Why We Cannot Know That Our Morals are Objective

[JakofHearts]

When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver, but that's who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral law giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. So what is your question? (Ravi Zacharias)

 

[ArtieE]

It seems to me that all people throughout history and in every culture instinctively recognize some kind of similar moral code with an awareness that some things are wrong....such as murder, rape, theft. Wearing diamonds just does not fall into that moral category. This universal awareness of right and wrong inherent in each person indicates to me a ultimate Lawgiver who has placed His moral code within our conscience. The Bible reveals that the Creator is the Lawgiver and also that the moral law which He has placed in each of us comes from a objective Source above and beyond ourselves.

Organisms evolved certain instincts such as the survival instinct and the instinct to procreate. Certain behaviors were beneficial for survival and the well-being of the group and the individual, certain behaviors were detrimental. We call the beneficial behaviors "moral" and the detrimental behaviors "immoral".

 

[viole]

Perhaps I need to spell things out a little bit better. A proposition that cannot be known to be true or false, is empty, meaningless, and of no use to us at all in terms of knowing what is or isn't the case. I had just assumed the part in italics was understood. My bad.

I fully agree.

Moral realists usually rebut this by separating epistemology from ontology. They basically say that the existence of things is independent from the ability to assess their existence. In other words, the fact that we cannot decide whether things like abortion are right or wrong, does not defeat the claim that abortion is either right or wrong. This is true, but that does not for sure automatically entail that abortion is either right or wrong. Not defeating is not equal entailing.


it could be that it is neither right nor wrong. Or that the whole question is meaningless without assuming a priori that it must be one of those two cases. In other words, without assuming a priori that morality is ontologically objective.

Ergo, they just beg the question.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver, but that's who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral law giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. So what is your question? (Ravi Zacharias)

I am afraid it is not so simple.

If a law entailed a giver of that law, then why do we need something so controversial as morality to prove a God? You could appeal to something less controversial, like the laws of logic, in order to deduce the existence of a giver of those laws. Good luck with that.

In other words, there is no obvious logical inference that goes from "existence of a law" to "there must be a giver of that law". This just begs the question that laws require a giver.

In the same way, arguments that try to prove the existence of God via the existence of objective morality, are highly circular.

Usually, bottom line, the discussion goes like this:

Believer: the existence of objective morality proves that there is a God
Skeptic: how do you know it is objective?
Believer: Because if it were not, it would not come from God

Which is logically equivalent to

Believer (in Superman): the existence of kryptonite proves that there is Superman
Skeptic: How do you know it is kryptonite?
Believer: because Superman hates it

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sunstone]

Yeah I have to disagree with you here. A principle can be objectively moral and yet it is not necessary for an agent to have knowledge of that principle. Objective simply means that the moral principle does not change to the whims of the agent acting on such a principle. If the morality of a claim was dependent on an agent having knowledge of said claim (or a means), then such a principle is actually subjective not objective. Your argument attacks a straw man here.

It is technically possible to have a moral law that no one knows yet it is still a moral law. Just like ignorance of the law does not remove the power of the law itself. Philosophers (objective ones) have argued over the years on how to recognise these objective moral laws (because if we couldn't recognise these laws, then what would be the point of morality right?). Miller argued that moral laws were on linked to pleasure, and that the morally right action was that which generated the most net pleasure for everyone. Kant (praise him) came up with with a formula called formula of universal law, which was a way of recognising moral principles. In Essence you take a maxim (a principle you want to act upon) you universalise it for all agents past, present and future, and see if there is a logical contradiction. If there is, then such as action is objectively immoral.

Very often a subjectivity of agent hood if confused as subjectivity of principle. Yes everything a human claims is subjective, but an objective moral system is put forth on the assumption that it always to an independent moral standard.

I'm not sure how you're getting from my position that it is impossible to know whether or not a moral principle is objective to your representation of my position as "there are no objective morals". Can you show your reasoning, please?

 

[InChrist]

Organisms evolved certain instincts such as the survival instinct and the instinct to procreate. Certain behaviors were beneficial for survival and the well-being of the group and the individual, certain behaviors were detrimental. We call the beneficial behaviors "moral" and the detrimental behaviors "immoral".

So you saying that instincts evolved in humans for the purpose of survival and that some behaviors are beneficial, therefore moral, while others are detrimental, therefore immoral, is that correct? What about the conscious awareness of moral/immoral, right/wrong behaviors that people have? For example, if someone kills another and feels guilty for it, is this sense of guilt included in the evolved instinct? And is this sense of guilt a part of the instinct for survival? Does feeling guilt mean the killer knows he has just jeopardized his potential of survival?

 

[JakofHearts]

I am afraid it is not so simple.

If a law entailed a giver of that law, then why do we need something so controversial as morality to prove a God? You could appeal to something less controversial, like the laws of logic, in order to deduce the existence of a giver of those laws. Good luck with that.

In other words, there is no obvious logical inference that goes from "existence of a law" to "there must be a giver of that law". This just begs the question that laws require a giver.

In the same way, arguments that try to prove the existence of God via the existence of objective morality, are highly circular.

Usually, bottom line, the discussion goes like this:

Believer: the existence of objective morality proves that there is a God
Skeptic: how do you know it is objective?
Believer: Because if it were not, it would not come from God

Which is logically equivalent to

Believer (in Superman): the existence of kryptonite proves that there is Superman
Skeptic: How do you know it is kryptonite?
Believer: because Superman hates it

Ciao

- viole

Objective morality is more of an acknowledgement that there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong, and it reveals the logical incoherency when atheists try to use evil as a reason not to believe in God.

For example of objective morality, do you believe raping little children is absolutely wrong?

 

[ArtieE]

So you saying that instincts evolved in humans for the purpose of survival

Not "for the purpose of survival". People who had brains wired in such a way that they acted in a way promoting survival were obviously the ones who survived. So certain behaviors got hard wired into the brain.

and that some behaviors are beneficial, therefore moral, while others are detrimental, therefore immoral, is that correct?

Not "therefore" moral, we just call the beneficial behaviors moral behaviors.

What about the conscious awareness of moral/immoral, right/wrong behaviors that people have? For example, if someone kills another and feels guilty for it, is this sense of guilt included in the evolved instinct? And is this sense of guilt a part of the instinct for survival? Does feeling guilt mean the killer knows he has just jeopardized his potential of survival?

Guilt is just the brain telling you that you have done something detrimental to survival of others and yourself.

 

[InChrist]

Not "for the purpose of survival". People who had brains wired in such a way that they acted in a way promoting survival were obviously the ones who survived. So certain behaviors got hard wired into the brain.Not "therefore" moral, we just call the beneficial behaviors moral behaviors.Guilt is just the brain telling you that you have done something detrimental to survival of others and yourself.

So are you saying that if someone kills another and feels guilty for doing so it is because they realize they have done something detrimental to the survival of themselves and others, not because the act was moral or immoral?

 

[ArtieE]

So are you saying that if someone kills another and feels guilty for doing so it is because they realize they have done something detrimental to the survival of themselves and others, not because the act was moral or immoral?

The reason we call an act immoral in the first place is because it was detrimental to survival. Immoral, wrong, bad etc are just synonyms. When we say "he did something immoral" it's the same as saying "he did something detrimental to the survival of the society and individuals in it."

 

[Brickjectivity]

Throwing together a paragraph:

Objective morality is confusing, because there is internal intent and then there are rules and conformity. The internal morality makes rules and things seem objective sometimes when they aren't; however morality is universal in some ways.

There is objective morality, but it is internal only having to do with your intentions. Contrast against practical morality which needs people to be similar enough that we can be judged under a common practical standard that we accept internally (laws, protocols, idioms). People have to conform for this to work, or else people have to live in separate groups with separate practical standards. Internal morality is objective in the sense that we are all human beings and share this ability to mean well. Even though this internal morality is hard to judge sometimes, it does not depend upon where a person is from, their language or culture. Therefore it is objectively moral to mean well. If you mean well then you are objectively moral internally.

 

[viole]

Objective morality is more of an acknowledgement that there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong, and it reveals the logical incoherency when atheists try to use evil as a reason not to believe in God.

The atheist is is right to disbelief God because of evil if God is defined as good. He just needs to make the assumption that good and evil are objective.

So, if they are not objective than he is warranted to not believe in a God that is defined as emanating objective values. And if they are objective, then it is is not clear why He allows (and perpetrates) things that we find repulsive.

For example of objective morality, do you believe raping little children is absolutely wrong?

Raping kids is absolutely wrong If and only if having an excruciating toothache is absolutely bad.

What we perceive as right or wrong is what the brain computes. Input the sentence "raping kids", crunch the numbers, and produce "wrong".

By the way, you use an uncontroversial example. And why is it uncontroversial? It is uncontroversial because evolution our brains evolved to activate our disgust brain centers when violence is applied to our genes carriers. Obviously.

It is a mechanism. As strong as it can feel (I am also a mother), it is just what our brains compute. Nothing more, nothing less. The rest of the Universe does not care in the slightest about what we do with our kids.

Now try with something that has a less clear evolutionary explanation: do you think it is absolutely wrong to allow gays to marry? Or to adopt the death penalty?

What do you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[InChrist]

The reason we call an act immoral in the first place is because it was detrimental to survival. Immoral, wrong, bad etc are just synonyms. When we say "he did something immoral" it's the same as saying "he did something detrimental to the survival of the society and individuals in it."

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying, but it seems like in most other cases of the animal kingdom it is considered beneficial for survival to kill competition, whereas for humans to kill others is considered wrong or as you have said "detrimental to the survival". How would you account for this difference?

 

[ArtieE]

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying, but it seems like in most other cases of the animal kingdom it is considered beneficial for survival to kill competition, whereas for humans to kill others is considered wrong or as you have said "detrimental to the survival". How would you account for this difference?

We are a social species living in communities and when we cooperate and help each other we all increase our chances of survival. It's just how we evolved. For other species in other circumstances different behaviors are beneficial for survival.

 

[InChrist]

We are a social species living in communities and when we cooperate and help each other we all increase our chances of survival. It's just how we evolved. For other species in other circumstances different behaviors are beneficial for survival.

So you saying that what we call morality evolved as a survival mechanism, is that correct? That the conscience, the seat of our moral sense is just a part of how we evolved, so when we feel guilt because we have harmed another it is because we have done something which is not beneficial to our survival.
Where did the impulse and awareness to seek our own species' survival come from? And how would you account for the bad or guilty feelings we may feel when we unjustifiably kill an animal?

 

[Curious George]

Sorry mate. Not saying you're wrong, I honestly can't quite grasp what you mean/why you say that?

Sorry didn't see this. It is because of the law of the excluded middle. An act is either objectively moral or immoral or subjectively moral or immoral. To say that it is subjectively so is to say that it is not objectively so. It is possible to speak of two separate levels of morality, but this would be an equivocation.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Sunstone, can I understand your argument as "Since it's impossible to know anything outside ourselves, it's impossible to know of the existence of an external or objective morality?"

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So you saying that what we call morality evolved as a survival mechanism, is that correct? That the conscience, the seat of our moral sense is just a part of how we evolved, so when we feel guilt because we have harmed another it is because we have done something which is not beneficial to our survival.
Where did the impulse and awareness to seek our own species' survival come from? And how would you account for the bad or guilty feelings we may feel when we unjustifiably kill an animal?

Empathy being an evolved social tool doesn't mean it couldn't or wouldn't have application outside human relationships. Just like how fostering offspring is an evolved social tool but also means some animals foster outside their species.

 

[omega2xx]

Everything is moral.

How about murder---rape---child abuse---stealing---destroying others property, private or public.

 

[omega2xx]

Sunstone, can I understand your argument as "Since it's impossible to know anything outside ourselves, it's impossible to know of the existence of an external or objective morality?"

Is murder not objective?