Why There Can be an Objective Morality Even Without a God

[Jollybear]

I often hear some statement along the lines of, "If a god does not exist, then there can be no objective morality".

As it happens, that sort of statement suffers greatly from the misfortune of being false.

It is possible, for example, that Platonic forms or ideals of morality exist even though no god exists.

Note: I am not attempting here to present an argument for the existence of an objective morality.

Without a God or a soul, objective morality is like an ant saying "dont step on me, its wrong".

Yea, people would still be good, but if they wernt, in the grand sense, it would not matter.

 

[Mister Emu]

It is possible, for example, that Platonic forms or ideals of morality exist even though no god exists.

It's been a long time since I've read Plato, how do Platonic forms bridge the is/ought divide to provide moral imperatives? For instance, if I agree that kindness, fairness, courage, etc. all exist as perfect forms, what obligates me to devote myself to them?

 

[crossfire]

To me, you are presenting one of the few genuinely interesting arguments against the existence of an objective morality. Most people who chose to argue against the existence do so on the grounds that opinions of what is moral can vary widely from one person to the next.

But that is no more an interesting argument than it would be an interesting argument to suggest that 2 + 2 has no objective sum because there are numerous conflicting opinions among first grade arithmetic students as to what the sum is.

Your argument, on the other hand, if I understand it correctly, might be boiled down to: (1) If morality existed objectively, then it would be in some way empirical, (2) it cannot be sensed empirically, therefore it does not exist objectively.

To me, that's a vastly more interesting argument than the much more common argument -- and fallacious -- argument that morality cannot exist objectively because people have different opinions of what it is.

I'm not much into nihilism--concluding that something doesn't exist because we cannot sense it. I see that as a fallacy.

There are many things about objective reality that we can only sense with the help of technology. For instance, CERN has been expanding the empirical data available to us about objective reality. Just because we can't sense something, doesn't mean it doesn't objectively exist. It just means we haven't found it yet.

The range of sensory accuity can vary greatly between individuals, as well as the ability to express sensory nuances consciously. One person may be color blind in regards to the color "red," another may sense red fine, but only has one name, "red," for a general range of colors, or a few names for this spectrum, whereas an artist may have hundreds of names for various shades of red. This might also be the case with individual variences regarding morality, if it is something sensed.

There is also evidence that color sensing might also have a cultural factor to it. Some cultures have difficulty discerning "blue" from "green." Such factors might also play a role in morality.

There is also evidence that our innate sensory range is more sensitive than our conscious minds can process. We might be able to sense a wider range of things than we realize--but just don't know what to do with the data. (People who can successfully douse for water being one example.) Morality might fit into this empirical category--we can sense it, but cannot bring it into consciousness fully.

Human beings generally recognize that there are instances where one might be morally impaired--leniency is generally extended to the insane acrossed a wide range of cultures. Children are also granted leniency, in that "they don't know any better."

So, what we are faced with is this:

• Is morality a delusion (a subjective product mistaken for something objective?) Is there a kernal of something there that is covered by delusion?
  
• Is morality useful? What is its range of its usefulness? Does it become unuseful at a point? (Such as stoning someone on the spot.) Does the area of usefulness correlate with "real" and the areas of unusefulness correlate with "delusion?" (This is an empirical test in a way.)

 

[oldbadger]

If I recall, according to Plato, people who do not behave morally are people who have forgotten what moral behavior is. In other words, objective morals exist, but sometimes we forget what they are.

I don't think that people forget what moral behaviour is, I think that some folks will speak of it when judging how others should behave. Although that is a heavy rock to chuck at humanity in general, it could well be a just indictment.

But don't quote me on that: It's been 40 years since I read Plato.

Fair enough. Well, it's been 40 years since I was reading C.S. Forester, Wilbur Smith and Alexander Kent so you have an advantage over me there in any case!

 

[Sunstone]

It's been a long time since I've read Plato, how do Platonic forms bridge the is/ought divide to provide moral imperatives? For instance, if I agree that kindness, fairness, courage, etc. all exist as perfect forms, what obligates me to devote myself to them?

It's been 40 years since I read Plato. I no longer recall an answer to that question.

 

[DanishCrow]

Yes, but who has heard of your faith?

Anyone who's watched HBO's Vikings, I guess.

Are you saying you're incapable of thinking outside the box? That's a curious thing to admit to.

No, I'm saying your original point is a strawman entirely devoid of serious effort. Whoever you have heard say ****thatdidnthappen.txt is as dull as you, or you pulled it out of your *** to sound smart. Whatever the reason, it didn't work. Have a nice day!

 

[BSM1]

Anyone who's watched HBO's Vikings, I guess.

How'd that work out for them?

 

[Nous]

I do think it promotes clarity to reflect what moral realists actually assert, which is that there exist objective moral facts. E.g., it is an objective moral fact that rape is immoral.

 

[sealchan]

Since we're in a debate forum, I'll add a little fuel to the fire:

Personally, I find it insulting to be told that I don't know how to be moral without the intervention of some invisible, supernatural being. And even more, I trust much more a person who acting morally because it's want they want to do, than a person who is acting morally out of a fear of god.

IMO religion is less about being moral and more about confronting (or not) ones fear of their mortality. Those that try and hide from that fear still act against morality oftentimes although they wrap themselves in the cloak of dogma. If they would/could open themselves to that fear then they might actually find the knowledge, wisdom and compassion that their religion teaches within themselves and not within the dogma.

 

[Nous]

Your argument, on the other hand, if I understand it correctly, might be boiled down to: (1) If morality existed objectively, then it would be in some way empirical, (2) it cannot be sensed empirically, therefore it does not exist objectively.

To me, that's a vastly more interesting argument than the much more common argument -- and fallacious -- argument that morality cannot exist objectively because people have different opinions of what it is.

Those might be the premises of a more interesting argument than the premises of other arguments, but are those premises sound? If there exist objective logical facts -- such as the proposition that a valid argument preserves the truth of the premises -- then we would be able to sense these facts. Is that true?

If there exist phenomena smaller than Planck length, then we would be able to sense them. Is that true?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I often hear some statement along the lines of, "If a god does not exist, then there can be no objective morality".

As it happens, that sort of statement suffers greatly from the misfortune of being false.

It is possible, for example, that Platonic forms or ideals of morality exist even though no god exists.

Note: I am not attempting here to present an argument for the existence of an objective morality.

If objective morality exists without God, will you allow that Christians can have objective morality?

 

[Sunstone]

No, I'm saying your original point is a strawman entirely devoid of serious effort. Whoever you have heard say ****thatdidnthappen.txt is as dull as you, or you pulled it out of your *** to sound smart. Whatever the reason, it didn't work. Have a nice day!

Friends don't let friends drink and post.

 

[Apologes]

When constructing a moral argument for God's existence, setting the bar for your opponent as low as merely providing a possible explanation is setting yourself up for failure. For that reason, more competent defenders of the argument would not say that God is the only possible explanation for objective morality but the most plausible one.

Proponents of opposing theories also ought to explain why those theories are more plausible. While I think Platonism can account for moral values I do not think it can do anything to account for normative ethics. What I mean by that is, Platonism can tell us what is wrong and what is right but it cannot explain why we ought to do what is right and avoid what is wrong. There is simply no ground for moral duties and as such moral responsibility is brought into question.

Depending on what sort of theistic moral theory the proponent of the moral argument is endorsing, Platonism may or may not come out as a more plausible solution or (as is more often the case in debates between alternative views in moral realism) the less implausible solution.

 

[Mister Emu]

It's been 40 years since I read Plato. I no longer recall an answer to that question.

That's a pretty big piece of the puzzle of a moral system. Lacking that, I can hardly consider that you've made a compelling argument for platonic forms as the basis for an objective moral system.

 

[Nous]

That's a pretty big piece of the puzzle of a moral system. Lacking that, I can hardly consider that you've made a compelling argument for platonic forms as the basis for an objective moral system.

How to persuade people to behave does not seem to me the sine qua non of an argument for or explanation of moral realism.

 

[sealchan]

I often hear some statement along the lines of, "If a god does not exist, then there can be no objective morality".

As it happens, that sort of statement suffers greatly from the misfortune of being false.

It is possible, for example, that Platonic forms or ideals of morality exist even though no god exists.

Note: I am not attempting here to present an argument for the existence of an objective morality.

What do we need objective morality for?

Morality doesn't seem to me to need to be objective since morality is inherently about how we act personally. But non-personal knowledge can be objective because it is independent of our personal actions.

 

[Mister Emu]

How to persuade people to behave does not seem to me the sine qua non of an argument for or explanation of moral realism.

It seems to me that the ties between moral facts and imperatives are necessary. If something can coherently be argued to be evil, there must be an imperative against it. If the system cannot provide the imperative to do good and refrain from evil then you haven't got a moral system.

 

[Mister Emu]

What do we need objective morality for?

To provide a meaningful framework for judging actions. If you've ever thought someone has performed evil acts, ISIS, John Wayne Gacy, Hitler, etc. you are appealing to an objective morality that supersedes what the individual thinks or believes.

morality is inherently about how we act personally.

I would argue few people believe this and almost none think or act in a manner consistent with it.

 

[shmogie]

I often hear some statement along the lines of, "If a god does not exist, then there can be no objective morality".

As it happens, that sort of statement suffers greatly from the misfortune of being false.

It is possible, for example, that Platonic forms or ideals of morality exist even though no god exists.

Note: I am not attempting here to present an argument for the existence of an objective morality.

Without objective morality, then whatever behavior is agreed upon is inherently ¨moral¨. No arguments here

 

[shmogie]

The judgments of conscience make morality objective. No God required.

Case #1. The facts indicate an unjustified killing
Case #2 The facts indicate a killing in a clear case of self defense

If you present these two cases to unbiased juries in any culture in the world, you will get the same judgments. The judgments of conscience are objective.

They seem subjective only because there are tons of biases created by the weak reasoning minds of people for any number of reasons. For example, a Christian who interprets the Sixth Commandment as an absolute rule will find that the killer in Case #2 has sinned. His minority opinion doesn't make morality subjective; it makes him wrong.

Nonsense. Throughout history killings have occurred and been considered moral that had nothing to do with self defense