• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

god and objective moral standards

B

BH

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
1,073
Location
United States-Texas
Basic Beliefs
Muslim
It has been argued if god does not exist then objective moral standards do not exist.

I do not agree with this argument. If god does not exist passing out moral values to his sentient creatures then wouldn't that make everything morally neutral objectively speaking? The objective moral standard would be that everything is morally neutral.

Another objection is that if we were to create moral standards on our own to help us survive some believers say that because they are not objective we somehow will fail or imply we have no right to make other people follow our views of morality if they disagree. But here is the problem. They themselves have no objective basis to object to us creating our own moral systems to help us sirvive and keep civilization going. Nobody has to pay such people any attention.
 
Last edited:
I think it means less that everything is morally neutral than it means that everything called moral is, by definition, a subjective determination. All statements of morality carry with them an inherent "I think it would be best that ..." prefix.

The only right we have to say that others should conform to our own subjective view of morality are the arguments we use to back them up and those are all subjective as well.
 
If objective moral standards exist, then authority cannot provide it. This is what the Euthyphro dilemma is all about.

Authority-derived morality is not morality and certainly not objective morality. It's the most extreme form of moral relativism imaginable. Under the Christian form of morality, things are not good or bad based on what is done, but based on who does it or who commands it. Thus if God commands you to kill everyone in a city (even the babies), it is good, but if you command the same thing, it is evil.
 
There is a natural human tendency to appeal to authority, when trying to get other people to act in a certain way.

I'm sure we all recognize the danger of driving past a stop sign without stopping, or even slowing down. We expect other people to stop at a stop sign and if they don't it's a hazard to all who might use that intersection.

Even though the danger is quite apparent, the first argument presented against running stop signs is not the possibility of accident and injury, but the threat of a ticket and severe fine.

Human tradition has a tremendous amount of inertia. The specifics of our moral code were first formulated so far in the past, it is beyond all memory. A great deal of the details can become obsolete and no longer apply to everyday life.

One of the universal tenets of any moral code is, "Thy shall not steal from your friends." This seems simple enough, but putting it into practice is complicated. We have to understand who is a friend, and who is not. After that, we have to understand what can be claimed as property, and what cannot.

There was a time when the prevailing and Deity approved moral code allowed a man to own another man. That is now obsolete. It is not moral to own another human, no matter how much one paid for him. If you try to own a human, the rest of us will come over and make you let him go.

That's how moral codes work. Not only does the code specify what can and not be done, it also spells out what happens when you get it wrong. While appealing to authority is not all that necessary to make people abide by the code, it is critical to have authority when dealing with people who violate the code.
 
Moral standards are a result of biology. When animals started developing large brains and emotions, animals started to react to things that happened to them. For humans, what happens to us evokes an emotional reaction. We do not need to consult a religious book to know how to respond o being beaten, robbed, attacked, raped, or abused. We do not need to read the Bible to understand how to feel about somebody we love being mistreated. If one learns one's wife has been murdered, we have an emotional reaction to that news. We don't need a religious book to react the way we naturally do.

And here is the basic underlying foundations of morality. Of course our morality can be perversely corrupted, a good example is Nazi Germany's demonization of the Jews, or ISIL's mistreatment of those under their domination. American racism, and Jim Crow law. Political dogma's like Leninist-Marxism. But evolution that gave us large brains that feel emotions when we are mistreated are why we have morals. Lower animals without complex brains don't have emotions or morals as such.

The problem with this idea that there is an absolute morality created by God is that it is wrong and blinds us to the ways we can pervert our sense of morality that allow massive horrors to be inflicted on tens of millions.
 
Other animals display moral behavior fine. Bats show reciprocity towards other members of their colony who've shared food with them in the past. Wolf packs banish members who cause problems. Ants make some very passive-aggressive putdowns towards Jerry Seinfeld-sounding members who want to display individuality instead of accepting the role which was assigned to them, but they get over it when they save everyone from rampaging termites and then they have a party.

Human moral behavior is more advanced and complex than that shown in other animals, but it's a different level of the same thing, not something distinct with us from other species.
 
Is it immoral for a ball of hydrogen to take another ball's hydrogen?
 
BH said:
It has been argued if god does not exist then objective moral standards do not exist.
Click to expand...

It all depends on how you define "objective." If you define it one way, then objective moral standards exist regardless of whether gods exist. If you define it another way, then objective moral standards do not exist regardless of whether gods exist.

The moral argument consists entirely of surreptitiously two-stepping between incompatible definitions, applying one definition if gods exist and another if they don't.



I do not agree with this argument.
Click to expand...

Good.



If god does not exist passing out moral values to his sentient creatures then wouldn't that make everything morally neutral objectively speaking? The objective moral standard would be that everything is morally neutral.
Click to expand...

No, there's no reason to think that. The claim is arbitrary and unjustified.



Another objection is that if we were to create moral standards on our own to help us survive some believers say that because they are not objective we somehow will fail or imply we have no right to make other people follow our views of morality if they disagree.
Click to expand...

Right. I've never understood what the appeal of objective morality is supposed to be. Which is better, objective morality that encourages rape or subjective morality that forbids rape?



But here is the problem. They themselves have no objective basis to object to us creating our own moral systems to help us sirvive and keep civilization going. Nobody has to pay such people any attention.
Click to expand...

And nothing would change about that if morality were created by gods. If the morality helps civilization survive, then we will be able to--according to that morality--impose it on others. If it doesn't help civilization survive--assuming that's your moral standard--then we get to ignore it even if gods tell us not to.
 
Wiploc said:
...
But here is the problem. They themselves have no objective basis to object to us creating our own moral systems to help us sirvive and keep civilization going. Nobody has to pay such people any attention.
Click to expand...

And nothing would change about that if morality were created by gods. If the morality helps civilization survive, then we will be able to--according to that morality--impose it on others. If it doesn't help civilization survive--assuming that's your moral standard--then we get to ignore it even if gods tell us not to.
Click to expand...

Actually if morality were created by gods then all the things we currently use to make moral decisions becomes worthless. Such as compassion, justice, integrity, etc. Ultimately all that sustains us as a species on this Earth. But of course the message of religions is that Earthly survival is not the ultimate goal. :(
 
"Objective" and "moral" are two words that do not under any circumstances belong next to each other. It is incredibly presumptuous and problematic to try and assert that one way of thinking is 'the right way'. At some point is all comes down to appeal-to-consensus.

Morality is fluid, constantly shifting, and no more 'objective' than whatever culture group you identify with.
 
"The most good for the most people".
- J.S. Mill

This is a good principle, but in practice is hard to apply. The devil is always in the details. For an "objective" morality you have to start with principles. And then find a way to actually support them. Large numbers of people over the ages have tried to figure this all out and we still are having less than all encompassing and complete solutions. No religion has to date done better than thinkers like Mills or Socrates.
 
Morals are contextual. Ethics require context.

You find a wallet on the street with a good amount of cash inside. You pick it up and put it in your pocket and tell no one.
Was that immoral?
context:

It was your wallet. You dropped it a second ago, and are now simply picking it up



context matters, always.

"The sky is blue" is that an objective fact, or a subjective opinion?

context:

The sky is black at night.. the sky is white or grey on a cloudy day



So.. objective things are tough... especially morals.... I have yet to meet an objective moral. I do not believe they exist.

All morals require context, therefore, by definition, they are all subjective.
 
There's a difference between moral ontology and moral epistemology. To assert an objective ontology is not the same as asserting objective moral knowledge.
 
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-animals-unfairly-dont.html

Animals know when they are being treated unfairly (and they don't like it)

A series of experimental tests demonstrates animals understand the concept of fairness. Its an emotional response and is observed in a wide range of animals from monkeys to birds. Here is a basis for morals. A large brain with emotions and enough intelligence to realize one is being mistreated. Large brains with these abilities are a result of evolution. Therefor I argue, the basis of human morality is dependent on evolution.

-----

One of the first species that was tested for inequity aversion were brown capuchin monkeys. In a task where the monkeys had to exchange a token for a treat, one individual was given a piece of cucumber in exchange for a token, whereas a model individual – another monkey not the focus of the experiment – in an adjacent cage got a grape for the same action. Capuchin monkeys prefer grapes to cucumbers – and the individual receiving the cucumber soon started to "protest" by throwing the unloved vegetable back at the experimenter.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-02-animals-unfairly-dont.html#jCp

There's a way of testing for this in animals using an "inequity aversion task". One test subject receives a reward for completing a task, while an experimental partner gets a "booby prize" – something they don't particularly like. You'd imagine that individual animals that have a strong sense of fair play would either stop taking part in the experiment or refuse the treat.
One of the first species that was tested for inequity aversion were brown capuchin monkeys. In a task where the monkeys had to exchange a token for a treat, one individual was given a piece of cucumber in exchange for a token, whereas a model individual – another monkey not the focus of the experiment – in an adjacent cage got a grape for the same action. Capuchin monkeys prefer grapes to cucumbers – and the individual receiving the cucumber soon started to "protest" by throwing the unloved vegetable back at the experimenter.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-02-animals-unfairly-dont.html#jCp


The capuchin monkeys were also well aware of unfairness in the amount of effort they had to expend to receive a reward. When they had to "work" for a reward – and could see that their experimental partner received the reward as a "gift", they stopped participating.
A number of other primate species, including chimpanzees, rhesus macaques and long-tailed macaques, have been shown to express some form of behavioural responses to inequity. Apart from primates, two further highly social mammalian species, dogs and rats, have also been shown to be sensitive to unfairness.
 
BH said:
It has been argued if god does not exist then objective moral standards do not exist.
Click to expand...

I don't argue that.
I'm just waiting for folks who say otherwise to put up a better alternative than God.

God is objective in that His laws are transcendent. They benefit us not Him. So He can be an impartial umpire of the rules.

God is objective in that He can enforce His moral laws. Whereas non-objective laws (based on subjective opinions about morality) are only as good as the imprimatur of whoever can enforce them. A law which cannot be enforced or isn't enforced can hardly even be called 'a law' - let alone an objective law.

Gods moral law is objective in that He alone is deemed to be omniscient. So He can know that His law is the highest possible objective 'good' - and when obeyed, results in maximal happiness. How can the blind lead the blind in any search for objective morals? How can two diametrically opposite moral claims be resolved without an all seeing transcendent umpire?

im-right-youre-wrong.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom