Is there Objective Morality?

[Kylie]

In the thread on mortal force there was a side-discussion about objective morality (for example, see this post). Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

Anyone who answers the question needs to give their definitions of “objective” and “morality.” Once they have set out their definitions they should go on to explain why they believe there is or is not an objective morality. Some starter definitions of objectivity can be found at Merriam-Webster and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If you want to critique someone’s position you should begin by telling them 1) Whether their conclusion accords with their definitions, 2) Whether you agree with their definitions, and 3) Why you believe their argument is sound or unsound.

I'd define morality as "a sense of right and wrong."

I'd define objective as "a fundamental aspect of reality, not something that exists just because someone says so."

So I'd ask, if there is a fundamental morality, where does it come from? Most believers I've spoken to have said God, but in that case they are saying that objective morality is just what God says, but objectivity needs something more than just "someone says," even if that someone is God.

 

[Vap841]

In the thread on mortal force there was a side-discussion about objective morality (for example, see this post). Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

Anyone who answers the question needs to give their definitions of “objective” and “morality.” Once they have set out their definitions they should go on to explain why they believe there is or is not an objective morality. Some starter definitions of objectivity can be found at Merriam-Webster and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If you want to critique someone’s position you should begin by telling them 1) Whether their conclusion accords with their definitions, 2) Whether you agree with their definitions, and 3) Why you believe their argument is sound or unsound.

Objective - an inclination of our species that transcends cultural influences. You gotta keep in mind how powerful it is to reprogram people from a young age (which means you have reset their objective settings). A crazy story about some small tribe who all “Believe” that human sacrifice is ok surely has to have a system of drastic indoctrination tactics to normalize that (what our natural defaults are can be tricky, but some things will be more obvious than others).

Morality - an innate sense of “Do unto others…” Lots of arguments, such as systems of government or economics, are actually fighting for the same end goal of making life better for people, they just disagree with the method of how to get there.

Ok let me guess, if we secretly followed everybody around with a hidden camera and looked at their actions and their reactions in their lives, in light of all things moral, we would get totally different “Opinions” about whether or not morality is objective?

Talk is cheap. The thief who verbally tells you that there’s nothing wrong with stealing gets an intense piercing feeling in his chest that he has been wronged after he comes home and realizes that his house has been robbed. I have a hard time taking verbal arguments seriously IF that person is very inconsistent with their everyday actions (and especially their gut reactions…the true test of a person’s beliefs) towards those claimed “Verbal” arguments. Let me ask you this, how many people do you know of who “Live their life as if” they believe that there’s no such thing as objective morality?

 

[Whyayeman]

There is enough knowledge of Hebrew and Greek to translate to English acceptably.

Thou shalt not kill is an inaccurate translation.

I think I see disagreement here. That is just one of the troubles with reliance on the bible as a guide; there is considerable disagreement amongst Christians about what God meant at the time...

[Public Warning: disputes about textual matters in the Bible have led to wars in the past.]

 

[Whyayeman]

keep in mind how powerful it is to reprogram people from a young age (which means you have reset their objective settings).

Children are born with objective settings, like the factory settings of a new piece of kit? That would be hard to establish.

The heart of this for me is that I don't believe they are. Actually this claim about 'objective settings' touches on a long running philosophical dispute. I have argued for the development of children's moral compass from experience, in particular from parental upbringing. This is from Wikipedia:

Tabula rasa (/ˈtæbjələ ˈrɑːsə, -zə, ˈreɪ-/; "blank slate") is the theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content, and therefore all knowledge comes from experience or perception. Epistemological proponents of tabula rasa disagree with the doctrine of innatism, which holds that the mind is born already in possession of certain knowledge. Proponents of the tabula rasa theory also favour the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behaviour, knowledge, and sapience.

 

[Vap841]

Children are born with objective settings, like the factory settings of a new piece of kit? That would be hard to establish.

So you’re saying that it’s hard to establish there being objective patterns of norms for human behavior and human tendencies? How about for dogs? Or patterns for honey badgers? Hard to establish as well?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Not unable to sin, without the desire to sin..... you know; sorta like Jesus.

Lord Jesus had something of an advantage. He is God in human form. I don't know that God is interested in replicating himself. Would parents prefer to replicate themselves or have children who are individuals in their own right? Personally, one of me is more than enough. My son and I have a lot in common, but he is also an individual in his own right.

Adam could have been like Jesus. The tree of life was freely available. He chose to listen to Satan and reject God's word. If there is no way of choosing the wrong then it is not a truly free choice. That's why God put the tree of knowledge in the Garden in the first place.

 

[Aussie Pete]

There are situations where disobeying commandments is necessary. Like in the situation of Rahab. She was counted righteous by God for lying to the Canaanites to save the lives of the Israel spies. Or for example honoring your mother and father. If your parents are telling you to go against God’s commandments then obviously you wouldn’t be expected to honor that request. The same applies to adhering to the governing authorities. We know this because the Bible gives us situations as examples to make these determinations.

I think I see disagreement here. That is just one of the troubles with reliance on the bible as a guide; there is considerable disagreement amongst Christians about what God meant at the time...

[Public Warning: disputes about textual matters in the Bible have led to wars in the past.]

That is one of the many reasons I reject the KJV as some kind of gold standard for Bibles. Words change meaning. Translators get better at it. If I have a difficult passage to study, I'll read several versions, courtesy of Bible Hub.

Having said all that, it is people who seek to create differences where there really are none. What is better, "wilderness" or "desert"? I prefer wilderness. Does it make any difference to the truth of the gospel? Not one bit. Too many people make issues out of nothing. I believe a good deal of the problem is religious pride. "My doctrine is better than yours..." Usually over nothing. Pre, post or mid tribulation? No one knows for sure except God. Does it matter? No. We can do nothing about it one way or another.

What we should do is live in the expectation that the Lord Jesus is coming back to take us home. We should be letting Christ transform us into people fit for His Kingdom. We should be on a rescue to mission to take Satan's captives out of the Kingdom of darkness and into the glorious light.

 

[Whyayeman]

So you’re saying that it’s hard to establish there being objective patterns of norms for human behavior

Not quite. The word I have difficulty with is 'settings'. I do not think children are born with a built-in morality, as you appear to claim. If they did there would be no need for moral leadership for them - by parents or teachers.

Of course there are norms of behaviour, but that leads us nowhere in this discussion.

 

[Larniavc]

Science fails when it comes to subjective experience as in "feeling hunger" or "feeling hungry". There are no objective tests that can be done to show that "the meat robot" has any subjective experience as far as science is concerned. In science we can only observe that if someone doesn't eat, be they human or animal, then they die as a result. We see that in starvation. But we can't test for a feeling.

That’s not true. That’s what self report scales and qualitative research paradigms are for.

 

[Larniavc]

Some, probably most of us, do. Just not everybody.

Yep. I’ve never experienced guilt.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think I see disagreement here. That is just one of the troubles with reliance on the bible as a guide; there is considerable disagreement amongst Christians about what God meant at the time...

[Public Warning: disputes about textual matters in the Bible have led to wars in the past.]

Interpretational conflicts are completely irrelevant to the objectivity of God’s morality. Misunderstanding His commandments do not make them subjective. 2+2 doesn’t equal 5 just because someone thinks it does just as God’s commandment not to murder doesn’t mean not to kill just because someone thinks it does. God specifically commanded the Israelites to kill other nations and to kill offenders for breaking certain commandments. So just because someone got that wrong doesn’t change the commandment that was given.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You would have thought an omniscient god would have avoided that state of affairs.

Not when you understand His objective. The purpose of this world is to cultivate and separate those who would choose to love Him from those who would choose to reject Him of their own free will. In order for love to be genuine it must derive from free will otherwise it has no value. It’s this random variable of free will that is the source of sin. People are free to choose because it has to be that way.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That is one of the many reasons I reject the KJV as some kind of gold standard for Bibles. Words change meaning. Translators get better at it. If I have a difficult passage to study, I'll read several versions, courtesy of Bible Hub.

Having said all that, it is people who seek to create differences where there really are none. What is better, "wilderness" or "desert"? I prefer wilderness. Does it make any difference to the truth of the gospel? Not one bit. Too many people make issues out of nothing. I believe a good deal of the problem is religious pride. "My doctrine is better than yours..." Usually over nothing. Pre, post or mid tribulation? No one knows for sure except God. Does it matter? No. We can do nothing about it one way or another.

What we should do is live in the expectation that the Lord Jesus is coming back to take us home. We should be letting Christ transform us into people fit for His Kingdom. We should be on a rescue to mission to take Satan's captives out of the Kingdom of darkness and into the glorious light.

Yes I haven’t found a single Bible translation that doesn’t have errors. For the most part I prefer the NASB because it seems to have the most accurate translation but I’ve still found a couple errors in it. That’s why it’s best to compare it to a Greek lexicon just to double check sometimes.

 

[BNR32FAN]

objectivity needs something more than just "someone says," even if that someone is God.

Why? God’s standard is the ultimate standard by which all men will be judged. His judgement is universal for every single person who ever lived and His standards do not change. God’s moral standard is fact, it is reality because it does not differ from one person to the next nor is it subject to opinion.

 

[Kyrani]

Then why do people of different cultures have different standards of empathetic and conscious?

Different cultures have different standards of what they perceive a right vs wrong.

This spiritual consciousness you speak of, is it in a constant state of change? Because what was considered right/wrong 100 years ago, is completely different today; and will be completely different 100 years from now

So how come there isn’t agreement with these spiritual consciousness? One person’s spiritual consciousness says it is okay to kill animals and eat their flesh while another person’s says it is wrong? Why does one person’s spiritual consciousness say interracial marriages are wrong, while the other person’s say it is okay? Why does one person’s spiritual consciousness say stealing if you are in need is okay, while someone else’s say it is wrong? How come this spiritual consciousness that you say controls our behavior seems to differ from person to person?

There are two reasons that I can see.
One is that different cultures, races, tribes etc., have different concerns, especially where survival is concerned. So for instance inter-racial marriages may be frowned up or even not tolerated where the country is small, a monoculture and especially where there are concerns about the continuation of its cultural identity. However these don't really affect basic morality.
The other is where inhumane people have gain control over religious organizations or politics. So for instance the Hindu priests insisted that women who were widowed had to be burnt alive. Even today they suffer a social death.
"In much of Indian society—across caste and religion—a widow is often perceived by family members to be a burden and sexually threatening toward marriages. "
The ongoing tragedy of India’s widows - Women’s Media Center (womensmediacenter.com)
I highlighted the word "often". You will find that it is not the people in general that are against the widow. It is inhumane people, who spread fear in one form or another to cause others, especially people, who are ignorant or haven't thought the matter through well enough that are sucked in and thus may think and/or behave immorally.

One can see down through the ages, that people who have love in their hearts and live by their conscience do behave in a very similar if not the same way with regard to moral principles. They don't seek to go and hurt others, they don't act in selfishness that leaves others disadvantaged and they do reach out to help others in need. We wouldn't see this if the basis of our spiritual nature was not love.

 

[Kyrani]

There are situations where disobeying commandments is necessary. Like in the situation of Rahab. She was counted righteous by God for lying to the Canaanites to save the lives of the Israel spies. Or for example honoring your mother and father. If your parents are telling you to go against God’s commandments then obviously you wouldn’t be expected to honor that request. The same applies to adhering to the governing authorities. We know this because the Bible gives us situations as examples to make these determinations.

The commandment of honoring your mother and father is one in question. Sure there may be a request made that is not to be honored, but if the mother and father are inhumane, how is one to honor them at all. To honor is to hold in high regard. Neither one of my biological mother and father had even a single stand of hair between them that could be respected. Far from honoring one may need to take measures that can lead to their deaths if they engage in evil actions against you. My father set about to attack me, it took place in the Mind, and I counterattacked him and lead to his death. I have not done anything morally wrong. I have a clean conscience You can read about it here in this post:
Remorse and forgiveness

 

[Kyrani]

That’s not true. That’s what self report scales and qualitative research paradigms are for.

I see value in qualitative research.
Qualitative Study - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)
However as far as scientists are concerned it is not objective. This is all the argument with anecdotal evidence.
At university I was taught "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist". This is a hard line attitude to be sure, but that is what is considered to be objective. An objective observer gathering direct evidence. The testimony of others, no matter how nobel a research project, is still not considered objective evidence.

To give you an example.
I have been doing research on cancer. My observations are not done in the conventional scientific way. I had been using insight meditation to observe cells within my own body back in the times when I had cancers. None of this evidence would be worth anything as far as biomedical scientists are concerned. However in looking through the biomedical scientific literature I have been able to find independent evidence that supports 100% what I had observed. Without the objective science, my qualitative research would not stand up to criticism. This is the difference.

 

[Kyrani]

Not unable to sin, without the desire to sin..... you know; sorta like Jesus.

The desire to sin IS the condition that creates the ability to sin. However not every sin is done through a desire to sin. Sin, from the Greek word "amartia", really means "missing the mark", and that usually means that the person hasn't thought the matter through or not seen the big picture.

But there is also the matter of transgression. This is far more serious than sin. This is a desire to do gross wrongdoing in the full knowledge that it is gross wrongdoing. There is no question here that there is no desire to do wrong. It is clear evidence that free will gives the ability to do whatever, knowingly or unknowingly, desiring or not desiring. Free will is what God wanted to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Whyayeman]

What constitutes an error in the Bible? How can checking on the Greek be reliable when the Greek is itself a translation? Go back to the Aramaic? And even then you could not be certain of the original texts, since they are largely (or entirely) lost.

There are too many opportunities for mistakes, mistranslations and transcription errors.

However, this is a bit of a digression. There has been a refrain here to the effect that something is right or wrong because God says so. As an article of faith that is fine but as an argument in favour of (or against) the existence of an objective morality it is unsatisfactory.

What criteria does your God use to decide on the the rightness or wrongness of an action?

 

[o_mlly]

One can see down through the ages, that people who have love in their hearts and live by their conscience do behave in a very similar if not the same way with regard to moral principles.

The Age of Enlightenment introduced two contradictory ideas on the nature of human beings: Hobbs and Rousseau.

The natural condition of mankind, according to Hobbes, is a state of war in which life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” because individuals are in a “war of all against all”.

Human nature for Rousseau is a morally neutral and peaceful condition. Rousseau proclaimed the natural goodness of man and believed that one man by nature is just as good as any other.

Neither Hobbs' nor Rousseau's theories explain fully what is easily observed in different human societies. For Hobbs the greed and competition among men was natural. For Rousseau the form of governance was the cause of man's greed and competitiveness. He held that as communities gradually became more complex and introduced the idea of private property, economic and social inequalities resulted.

The Christian view of human nature is one that believes man was created good, corrupted by sin, and repairable with grace. The Christian theory better explains the behaviors of both the marauding Mongols under Genghis Khan and the early Christian communities than either Hobbs or Rousseau.