianity too... it bears all the hallmarks.

The similarity with mystery cults... the supposed dichotomy between body and soul. Plato might have (indirectly) written like a third of the New Testament.

But how many Christian theologians suppose that God is immanent, anyway? As I see it, not many.

They seem to be so preoccupied with his transcendence, that the idea of God's immanence doesn't seem too important to them. I'm not saying it should be important to them or anything. Who am I to decide that? But the fact is, it isn't.

I'm talking about the "above-nature" kind of God in the OP. The kind that self-identified Christians and Muslims insist exists. Not the "identical with nature" kind of God that I've talked about elsewhere.

someone once told me that if we have an objective purpose or there is objective meaning in the universe then they don't want to know it.

Why not want to know it? I understand not wanting to live one's life according to some "universal objective purpose."

But if such a thing existed, I would work tirelessly to discover what it is. I agree with your friend's implicit conclusion (that no such objective purpose for our lives exists) but I fault your friend for wanting to remain ignorant of the real facts if such a thing were the case.

I think what your friend meant to say is that they would not want to be bound by such a purpose, even if it did exist. But that's different than not wanting to know it. Ignorance isn't the answer..

If there really is some universal principle to which we must act, I would hate to have to be a slave to that principle. However, if such a principle did exist (which it doesn't) I would still want to know what it is.

But, luckily, my idea of moral objectivity doesn't depend on any such concept. All I'm trying to say is that we sometimes use "good" and "bad" to refer to objective realities (to compare one state of affairs to another). And, in those particular cases, we can discern some things about what we ought to do, if we want the best outcome. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Brian2]

But what if God is not love, but rather hatred?
What if God had the moral imperative of raping others as much as possible? Would rape then be moral?

That would be a different God, one who is not love and who does not want us to love our neighbour as we love ourselves. A God whose idea of morality is the opposite to the God of the Bible.
This God sounds like the enemy and not the God who loves us and gave Himself for us.

 

[Brian2]

First, let's define "moral objectivity." The video defines it as the view that "Morality applies regardless of our endorsements, regardless of whether they get us what we want. Moral claims are true independent of any human attitude or opinion regarding them." (I LOVE this definition, and it is what I mean when I say objective morality.)

Now, with that definition in mind, let's look at two logical expressions that argue IN FAVOR OF YOUR POSITION:

Argument A:

1. If morality is objective, humans didn't create it.
2. If humans didn't create morality, then God did.
Therefore: If morality is objective, then God created it.

Given the definition of objective morality, you and I MUST agree that premise 1 is true. From what I understand, you agree with the argument's conclusion. I, of course, disagree with the argument's conclusion.

If I'm going to be meticulously logical, I have two strategies for showing how the conclusion of argument A is false. First, I could say that the reasoning in the argument is fallacious. (ie. it has an error in logic). But I can plainly see that the logic used in the argument is flawless. So the only other recourse I have if I want to disagree with the conclusion is to assert that either premise 1 or 2 is false.

I think premise 1 is true. So the only counter I have to the above logical expression is: premise 2 is false. And that IS in fact my position.

But if I say "premise 2 is false" there is a pretty good response to me that supports your thesis:

Argument B (two part argument):

1. If there is a law, there is an author.
2. Morality involves laws.
Therefore: Morality needs to have an author.

3. There are only two possible authors of morality: humans or God.
Therefore: If humans didn't create morality, then God did.

What is your opinion on Arguments A and B? Do they do a good job of explaining your position? I would like to clear up any issues before proceeding.

They seem to do a good job of summing up my position but when I got to "Morality involves laws" I was a bit hesitant. Laws are things which need to change over time to suite a specific environment. I would say that laws should have a basic ethic that they are based on and in my case that is the unchanging love of God.
I suppose having such a thing in argument B would change it completely.

 

[Koldo]

That would be a different God, one who is not love and who does not want us to love our neighbour as we love ourselves. A God whose idea of morality is the opposite to the God of the Bible.
This God sounds like the enemy and not the God who loves us and gave Himself for us.

That's alright. Entertain the thought. If God said all rape is moral, would it be objectively moral?

 

[Ella S.]

I see the Platonic influence on Christianity too... it bears all the hallmarks.

The similarity with mystery cults... the supposed dichotomy between body and soul. Plato might have (indirectly) written like a third of the New Testament.

But how many Christian theologians suppose that God is immanent, anyway? As I see it, not many.

They seem to be so preoccupied with his transcendence, that the idea of God's immanence doesn't seem too important to them. I'm not saying it should be important to them or anything. Who am I to decide that? But the fact is, it isn't.

I'm talking about the "above-nature" kind of God in the OP. The kind that self-identified Christians and Muslims insist exists. Not the "identical with nature" kind of God that I've talked about elsewhere.

I don't think I've ever spoken to a modern theologian that discounts immanence, come to think of it. Immanence seems to be the more important aspect of God to most of them, since it's through immanence that God is omnipresent. It's immanence that allows the individual Christian to feel the presence of God and be filled with the Holy Spirit, to have their prayers heard and answered, and in monasticism to recognize that we are all unified by the substance of God.

Immanence is core to understanding the divinity of Jesus Christ. The whole religion of Christianity revolves around a personal Christ, whose spirit remains immanent in our world so that we might turn to it in faith.

Admittedly, I don't know as much about Muslim theology, but the Muslims I've spoken to on this topic have fairly unanimously described God in a way very similar to Classical Pantheism.

Why not want to know it? I understand not wanting to live one's life according to some "universal objective purpose."

But if such a thing existed, I would work tirelessly to discover what it is. I agree with your friend's implicit conclusion (that no such objective purpose for our lives exists) but I fault your friend for wanting to remain ignorant of the real facts if such a thing were the case.

I think what your friend meant to say is that they would not want to be bound by such a purpose, even if it did exist. But that's different than not wanting to know it. Ignorance isn't the answer..

If there really is some universal principle to which we must act, I would hate to have to be a slave to that principle. However, if such a principle did exist (which it doesn't) I would still want to know what it is.

I think, for them, it was a combination of ruining the mystery of life and the fact that they would then be obligated to what was right as soon as they no longer had ignorance as an excuse for not doing the right thing.

Of course, I agree that I would rather know.

But, luckily, my idea of moral objectivity doesn't depend on any such concept. All I'm trying to say is that we sometimes use "good" and "bad" to refer to objective realities (to compare one state of affairs to another). And, in those particular cases, we can discern some things about what we ought to do, if we want the best outcome. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Goodness doesn't need to be truly objective for that. As long as you can set forward a standard criteria, you can still judge whether something is good or not relative to that criteria.

Christianity uses the fake criteria of obedience to a figure that doesn't exist and measures it with non-existent sin, but even they're still able to define what does and doesn't violate the commandments depending on the denomination and its governing authority. Catholic doctrine is quite clear on what the mortal sins are, for the most part, as an example.

The problem that I see is that "best" in "best outcome" is an evaluative claim and it presupposes consequentialism, so it can't really be objective.

 

[dybmh]

Entertain the thought. If God said all rape is moral, would it be objectively moral?

If a diety ( notice we are no longer discussing the God of the bible ) establishes itself as the undeniable absolute all-powerful creator of everthing, who actively sustains and maintains existence, who at any instant could wipe out existence, and through undeniable revelation, commands people to rape anyone at any time, and consistently without fail rewards the one who rapes and the one who is raped with bliss...

yup, it's moral. Not that I would be able to do it, I would be an immoral person in that construct.

 

[wellwisher]

If a diety ( notice we are no longer discussing the God of the bible ) establishes itself as the undeniable absolute all-powerful creator of everthing, who actively sustains and maintains existence, who at any instant could wipe out existence, and through undeniable revelation, commands people to rape anyone at any time, and consistently without fail rewards the one who rapes and the one who is raped with bliss...

yup, it's moral. Not that I would be able to do it, I would be an immoral person in that construct.

Morality is about optimization of the group, while your scenario is not optimized by any rational criteria. It implies God uses relative morality based on whims instead of rational morality based on common sense.

Law was not made for the righteous man. It was made for the sinners. Most people would not kill except under extreme self defense scenarios. However, there are also people who would kill on a whim. Thou shall not kill was written for the latter, but not the former.

The problem is, we cannot always tell who is who, so to be safe we apply all the laws to all, including those who do not need it. Those who do not need it, feel too confined, for no good reason, so they may prefer relative morality. But relative morality, although good for the innocent at heart, is not good for the criminals, who will use this as an excuse to follow their evil heart. We are sort of stuck trying to balance freedom for the righteous with the needed restrictions for the lawless. It is more of an art than a science.

One way to make this fair for all, so law only applies to those who positively require it, would be to make everything lawful for new born babies. We all start with the assumption of innocent and therefore do not need law. Babies are innocent and we do not place them under law. What newborn cheat on their taxes or runs red light with their car? These do not apply.

As these babies grow, if they commit violations against others, we add some looser restrictions, but just to the transgressors. If the child can avoid violations, as they grow, you remain in status of all is lawful. Each person's nature, will sort of decide their own fate, in terms of being totally under law, or being under partial law,, to other not needing any law.

This way we can have law for the criminals, who will show their true colors, early. We can also have relative morality for those who demonstrate righteousness. Some may not have any law since they have law already written in their hearts at birth.