objective morality

[BH]

I was reading over at the Secular Web site arguments about morality.

One Christian argued you can't have objective morality if God does not exist.

I think that is wrong. For the sake of argument if anything goes because God does not exist, then the "anything goes" by default is an objective moral system and standard in of itself. So the Christian is technically wrong when he says there is no absolute objective moral standard if God does not exist.

 

[Gila Guerilla]

For something to be objective, it must pursue some goal as its object. The goal must be definable in terms which do not admit opinion.

IF the existence of "God", (and for Christians, it's their god), makes for objective morality, then the object is to do as "God" commands.

Although one might manufacture a reason for oneself, there is no need to have any inkling of why a particular act is morally right, except to believe that "God" says it is. If, for the sake of argument, "God" commands someone to kill another person or group of people, then it is moral to do so, and there is no need to understand what makes it moral, other than that "God" said it is.

If we take an atheist position, can we come up with a moral code, which is objective, and not a matter of opinion? I suspect that the answer is: 'Yes we can', and Matt Dillahunty, and Sam Harris have attempted to do so. Their principle of morality is to look at consequences. The task of setting up a moral code, independent of any divine commandment is not easy, because opinion can easily taint an individual's analysis of the case-in-point. But the same can apply to a god-based moral code. Even if one accepts that there is a divinely ordained moral code, it is not always clear-cut as to what is moral. The basic tenet is: It's OK if "God" says it is. But how can one know what "God" says on a particular issue? The religious may say that they use prayer, and get guidance from "God". I can't see that as any different than an atheistic person who simply uses their mind, and comes up with moral answers in their own right.

So can we construct a moral code that is objective? I say that we can be as objective as the religious can, and a damn site more responsible for our actions as good-thinking atheists, than simple god-following theists.

If you want to say that {"anything goes", by default is an objective moral system and standard in [and] of itself }, then there seems to be no goal-seeking, and no code. I'm not happy with that, as an example of 'objectivity'.

 

[Wiploc]

I was reading over at the Secular Web site arguments about morality.

One Christian argued you can't have objective morality if God does not exist.

I think that is wrong. For the sake of argument if anything goes because God does not exist, then the "anything goes" by default is an objective moral system and standard in of itself. So the Christian is technically wrong when he says there is no absolute objective moral standard if God does not exist.

I like this a lot!

 

[BH]

Here is where it gets technical and I wish I had more formal philosophical training.

when I hear the term "absolute objective moral standard" used by Christians, I think about how people and preachers in the Church of Christ used the term having grown up in that denomination. It was stated or meant to be inferred that by objective it meant the morality did not rely on anything we humans thought or opinionated about any moral matter (God would simply impose his views on us) and by absolute it meant the moral standards could not be challenged---you were permitted to break them but could not effectively challenge them because God would just toss you into hell when he got tired of you and your shananigans. You really couldn't resist him when he decided he was through with you.

This is where I was coming from. If there is no God giving out moral standards then we still, on a very base level, still have an absolute objective morality which is that anything goes-----it is absolute in the sense you cannot challenge the fact that "anything goes" in that anything we deem moral is what would be moral and it is "objective" because our opinions cannot change such a fact that the moral standard is anything goes.

 

[Bronzeage]

I was reading over at the Secular Web site arguments about morality.

One Christian argued you can't have objective morality if God does not exist.

I think that is wrong. For the sake of argument if anything goes because God does not exist, then the "anything goes" by default is an objective moral system and standard in of itself. So the Christian is technically wrong when he says there is no absolute objective moral standard if God does not exist.

The problem with objective morality based on God is the reward for being good and the punishment for being bad is just too remote.

That is not the way morality works in real life. Moral codes are a set of expectations for people in a particular culture. It makes life easier if we expect what people will do. I expect my neighbor to not steal my stuff when I'm not around. If he does, I can expect my other neighbors to help me get my stuff back, and more important, punish the thief. The thief may have some punishment from God in his future, but that does me no good at the moment.

As for absolute moral standards, it simply doesn't exist, because every society's moral code is based on what people need to survive and preserve their living standards. A tribe of hunter gatherers will have a different code from a tribe of nomadic shepherds. A shepherd knows better than to steal another man's sheep, because his moral code includes a concept of personal property. A shepherd could justifiably kill a sheep thief, while the hunter gatherer might think that was an excessive over reaction for the loss of an animal. After all, the forest is full of animals.

We can ascribe our moral code to God, which gives it a seal of authority, but in the end, moral codes are created and enforced by people who have to live to close to other people.

 

[PyramidHead]

I never understood the connection theists try to make between God and morality. If moral standards can be absolute (as in, they are facts about the universe), then we're back to Euthyphro: if X is true, it is true whether God says so or not. If moral standards are subjective (as in, they are strongly held preferences that relate to wants and desires), then God is just another guy with an opinion. A powerful guy, maybe, but essentially no different from you or me.

The moral standards that come closest to being objective in that they are widely shared among societies are actually evidence against the need for belief in God, since they spring up all over the world and throughout history. Something like "consider the interests of beings other than yourself"... hard to imagine a moral system that doesn't at least accept that. Whether it's absolute, factual, universal, or just an expression of emotion is really not important in practice.

 

[BH]

I am a theist and have always seen the hole in the "We have to have God to have morals" theory. What would happen if we lived literally by the law of the jungle is argument enough to have some sort of moral system in place. There may be a few dissenters to particular points of that morality and a few sociopathic types may reject it based on their lack of development in their brain, but the vast majority of people could come to a basic consensus over what would be considered rigt and wrong.

 

[Brian63]

If moral standards are subjective (as in, they are strongly held preferences that relate to wants and desires), then God is just another guy with an opinion. A powerful guy, maybe, but essentially no different from you or me.

Agreed.

I find it helpful also to think of other animals and species that live in our world, and what their codes of morality are. When you do so, you realize that it is a bit of a misleading description to describe their behavior. What they do have are desires, wants, fears, likes, dislikes, etc. and they make choices based on those values. What we humans do is the same thing, but we have confused the issue by giving this label of "objective" to our morals. The choices are objective, but the values we have which those choices are premised on are subjective. So there is a component of each, not all of one or the other, in our decision making.

See this archived post by a former poster here, SingleDad, for a much fuller explanation:

Moral Value Theory differentiated from Moral Strategy Theory

Brian

 

[Shadowy Man]

If moral standards are subjective (as in, they are strongly held preferences that relate to wants and desires), then God is just another guy with an opinion. A powerful guy, maybe, but essentially no different from you or me.

But he can punish you eternally for violating his moral code, so he's essentially bullying you into believing his moral code is the "true" one. Might makes right.

 

[connick]

I think that the possibility for exceptions in any moral code precludes objectivity. In the case of moral standards based on religious tenets, the moral authority can allow exceptions. An example that we are all familiar with is that murder is forbidden unless your god asks you to sacrifice your son, in which case it is totally cool. Any other moral code that is derived without the aid of "divine" guidance is generally subject to exception as well. You might come up with some sensible reasons why murder is forbidden but, what if you appeal to the "greater good" argument? Should we forbid the murder of an individual who would go on to murder one hundred others? In principle you might be able to establish rules with no exceptions but, I can't think of any real-life examples where moral codes lack a certain amount of flexibility.

Personally, I believe that all moral judgments are subjective and I have no problem admitting that my morals are selfish. I care more about myself and the people I know than about the people I don't. I suspect that is true for most people.

 

[Bronzeage]

I think that the possibility for exceptions in any moral code precludes objectivity. In the case of moral standards based on religious tenets, the moral authority can allow exceptions. An example that we are all familiar with is that murder is forbidden unless your god asks you to sacrifice your son, in which case it is totally cool. Any other moral code that is derived without the aid of "divine" guidance is generally subject to exception as well. You might come up with some sensible reasons why murder is forbidden but, what if you appeal to the "greater good" argument? Should we forbid the murder of an individual who would go on to murder one hundred others? In principle you might be able to establish rules with no exceptions but, I can't think of any real-life examples where moral codes lack a certain amount of flexibility.

Personally, I believe that all moral judgments are subjective and I have no problem admitting that my morals are selfish. I care more about myself and the people I know than about the people I don't. I suspect that is true for most people.

All moral codes contain exceptions. It is a necessary condition. The command "Thou shalt not kill," sounds pretty absolute, but the slightest examination reveals it to actually mean, "Thy shall not kill your friends." In the Old Testament, David is praised for slaying "tens of thousands," and no one seems to think this is out of line.

One of the problems with a religiously prescribed moral code is its inherent inflexibility. The code for a small group needs to be inflexible, because the code creates unity. A small group cannot afford to be split by disputes over property or personal relationships. The larger the population, the more difficult it becomes to enforce a strict moral code. If I want to have sex with someone else's wife, we can find a place where no one knows us. If we get caught, it's difficult to gather a large enough crowd to stone us to death. Once a few adulterers have been tolerated, it's easier for all the others to get away with it. Any embarrassment or shame is easy handled by moving to another city.

The basis of all moral codes is the need to get along with the people who are close by. This is why it's okay to go to next valley and rob, rape, and pillage, but not next door. As society progresses, societies get larger and more people are protected from each other. This means the code becomes more and more general. Eventually we are reduced to "Thou shalt not kill your friends," and "Thou shalt not steal your friend's stuff." We just happen to have a very large number of friends and most of them live far away.

 

[Brian63]

I think it needs to be emphasized that it represents a deep (but common) misunderstanding to say that morality is either objective or subjective, one or the other. In reality, there is a component of both. We make decisions based on what values, preferences, desires, fears, etc. we have, and those are indeed subjective. Once that is established, then we make a decision (which is based on objective facts, logic, and strategies) that we think will maximize the fulfillment of those values.

Ethics are NOT subjective or objective, entirely one but none of the other. Rather, one component of ethics is subjective and another component is objective. We just have to be clearer in understanding and stating what component we are referring to.

Brian

 

[BH]

This is a good point.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think that the possibility for exceptions in any moral code precludes objectivity. In the case of moral standards based on religious tenets, the moral authority can allow exceptions. An example that we are all familiar with is that murder is forbidden unless your god asks you to sacrifice your son, in which case it is totally cool.

An object at rest will remain at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant direction and speed, except when acted upon by an external force. Every chemical will freeze if it gets cold enough, except helium. No mammal can fly under its own power, except for bats and a few humans. Why on earth would you imagine that the possibility for exceptions in any field precludes objectivity?

In principle you might be able to establish rules with no exceptions but, I can't think of any real-life examples where moral codes lack a certain amount of flexibility.

People ought not to rape one another for fun. What's an exception to that?

 

[Bomb#20]

For the sake of argument if anything goes because God does not exist, then the "anything goes" by default is an objective moral system and standard in of itself. So the Christian is technically wrong when he says there is no absolute objective moral standard if God does not exist.

If for the sake of argument anything goes if God does not exist, why wouldn't anything go even if God does exist? What's the purported reason for why "anything goes" is the objective standard, when there aren't any gods? And how does the presence of a god turn it off?

It was stated or meant to be inferred that by objective it meant the morality did not rely on anything we humans thought or opinionated about any moral matter (God would simply impose his views on us)

But that just means the views being imposed are God's; it doesn't make them more than views. It still relies on what somebody thought and opinionated about a moral matter. How could whether an opinion is objective or subjective depend on whose opinion it is?

and by absolute it meant the moral standards could not be challenged---you were permitted to break them but could not effectively challenge them because God would just toss you into hell when he got tired of you and your shananigans. You really couldn't resist him when he decided he was through with you.

So? You could break Stalin's standards but could not effectively challenge them because Stalin would just toss you into the gulag when he got tired of you and your shenanigans. You really couldn't resist him when he decided he was through with you. Power doesn't make God's standards objective; it just makes God the Supreme Fascist.

This is where I was coming from. If there is no God giving out moral standards then we still, on a very base level, still have an absolute objective morality which is that anything goes

When you say it this time you don't have a "For the sake of argument" in front of it; does that mean you actually believe "Anything goes" is the moral standard if there's no God? Or do you mean you came from there, but that's not where you are any more?

I am a theist and have always seen the hole in the "We have to have God to have morals" theory.

You're in good company -- Kant saw it too. So did Socrates; but then he was more of a Deist.

 

[dx713]

My first objection would be to know why is a subjective morality a bad thing, as long as it's not "individual subjective" but negotiated at a social level large enough to include the affected individuals (such negotiation being largely unconsciously conducted through culture, of course, but can sometimes be conscious through debates on laws and underlying ethics).

Also, I agree that in practice, a lot of people rely on a mix of subjective and objective, having values they place on a pedestal and then adjustement for their local context.

But I'd like to note there's another hole I've recently realized exists in the theist "objective morality from god" argument: it's that it's always THEORETICAL objective morality.
Even within a single religion, there's enough debate about what the word of god really means that the morality supposedly inherited from god most often ends being entirely dependant on which values the group doing the interpretation prioritizes...

 

[connick]

An object at rest will remain at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant direction and speed, except when acted upon by an external force. Every chemical will freeze if it gets cold enough, except helium. No mammal can fly under its own power, except for bats and a few humans. Why on earth would you imagine that the possibility for exceptions in any field precludes objectivity?

In principle you might be able to establish rules with no exceptions but, I can't think of any real-life examples where moral codes lack a certain amount of flexibility.

People ought not to rape one another for fun. What's an exception to that?

I'm not sure what to take away from your statements about inertia, freezing points or mammalian flight. As you imply, the first half of each statement above is false without the second half stating the exceptions. If there are exceptions to a rule then it isn't a hard-and-fast rule and it's application is subjective. The relative morality of an act depends on who is doing what to whom and their reasons for doing so. You can't say, objectively, that killing is immoral any more than you can say that rocks don't float (pumice is the exception there). If moral judgments about an action depend upon more than the action alone then you can't say that the rules about those actions are objective. A photograph of a man plunging a knife into another's chest doesn't tell us that act is immoral. If the headline above reads "bystander ends gunman's killing spree by stabbing him with a knife" then he's a hero.

As for the exception to the "don't rape someone for fun" rule, that's an easy challenge. Like I said before you can always appeal to the "greater good" argument. Genghis Khan Jr. has a nuclear weapon and will kill everyone in Manhattan if you don't rape someone and have fun doing it. He requires that you smile, laugh and high-five him while raping someone to show just how much fun you are having. If he doubts that you are having fun he will set off the weapon. Would it be right to let hundreds of thousands of people be murdered in order to uphold the no raping rule? Would it be right to punish someone who raped someone in order to save many more? Can you think of any rule that it wouldn't be justifiable to break under similar duress?

 

[Bronzeage]

An object at rest will remain at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant direction and speed, except when acted upon by an external force. Every chemical will freeze if it gets cold enough, except helium. No mammal can fly under its own power, except for bats and a few humans. Why on earth would you imagine that the possibility for exceptions in any field precludes objectivity?

In principle you might be able to establish rules with no exceptions but, I can't think of any real-life examples where moral codes lack a certain amount of flexibility.

People ought not to rape one another for fun. What's an exception to that?

I'm not sure what to take away from your statements about inertia, freezing points or mammalian flight. As you imply, the first half of each statement above is false without the second half stating the exceptions. If there are exceptions to a rule then it isn't a hard-and-fast rule and it's application is subjective. The relative morality of an act depends on who is doing what to whom and their reasons for doing so. You can't say, objectively, that killing is immoral any more than you can say that rocks don't float (pumice is the exception there). If moral judgments about an action depend upon more than the action alone then you can't say that the rules about those actions are objective. A photograph of a man plunging a knife into another's chest doesn't tell us that act is immoral. If the headline above reads "bystander ends gunman's killing spree by stabbing him with a knife" then he's a hero.

As for the exception to the "don't rape someone for fun" rule, that's an easy challenge. Like I said before you can always appeal to the "greater good" argument. Genghis Khan Jr. has a nuclear weapon and will kill everyone in Manhattan if you don't rape someone and have fun doing it. He requires that you smile, laugh and high-five him while raping someone to show just how much fun you are having. If he doubts that you are having fun he will set off the weapon. Would it be right to let hundreds of thousands of people be murdered in order to uphold the no raping rule? Would it be right to punish someone who raped someone in order to save many more? Can you think of any rule that it wouldn't be justifiable to break under similar duress?

A situational ethics "greater good" dilemma works only if the choices are unappealing, but plausible.

 

[connick]

An object at rest will remain at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant direction and speed, except when acted upon by an external force. Every chemical will freeze if it gets cold enough, except helium. No mammal can fly under its own power, except for bats and a few humans. Why on earth would you imagine that the possibility for exceptions in any field precludes objectivity?

In principle you might be able to establish rules with no exceptions but, I can't think of any real-life examples where moral codes lack a certain amount of flexibility.

People ought not to rape one another for fun. What's an exception to that?

I'm not sure what to take away from your statements about inertia, freezing points or mammalian flight. As you imply, the first half of each statement above is false without the second half stating the exceptions. If there are exceptions to a rule then it isn't a hard-and-fast rule and it's application is subjective. The relative morality of an act depends on who is doing what to whom and their reasons for doing so. You can't say, objectively, that killing is immoral any more than you can say that rocks don't float (pumice is the exception there). If moral judgments about an action depend upon more than the action alone then you can't say that the rules about those actions are objective. A photograph of a man plunging a knife into another's chest doesn't tell us that act is immoral. If the headline above reads "bystander ends gunman's killing spree by stabbing him with a knife" then he's a hero.

As for the exception to the "don't rape someone for fun" rule, that's an easy challenge. Like I said before you can always appeal to the "greater good" argument. Genghis Khan Jr. has a nuclear weapon and will kill everyone in Manhattan if you don't rape someone and have fun doing it. He requires that you smile, laugh and high-five him while raping someone to show just how much fun you are having. If he doubts that you are having fun he will set off the weapon. Would it be right to let hundreds of thousands of people be murdered in order to uphold the no raping rule? Would it be right to punish someone who raped someone in order to save many more? Can you think of any rule that it wouldn't be justifiable to break under similar duress?

A situational ethics "greater good" dilemma works only if the choices are unappealing, but plausible.

I'll grant that the scenario I gave is unlikely but, my argument remains the same with any other comparable situation. It's not implausible that someone might force someone else to rape someone by threatening greater harm to them or to others. To make it less grandiose let's say it's a guy with a gun who breaks into your home and holds your family at gunpoint. He demands that you rape your daughter or you all die. Is it then wrong to force yourself sexually upon your daughter in order to save the lives of your family?

Regardless of the implausibility of any such dilemma, isn't there always the opportunity for what would otherwise be considered an immoral act to be made relatively moral if it prevents a greater or more harmful act? Is there any immoral act that can't be justified if by doing it it stops something worse?

 

[PyramidHead]

I'm not sure what to take away from your statements about inertia, freezing points or mammalian flight. As you imply, the first half of each statement above is false without the second half stating the exceptions. If there are exceptions to a rule then it isn't a hard-and-fast rule and it's application is subjective. The relative morality of an act depends on who is doing what to whom and their reasons for doing so. You can't say, objectively, that killing is immoral any more than you can say that rocks don't float (pumice is the exception there). If moral judgments about an action depend upon more than the action alone then you can't say that the rules about those actions are objective.

The point is that the rules about inertia and freezing points can, with more qualifiers added, become hard-and-fast. That's what makes them objective. With morals, no matter how specific a statement may be, it can never be demonstrated empirically; the "wrongness" of murder is not to be found among the evidence at the crime scene.