Objective Morality Without God

[Augustus]

@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 arguments here have been contingent on the hypothetical existence of an omnimax god (which is not something I actually believe to be true).


If you are asking my personal beliefs:

1. Morality is largely a function of other people's perception. If other's perceive me to behave morally, then I needn't understand morality. If I don't understand what makes it moral, then I can't judge my own behaviour to be moral anyway.

2. Morality is entirely dependent on perception as it is a subjective value judgement. Reason plays some role in creating moral values, although more often it is used to create post-facto justifications for intuitive judgements or those made in self-interest.

I'm not even sure we can understand morality independently from other aspects of human socialisation, psychology and reproduction, how much we can abstract it from these is quite limited.

3. If enough people perceive it as moral/immoral, that's the only real thing. A lot of moral change is really the consequence of environmental change though.

 

[Augustus]

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.

I have been explicit that we are discussing whether or not it is human mind dependent. If you agree it is not human mind dependent then we agree.

Given the omnimax God exists outside the boundaries of his creation, the objective morality exists within the human world regardless of whether it extends out of this and into the divine realm. There is objectively right and wrong in the human world and it is not dependent on the human mind, but on God's will.

Whether it is objective to the god takes you into the kind of theological debate Muslims had over the Quran being eternal or created.

So you agree, from the human perspective, inside this hypothetical theistic world, morality would be objective?

 

[Rival]

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?

I. This is a hard question but I'm going to go with yes. I say this because 1) We already argue over what is and isn't moral yet manage to live in mostly cohesive societies with tacit moral systems. 2) We have culturally bizarre behaviours that may be considered moral, or equated with not-being-common, that really make no sense (saying 'bless you' or 'excuse you' after a sneeze; not putting elbows on tables; not wearing certain colours etc.) It reminds me that one part of an existential crisis is realising the world you live in is basically almost completely made up; the rules, the society, the myths etc. and yet we all unquestioningly consent to most if not all of it. Theoretically we could all just live like chimpanzees but no culture has chosen to do this - yet they go about it in very different ways. This question could therefore go into 'what does it mean to be human?' and can we answer that question with regard to morality and do we really understand our own behaviours. Usually we don't.

II. Some. I would argue it's mostly based on emotional responses, divine command theory (if humans wrote these books this could become messy, but you understand what I mean), and, as Augustus said, post hoc rationalisations for behaviours we would have engaged in anyway. We use our reason to rationalise being human and all the things that come with that. I would differ when it comes to things like 'love thine enemy', which is evolutionarily bizarre and doesn't really fit the schema we know. Other things like the human addiction to suffering (a lot of it we deliberately bring on ourselves, believing we deserve it, or on others etc.) and other behaviours that are difficult to account for by a purely evolutionary psychological assessment. This is mainly the domain of religion, in particular Abrahamic religions.

III. Often it's money. Empire was a great moneymaker until it wasn't, then trade took over. Slavery ws reasoned to be wrong often on Christian principles of universal brotherhood but objection to slavery is by no means universal. I think this is a question that really depends on the moral in question and the societal pressures at the time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Yes, the God of the Bible is a horrible being. Agreed.

I see, so God condones things he thinks are immoral, because of "human nature." Well, except for the 610 Commandments this God had no problem dictating that forbids all kinds of mundane things. Well, I guess some omnimax God is no match for human nature, eh? Why make any commandments at all then?

Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly. This objective morality you speak of coming from God is as subjective as I pointed out in the first place.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, the God of the Bible is a horrible being. Agreed.

I see, so God condones things he thinks are immoral, because of "human nature." Well, except for the 610 Commandments this God had no problem dictating that forbids all kinds of mundane things. Well, I guess some omnimax God is no match for human nature, eh? Why make any commandments at all then?

Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly. This objective morality you speak of coming from God is as subjective as I pointed out in the first place.

It occurs to me that the Bible is poorly organized.
It should be arranged in books to better suit what
people seek within....
- Murder is good.
- Murder is bad.
- Slavery is good.
- Slavery is bad.
- Abortion is allowed.
- Abortion is bad.
And so on.
Now readers can skip what doesn't interest, &
go straight to whichever messages have appeal.

 

[Rival]

Yes, the God of the Bible is a horrible being. Agreed.

I see, so God condones things he thinks are immoral, because of "human nature." Well, except for the 610 Commandments this God had no problem dictating that forbids all kinds of mundane things. Well, I guess some omnimax God is no match for human nature, eh? Why make any commandments at all then?

Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly. This objective morality you speak of coming from God is as subjective as I pointed out in the first place.

I think you're not willing to learn, so have a nice day.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think you're not willing to learn, so have a nice day.

People who don't want to learn, don't tend to ask questions. I see why you're bailing out though. No worries. I asked some hard questions.

Have a nice day.

 

[Rival]

People who don't want to learn, don't tend to ask questions. I see why you're bailing out though. No worries. I asked some hard questions.

Have a nice day.

I'm a Theology student, I haven't 'bailed out' of anything. I am asked and ask these hard questions all the time.

I don't want to continue a conversation with someone who doesn't seem to want to engage politely or meaningfully. I agreed the questions are hard and the answers not straightforward, and you took my answer and instantly boiled it down to something superficial, refusing to engage with what I'd actually said or critically question it in a decent way. These are not straightforward discussions with quick answers, nor they can they be easily expressed. This isn't mathematics.

 

[LuisDantas]

I take it that most people here distinguish between Ethics and Morality?

What is the difference?

 

[Rival]

I take it that most people here distinguish between Ethics and Morality?

What is the difference?

I would argue it's like Theology vs Religion.

Ethics is like Theology - it's the system one uses to work things out.

Morality is like Religion - it's the result of ethical theorising.

 

[Koldo]

I have been explicit that we are discussing whether or not it is human mind dependent. If you agree it is not human mind dependent then we agree.

Given the omnimax God exists outside the boundaries of his creation, the objective morality exists within the human world regardless of whether it extends out of this and into the divine realm. There is objectively right and wrong in the human world and it is not dependent on the human mind, but on God's will.

Whether it is objective to the god takes you into the kind of theological debate Muslims had over the Quran being eternal or created.

So you agree, from the human perspective, inside this hypothetical theistic world, morality would be objective?

No. Because morality does not exist apart from minds. Morality is not human mind dependent, but it is mind dependent. If no one was able to perceive morality, morality wouldn't exist. It is just like feelings. In what way sadness would be said to exist if no one ever felt it? I am saying that whatever is mind dependent, like feelings, is subjective, rather than objective, and that morality is mind dependent.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm a Theology student, I haven't 'bailed out' of anything. I am asked and ask these hard questions all the time.

Except that's what you did.

I don't want to continue a conversation with someone who doesn't seem to want to engage politely or meaningfully. I agreed the questions are hard and the answers not straightforward, and you took my answer and instantly boiled it down to something superficial, refusing to engage with what I'd actually said or critically question it in a decent way. These are not straightforward discussions with quick answers, nor they can they be easily expressed. This isn't mathematics.

Please do attack me personally some more, rather than my arguments. It says more than you think.

 

[Rival]

Except that's what you did.


Please do attack me personally some more, rather than my arguments. It says more than you think.

If you would have come back with something more akin to:

'I understand your perspective but I disagree with...'

That would have been fruitful. Instead I just got scorn.

 

[Koldo]

I take it that most people here distinguish between Ethics and Morality?

What is the difference?

Ethics is philosophy concerning morality.
But words like 'ethical' and 'moral' mean the same thing.

EDIT: Sometimes the word 'ethics' can be used to refer to a 'code of conduct (regardless of whether such code is actually moral)', such as 'work ethics', but I don't use it this way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you would have come back with something more akin to:

'I understand your perspective but I disagree with...'

That would have been fruitful. Instead I just got scorn.

I disagreed with you and asked follow up questions and made points about the God of the Bible. You told me I'm rude and made judgments about where I'm coming from. And also, didn't address my points.

But you feel scorned.

Okay then.

 

[Rival]

I disagreed with you and asked follow up questions and made points about the God of the Bible. You told me I'm rude and made judgments about where I'm coming from. And also, didn't address my points.

But you feel scorned.

Okay then.

Everything you said misrepresented my position then at the end you sarcastically thanked me for making your point...

Yes, the God of the Bible is a horrible being. Agreed.

No, I never said this.

I see, so God condones things he thinks are immoral, because of "human nature." Well, except for the 610 Commandments this God had no problem dictating that forbids all kinds of mundane things. Well, I guess some omnimax God is no match for human nature, eh? Why make any commandments at all then?

More sarcasm that indicates you don't actually want answers.

Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly. This objective morality you speak of coming from God is as subjective as I pointed out in the first place.

You're welcome to your sarcasm and misunderstandings of everything I said.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Everything you said misrepresented my position then at the end you sarcastically thanked me for making your point...

That wasn't sarcasm.

How did I misrepresent your point?

No, I never said this.

Never said you did. But what you did was post a bunch of horrible things that God condones in the Bible.

More sarcasm.

And yet an unanswered point, nonetheless.

You're welcome to your sarcasm and misunderstandings of everything I said.

If I've so badly misunderstood, then please explain where and how. That's how these things work.

Don't just tell me I'm not willing to learn when I'm asking questions about your arguments. And please don't take it as a personal affront when I counter your arguments. It's not meant to be.

 

[Rival]

Never said you did. But what you did was post a bunch of horrible things that God condones in the Bible.

You said "Yes, the God of the Bible is a horrible being. Agreed."

Not at all agreed.

In any case,

And yet an unanswered point, nonetheless.

The sarcastic formatting of it left me cold. It simply didn't come off as though you wanted answers. I went at length about divorce, gave Biblical quotes and expected a response, even one that completely disagrees but at least tells me why with formulated argument. Instead it just seems to be a case of 'This verse says it case closed', but this is not how critical Biblical analysis works. I even agreed that at face value these things are horrible when read in a vacuum, but theologians don't read them in a vacuum. I gave an argument as to why these laws may not represent God.

I am not even arguing from the position of being a Christian or a Jew or Noahide or any other believer. I'm none of those things. I just expected you to engage more fully with the argument I'd made than just throwing things at me. I did not appreciate that approach, so I left the conversation.

If I've so badly misunderstood, then please explain where and how. That's how these things work.

Don't just tell me I'm not willing to learn when I'm asking questions about your arguments. And please don't take it as a personal affront when I counter your arguments. It's not meant to be.

That's the thing though - you didn't counter my arguments. You gave no opposing argument, no quotes, no rebuttals at all. You just fired questions at me and that is not how a dialogue works. You didn't engage with the material I'd brought.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You said "Yes, the God of the Bible is a horrible being. Agreed."

Not at all agreed.

In any case,

You posted a bunch of terrible stuff that the God you worship condones in the Bible. I think it's horrible. You don't?

The sarcastic formatting of it left me cold. It simply didn't come off as though you wanted answers. I went at length about divorce, gave Biblical quotes and expected a response, even one that completely disagrees but at least tells me why with formulated argument. Instead it just seems to be a case of 'This verse says it case closed', but this is not how critical Biblical analysis works. I even agreed that at face value these things are horrible when read in a vacuum, but theologians don't read them in a vacuum. I gave an argument as to why these laws may not represent God.

I am not even arguing from the position of being a Christian or a Jew or Noahide or any other believer. I'm none of those things. I just expected you to engage more fully with the argument I'd made than just throwing things at me. I did not appreciate that approach, so I left the conversation.

That's the thing though - you didn't counter my arguments. You gave no opposing argument, no quotes, no rebuttals at all. You just fired questions at me and that is not how a dialogue works. You didn't engage with the material I'd brought.

I did, actually. Instead of responding to it, you got upset and attempted to impugn my character.

The arguments you gave in response to mine, weren’t that though. They were from the perspective of humans and our ever-changing sense of morality.

But what we're talking about is some sort of "objective" morality that supposedly comes from God. So, what populations of human beings wanted or believed is irrelevant to the discussion about what objective morality stemming from God(s) would look like. I also pointed out that God apparently has no problem dictating commands about all kinds of things from not eating shellfish to not murdering and then turns around and commands his chosen people to take slaves as property and to murder their neighbours, among other terrible things that you listed in your last post. This is not objective morality. And then you say, ‘oh God makes exceptions about these moral dictates for all the flaws in ‘human nature’ – because humans don’t know that slavery is wrong. Well, apparently God doesn’t either.

Remember, my original point of contention with you was that morality coming from God(s) is just as subjective as morality coming from humans. You’ve helped demonstrate that here, whether you wanted to or not. What you have described here is subjective morality – morality that is subject to the whims and opinions of some God, which can and has changed across time. Which is actually the exact thing we would expect to see if there weren’t any God dictating morality to us – humans trying to figure it out over time, and getting it wrong sometimes, and correcting that as time goes on. Nobody living today (well, almost nobody) would say that slavery as described in the Bible is a moral thing. Well, that’s not thanks to any God dictating that to us. That came from ourselves and our constantly evolving morality that changes as we grow as a species and learn new things about ourselves and our fellow humans.

 

[Augustus]

No. Because morality does not exist apart from minds. Morality is not human mind dependent, but it is mind dependent. If no one was able to perceive morality, morality wouldn't exist. It is just like feelings. In what way sadness would be said to exist if no one ever felt it? I am saying that whatever is mind dependent, like feelings, is subjective, rather than objective, and that morality is mind dependent.

Not if it's dependent on an eternal, external supernatural agent.

If no one was able to perceive it, the eternal, external supernatural agent and its characteristics would still exist.

So unless you are saying the external supernatural agent is mind dependent, then it's not mind dependent.