Objective Morality Without God

[Rival]

It is not just that we don't know. It is that there is no answer to that question, for there are multiple ways to interpret what the word 'benefit' might mean. It is a vague word with no specific meaning. It is only after we assign a specific meaning to it, whatever it is, that we can use our knowledge to look for the best way to achieve it.

Yes?

I fail to see a problem. But we might not find what the benefit is. If God tells you to wear green dresses and never blue dresses, he clearly knows why this is. To humans it would seem absurd. Yet if we believe God is not malevolent, as in the Classical Monotheistic paradigm I'm working under, then we assume God sees benefit in wearing green dresses as opposed to blue, or some disadvantage in blue dresses. The easiest way to achieve whatever benefit it is is to wear a green dress, even if we don't know the good of it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are assuming God works the same way human minds do and forms opinions. As an omnimax being God doesn't have opinions - he knows everything.

Well, I'm assuming god(s) exist in the first place, which is a huge speculative leap to begin with. You're assuming that some god exists and is "omnimax" (which is something of a contradiction itself), but that doesn't have to be the case.

Even if god exists and "knows everything" that doesn't make his/it's opinion any less of an opinion, from his/it's point of view. The Biblical God has wants and desires and experiences emotions, and seems perfectly capable of holding opinions, and does so. And changes those opinions over time, I might add. This same god who condones slavery in the Old Testament doesn't seem to do so anymore.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We don't know. Of what benefit is eating beef but not rabbit? Mutton but not horse? Of what benefit is praying 3 times a day as opposed to 6?

We don't need to know.

I disagree. We do need to know. Otherwise we aren't practicing morality at all - we're just blindly following orders instead.

 

[Rival]

Well, I'm assuming god(s) exist in the first place, which is a huge speculative leap to begin with. You're assuming that some god exists and is "omnimax" (which is something of a contradiction itself), but that doesn't have to be the case.

Even if god exists and "knows everything" that doesn't make his/it's opinion any less of an opinion, from his/it's point of view. The Biblical God has wants and desires and experiences emotions, and seems perfectly capable of holding opinions, and does so. And changes those opinions over time, I might add. This same god who condones slavery in the Old Testament doesn't seem to do so anymore.

As I explained above, this is a very superficial reading of God in the Tanak and New Testament. Theologians and philosophers have delved into these texts and come away with far different opinions than this surface level understanding. God is traditionally understood to be without emotion and within Christianity this leads to issues like Theopaschism - Wikipedia.

Ultimately we are discussing Impassibility - Wikipedia.

Impassibility (from Latin in-, "not", passibilis, "able to suffer, experience emotion") describes the theological doctrine that God does not experience pain or pleasure from the actions of another being. It has often been seen as a consequence of divine aseity, the idea that God is absolutely independent of any other being, i.e., in no way causally dependent. Being affected (literally made to have a certain emotion, affect) by the state or actions of another would seem to imply causal dependence.

Some theological systems portray God as a being expressive of many (or all) emotions. Other systems, mainly Christianity, Judaism and Islam, portray God as a being that does not experience suffering. However, in Christianity there was an ancient dispute about the impassibility of God (see Nestorianism). Still, it is understood in all Abrahamic religions, including Christianity, that God is "without passions", because He is immutable. So in Christianity, while the created human nature of Christ is mutable and passable, the Godhead is not.

The Catholic Church teaches dogmatically that God is impassible. The divine nature accordingly has no emotions, changes, alterations, height, width, depth, or any other temporal attributes. While Jesus Christ's human nature was complete, and thus Christ possessed a human body, human mind and human soul, and thus human emotions, this human nature was hypostatically united with the timeless, immutable, impassible divine nature, which retained all of its divine attributes without alteration, just as his human nature retained all of its human attributes. In Catholic doctrine, it would be erroneous and blasphemous to attribute changes or emotional states to God, except by analogy. Thus scriptural expressions which indicate "anger" or "sadness" on God's part are considered anthropomorphisms, mere analogies to explain mankind's relationship to God, who is impassible in his own nature. Some objecting to this claim assert that if God cannot have emotions, then God cannot love, which is a central tenet of Christianity. However, Catholics would point out that love is not an emotion except in a secondary sense, and is far more than simply a changeable emotion. Furthermore, the human nature of Christ expressed emotional love as well as possessing the timeless, unconditioned "agape" of God.

And Aseity - Wikipedia

You think facts are opinions? This is odd. Is it my opinion that I am posting on a forum? No, it is a fact. When you know everything at all times and places you have no opinions - you know all the facts; if you are an omnimax judge you don't need to hear witnesses, you already know exactly what happened and who is in the wrong. I'm genuinely not sure why this is confusing. It is the case that far too many people anthropomorphise God and assume he behaves just like an all-knowing human with super powers. This would be true of many Pagan gods, but this is not the God as understood in Classical Monotheism.

 

[Rival]

I disagree. We do need to know. Otherwise we aren't practicing morality at all - we're just blindly following orders instead.

The word here is benefit, not morality - we went off topic a bit (or maybe I did). I was giving an example of why we may not necessarily know but God does and so we act based on that.

 

[dybmh]

We may all experience the same emotions but we will experience them differently and for different reasons. We would effectively be robots with emotions if you could make it uniform.

I was brining a hypothetical. My objection was to an absolute claim: "only an unaffected God could develop objective morality". Only? I disagree, and I think I brought a valid example where an affected God could indeed develop an objective morality. What I'm saying is, "it's possible". What you're saying is, "it's not reality".

Consider: how does a hunger strike work? It naturally, automatically, universally draws attention to the person who is starving themself. Can people choose to ignore it after they notice it? Sure, they aren't complete robots. But there is an automatic reaction, a compulsion, to pay attetion, at least briefly. That's why it works, that's reality. It is a bit robotic, but, that doesn't make it wrong.

I agree that emotions are not universally shared now. But maybe as time goes on, people evolve, God continues to be involved, eventually certain basic emotional responses are shared universally. Simple things, like chewing off the leg of a live animal when the individual has the capability to end its life quickly and painlessly, might at some point render universal disgust in everyone ( if it doesn't already ). But I'm not proposing that everyone should / will feel the same about linen and wool combos.

No, God is no benefited or affected by anything, since he is pure intellect/mind/nous/spirit etc. He is unchangeable, and emotions are a change in state. For God to be the God of Classical Monotheism he has to be timeless, changeless etc. and this is in conflict with emotions, which are half the basis of subjectivity and change.

hashkafah philosophy - G-d doesn't have emotions? Why? - Mi Yodeya (stackexchange.com)

Well. As you know, Rambam is great, Redak is great, but they're not perfect and I don't need to follow their rationale simply based on their authority.

The only scriptural justification for God's lack of emotions seems to be one verse "God does not change". I don't think that God as timeless and unchanging prohibits emotions. Yes, the english word e-motion, implies change, and that is how a human experiences it. God unbound by time could experience emotions eternally and concurrently. Unlimited by time, the pleasure from Noah's offering continues to exist, the fury from the Jewish people's disobediance continues to exist. Beyond the limitations of time, God can be both pleased and furious continuously without changing at all.

Humans can experience this too in a small degree. I can recall many unpleasant events in my life and re-experience the pain. And I can also recall how those same events brought me to greater success and I can re-experience the pleasure from that memory. The pain and the pleasure don't cancel each other out, they both exist concurrently as long as I remember. If it's true for me, certainly it can be true for God as well. God is unlimited, and I am a finite being.

Regarding God as only intellect, in my view, this is incomplete. It puts limits on God. The image and likeness of God includes something corresponding to the heart. But the definition you brought omits the heart. Not that God literally has a heart, but something else is there besides an intellect, else, the form and likeness would be figuratively heartless.

 

[dybmh]

@Rival,

So. All of that said, A universal shared emotional response would qualify as an objective morality? Agree? Even if that's not what exists today, for us, for a God beyond time, it could still be true as long as it exists at some point, it would be current for God? And there really isn't any scriptural reason or logical reason preventing this from a God who is unlimited?

 

[Rival]

@Rival,

So. All of that said, A universal shared emotional response would qualify as an objective morality? Agree? Even if that's not what exists today, for us, for a God beyond time, it could still be true as long as it exists at some point, it would be current for God? And there really isn't any scriptural reason or logical reason preventing this from a God who is unlimited?

It is a complex question. My initial response is to say no, because emotions are by their nature subjective (i.e., subject to outside forces acting on an emotional consciousness etc.) God and objective morality remain objective given that they are not based on this kind of response, but exist on their own terms independent of any response. I'll have a think about it and ask one of my Theology tutors.

 

[dybmh]

It is a complex question. My initial response is to say no, because emotions are by their nature subjective (i.e., subject to outside forces acting on an emotional consciousness etc.) God and objective morality remain objective given that they are not based on this kind of response, but exist on their own terms independent of any response. I'll have a think about it and ask one of my Theology tutors.

To me, there are 2 primary questions:

1) If something is universal, each and every subject reacts the same way under the same conditions, is that subjective or objective? It seems to me that if it's universal, it's not subjective.

2) Can an unaffected God define morality of any kind? I vote no, because without affect there is no right / wrong. Choices are made, but right / wrong is meaningless to an unaffected God.

 

[Koldo]

Yes?

I fail to see a problem. But we might not find what the benefit is. If God tells you to wear green dresses and never blue dresses, he clearly knows why this is. To humans it would seem absurd. Yet if we believe God is not malevolent, as in the Classical Monotheistic paradigm I'm working under, then we assume God sees benefit in wearing green dresses as opposed to blue, or some disadvantage in blue dresses. The easiest way to achieve whatever benefit it is is to wear a green dress, even if we don't know the good of it.

The classical monotheist concept of God, as in omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, is logically incoherent as per the problem of evil.

But more importantly, the issue is not whether we might see the benefit in wearing green dresses, but rather whether God can determine what is 'good' for us without it being completely arbitrary. Since it is not possible to derive morality from knowledge alone, how would that even be possible?

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I explained above, this is a very superficial reading of God in the Tanak and New Testament. Theologians and philosophers have delved into these texts and come away with far different opinions than this surface level understanding. God is traditionally understood to be without emotion and within Christianity this leads to issues like Theopaschism - Wikipedia.

Ultimately we are discussing Impassibility - Wikipedia.

Impassibility (from Latin in-, "not", passibilis, "able to suffer, experience emotion") describes the theological doctrine that God does not experience pain or pleasure from the actions of another being. It has often been seen as a consequence of divine aseity, the idea that God is absolutely independent of any other being, i.e., in no way causally dependent. Being affected (literally made to have a certain emotion, affect) by the state or actions of another would seem to imply causal dependence.

Some theological systems portray God as a being expressive of many (or all) emotions. Other systems, mainly Christianity, Judaism and Islam, portray God as a being that does not experience suffering. However, in Christianity there was an ancient dispute about the impassibility of God (see Nestorianism). Still, it is understood in all Abrahamic religions, including Christianity, that God is "without passions", because He is immutable. So in Christianity, while the created human nature of Christ is mutable and passable, the Godhead is not.

The Catholic Church teaches dogmatically that God is impassible. The divine nature accordingly has no emotions, changes, alterations, height, width, depth, or any other temporal attributes. While Jesus Christ's human nature was complete, and thus Christ possessed a human body, human mind and human soul, and thus human emotions, this human nature was hypostatically united with the timeless, immutable, impassible divine nature, which retained all of its divine attributes without alteration, just as his human nature retained all of its human attributes. In Catholic doctrine, it would be erroneous and blasphemous to attribute changes or emotional states to God, except by analogy. Thus scriptural expressions which indicate "anger" or "sadness" on God's part are considered anthropomorphisms, mere analogies to explain mankind's relationship to God, who is impassible in his own nature. Some objecting to this claim assert that if God cannot have emotions, then God cannot love, which is a central tenet of Christianity. However, Catholics would point out that love is not an emotion except in a secondary sense, and is far more than simply a changeable emotion. Furthermore, the human nature of Christ expressed emotional love as well as possessing the timeless, unconditioned "agape" of God.

And Aseity - Wikipedia

You think facts are opinions? This is odd. Is it my opinion that I am posting on a forum? No, it is a fact. When you know everything at all times and places you have no opinions - you know all the facts; if you are an omnimax judge you don't need to hear witnesses, you already know exactly what happened and who is in the wrong. I'm genuinely not sure why this is confusing. It is the case that far too many people anthropomorphise God and assume he behaves just like an all-knowing human with super powers. This would be true of many Pagan gods, but this is not the God as understood in Classical Monotheism.

So interpretation of god's supposed nature is a matter of opinion too. Go figure.

You can know everything, and still have opinions about everything.

 

[Rival]

So interpretation of god's supposed nature is a matter of opinion too. Go figure.

You can know everything, and still have opinions about everything.

Not as a changeless being. Opinions occur due to circumstance and circumstance is subject to change. Opinions are the domain of changeful beings not changeless ones.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not as a changeless being. Opinions occur due to circumstance and circumstance is subject to change. Opinions are the domain of changeful beings not changeless ones.

Mm hmm ... So the God of the Old Testament endorsed slavery. Do you think slavery is moral?

 

[Rival]

Mm hmm ... So the God of the Old Testament endorsed slavery. Do you think slavery is moral?

No.

Do you want to talk about other stuff in the Torah that folks don't like?

God commands the wholesale slaughter of tribes.
God commands stoning to death of a Sabbath breaker.
God commands Jews to free their Jewish slaves after 7 years, but non-Jewish slaves are chattel forever.
God commands men who engage in homosexual sex acts to be put to death.
God commands witches to be put to death.
God hardens Pharaoh's heart.
God apparently agrees with Moses when Moses asks why his men left the women alive and sends them back to kill them.
God commands disabled and disfigured people not to enter into certain parts of the temple or perform certain rites.

People have been struggling with these questions since there's been a Torah, and commentary after commentary has been written on every single law by both Jews and Christians.

In any case...

The Christian response would be that these laws were enlightened for their time - and they were - and when you put it up against the Code of Hammurabi the Torah wins every time as far as 21st. c Westerners are concerned.

The idea is that these laws reflect what cultures at the time were advanced to, that would reasonably be accepted within the parameters of society or what considered abhorrent. Jesus himself touches upon this when asked about divorce,

They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

Torah permits divorce for near any reason; Jesus severely limits it.

On the same topic we have this in Malachi,

"For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless."

The God who makes divorce strongly permissible 'hates' it (not to mention violence)?

And then, if we believe Christ is God, he limits it to near impossibility.

What we see here is a God that clearly has a moral about divorce (it's bad) but he permits it because of human nature and 'hardness of heart' in his Torah.

 

[Augustus]

By this reasoning, I can also create a scale myself. What would be the pertinent distinction?

You didn't create the world and everything in it.

If you create a video game you can create the scoring mechanics though.

Yes. Since I am arguing that morality is not mind independent, I am challenging the notion that an omnimax god has sovereignty over morality, since such power would be logically incoherent and therefore not exist.

Why is it logically incoherent that a designer gets to choose the features of their design?

In a perfectly designed world, how does morality even exist except as a result of the designer?

How would you define what morality is in such a world so that it is mind dependent and thus completely independent of the designer rather than a created function of their design?

 

[Koldo]

You didn't create the world and everything in it.

That is certainly a distinction. Now you need to show it is a pertinent one.

If you create a video game you can create the scoring mechanics though.

This is not quite accurate. I could also possibly mod the game to change the scoring mechanics.

Why is it logically incoherent that a designer gets to choose the features of their design?

Because it is a logically contradictory feature. Creating objective morality is like creating married bachelors.

In a perfectly designed world, how does morality even exist except as a result of the designer?

It is clearly ultimately a result of the designer and yet not objective.

How would you define what morality is in such a world so that it is mind dependent and thus completely independent of the designer rather than a created function of their design?

You are mixing things up. Being mind dependent doesn't entail being completely independent from the designer.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Koldo, @Rival, @Augustus , please answer me a few questions about morality as you understand it.

1. Is it possible to behave morally without understanding what makes that behavior moral? Why or why not?

2. What role, if any, have the abilities to perceive (perception) and to reason (rationality) in the existence, development and expression of morality?

3. What, if anything, can make previously moral behavior immoral or vice versa? Should such changes be pursued? Should they be avoided? Why and how?


My own answers:

1. No. Morality and obedience are not the same thing. As a matter of fact, they are mutually exclusive, because morality requires the development of responsibility and discernment.

2. Both perception and rationality are essential for morality to exist at all. I actually define morality as the emerging property from the conjuntion of empathy and prediction, and empathy requires perception while prediction requires reason/rationality.

3. The boundaries of moral behavior change constantly, and we should actively attempt to expand them. Those boundaries are influenced by a myriad of circunstances both environmental and personal, including discernment, mental state and physical and social possibilities of influencing other people's well-being.

As it turns out, one of the earliest directives that morality demands of moral agents (which are all rational beings capable of empathy) is to attempt to expand the scope of their own ability to act morally.

 

[Augustus]

That is certainly a distinction. Now you need to show it is a pertinent one.

As explained several times, if the framework of existence is designed and regulated by an external agent, then designed concepts within that framework are not mind dependent. They exist independently of human perception.

This is not quite accurate. I could also possibly mod the game to change the scoring mechanics.

You can't mod the creation of an omnimax God.

Because it is a logically contradictory feature. Creating objective morality is like creating married bachelors.

Why? Saying it's logically incoherent because it's logically contradictory isn't an argument, it's just an assertion.

It's no different from creating an objective scoring system in a video game.

It is clearly ultimately a result of the designer and yet not objective.

It is objective to those existing purely within the creation. There are definitive and independent standards of right and wrong that exist beyond their ability to perceive or understand them.

You are mixing things up. Being mind dependent doesn't entail being completely independent from the designer.

If created and maintained by a non-human designer, by definition it is not dependent on the human mind.

The server of a video game exists even if no one plays the game.

 

[Koldo]

As explained several times, if the framework of existence is designed and regulated by an external agent, then designed concepts within that framework are not mind dependent. They exist independently of human perception.

But where is this designed concept within this framework? If it is not tangible nor perceivable, how do you figure I haven't just now changed it? How do you figure that merely declaring it to be something else doesn't make it something else?

You can't mod the creation of an omnimax God.

How did you reach this conclusion?

Why? Saying it's logically incoherent because it's logically contradictory isn't an argument, it's just an assertion.

It's no different from creating an objective scoring system in a video game.

Can sadness exist objectively in the world? Or is it an emotion and therefore requires a mind and is therefore subjective?

Likewise, morality is also not out there as a discrete object or phenomenom. It only exists in the mind.

It is objective to those existing purely within the creation. There are definitive and independent standards of right and wrong that exist beyond their ability to perceive or understand them.

Independent from what?
Where's this fully fledged scoring system except in God's mind?

If created and maintained by a non-human designer, by definition it is not dependent on the human mind.

The server of a video game exists even if no one plays the game.

Morality is not necessarily human mind dependent. For it could exist without humans. If God alone existed, morality could also exist. It is mind dependent, but not necessarily human mind dependent. The server is the mind, but not necessarily the human mind.

 

[Koldo]

@Koldo, @Rival, @Augustus , please answer me a few questions about morality as you understand it.

1. Is it possible to behave morally without understanding what makes that behavior moral? Why or why not?

2. What role, if any, have the abilities to perceive (perception) and to reason (rationality) in the existence, development and expression of morality?

3. What, if anything, can make previously moral behavior immoral or vice versa? Should such changes be pursued? Should they be avoided? Why and how?


My own answers:

1. No. Morality and obedience are not the same thing. As a matter of fact, they are mutually exclusive, because morality requires the development of responsibility and discernment.

2. Both perception and rationality are essential for morality to exist at all. I actually define morality as the emerging property from the conjuntion of empathy and prediction, and empathy requires perception while prediction requires reason/rationality.

3. The boundaries of moral behavior change constantly, and we should actively attempt to expand them. Those boundaries are influenced by a myriad of circunstances both environmental and personal, including discernment, mental state and physical and social possibilities of influencing other people's well-being.

As it turns out, one of the earliest directives that morality demands of moral agents (which are all rational beings capable of empathy) is to attempt to expand the scope of their own ability to act morally.

It is important to note that I am a moral relativist. I therefore see multiple moral systems in existence since the truth value of moral claims ends up depending on the individual. This however doesn't mean that I personally value all moral systems, nor that that I am going to use someone else's own moral system to judge their actions.

I also believe there is a certain human nature, more or less, and that what informs morality is a mix of feelings, emotions, reasoning and mental conditioning.

1) A good question. I would say intent and understanding certain consequences of the action is essential for it to be a moral or immoral action within my own framework, but not necessarily understanding what makes the action moral or immoral.

2) Very important. Not understanding the facts properly will lead to misguided moral judgments. However, reason is insufficient by itself to create a moral system. If anything, the most profound source to us is empathy and a sense of fairness.

3) We might develop new values, become mentally conditioned to think differently and become aware of new facts that will lead us to different moral judgments. We should always seek the last one.