Is there Objective Morality?

[food4thought]

Does God, being omniscient, know whether chocolate ice cream is more or less delicious than strawberry ice cream?

Hi Orel. What you are speaking of has absolutely nothing to do with morality.

 

[food4thought]

I agree

I agree with your side note

Here is the way I see it. If morality were objective, right vs wrong would not be based on human thought, beliefs, or opinions it would be beyond mankind. But not just mankind; but any sentient being. If a dog disagreed with objective morality, the dog would be wrong. If an intelligent Alien from another planet disagreed with objective morality, that Alien would be wrong. And because God is a sentient being, if God disagreed with objective morality, God would be wrong. When you look at anything that is objective, it is regardless of the thoughts of any sentient being; example if God said I were a biological woman, If God said 2+2=5, If God said I can fly like a bird, God would be wrong. Just because you are the most powerful guy that exist, and the creator of the Universe, does not make you exempt from an objective reality. So if morality is to be objective, it is not only beyond mankind, but it also has to be beyond God. Do you agree? If not, tell me where I am going wrong.

So, if there were such a thing as objective morality, how would any sentient being know what it is, if even a Being that fully understood every possible angle of every possible thought, motive, and action in every conceivable situation would be incapable of determining it? If you are saying that even such a Being could not be objective, then, might I suggest, that we just eliminate the word "objective" from our vocabulary, because it obviously has no useful meaning...

 

[stevevw]

This is a bad analogy. No one can claim that it is what it appears to be. We assume it is, that's all.

You've heard the old adage, "I think, therefore I am" yes? That's the argument that the only thing one can be absolutely sure of is that he exists, nothing more. I prefer to stay out of hard solipsism territory whenever possible, but if you're going to talk about whether we can justify our perception of reality as being accurate, this needs to be pointed out.

Well its not hard to argue and its a well known one used in epistemology and morality. Its actually a good and accurate analogy so I cannot understand how you think that. We don't just believe the physical world "Is what it is" because we assume it. NOr we we just make claims about reality on a whim. We base our justified belief that our physical world "Is what it is" and not some simulation through our intuition of it.

Our intuitions are our sense experience of the physical world. What we see around us, how it works, how people treat it and how we interact within it, trust it that it works that way. It all points to being exactly what we experience it to be.

Its exactly the same for morality. We can be justified to believe that our moral experience through our intuition is real and works the way we experience it and behave morally. There is no direct knockdown evdience that can assure us it is real and a proper representation. But still we treat it as real and fact. That our experience of it is the evdience and the evdience works when applied. Its elf-evidential.

Moral values and duties are simply self-evidence and intuitive.
If we see a child getting tortured, we don’t think that is how other people see the world and we should move on. No, we all think that must be stopped and justice must be done.
But why, because the idea of moral facts and duties are real and objective, is self-evident and is our intuitive starting point.
The burden is on the sceptic to show that our intuitions are wrong not the moral realist.
So even if we didn’t have any other arguments for moral realism this point on moral intuition would remain.

In the sciences we decide between theories based on observations, which have an important degree of objectivity. It appears that in moral reasoning, moral intuitions play the same role which observations do in science: we test general moral principles and moral theories by seeing how their consequences conform (or fail to conform) to our moral intuitions about particular cases. Richard Boyd Essays on Moral Realism, How to be a Moral Realist Page 184.

“Our moral thinking and discourse might be systematically mistaken. But this would be a revisionary conclusion, to be accepted only as a result of extended and compelling argument that the commitments of ethical objectivity are unsustainable. In the meantime we should treat the objectivity of ethics as a kind of default assumption or working hypothesis”.

This should also be obvious because we do this with every other topic.
For example, we do not assume scepticism for our experience of the physical world unless we are given reason to. It is possible you are a butterfly dreaming you are human but there’s no good evidence to suggest that.

So why accept a skeptical attack on intuition if there is no evidence to support it. Possibility is not probability likewise we do not doubt the intuitive trust of our 5 senses unless we have a good reason to think that one of them has failed us.

So why should we doubt intuitive sense of moral facts unless we are given good reason by moral non-realist to do so. The burden is on the skeptic who wants to argue moral realism is false.

That's the "Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy". Something isn't true just because it hasn't been proven false. For instance, my hair is long and lustrous. Prove me wrong, and if you don't, that proves I have hair like Fabio.

No its a logically reasoned out arguement.

 

[food4thought]

Yes but I think its not very helpful for supporting objective morality because we cannot objectively support God is real.

Thanks, stevew. But, I am beginning to see, by the definitions at least some of the atheists are using, it would seem that "objective" is something that no being can possibly be, so if the goal is to come to some kind of conclusion we can all agree upon with regard to the question posed in the thread title, this whole discussion, the way things are being defined, is a complete waste of time.

I'm perfectly happy to continue to place the person of Jesus Christ in front of them, but if we come at this on their terms, it's really going nowhere, IMO.

 

[food4thought]

Does God, being omniscient, know whether chocolate ice cream is more or less delicious than strawberry ice cream?

Ah, I see. Not dealing with morality, but with the idea of an omniscient God. Since such a thing as a favorite flavor of food has no real moral application, and could be reduced to differences in individual's taste buds, and, perhaps, personality, and a diversity of such things is in no way bad by any "objective" (whatever you think that means) standard, individuals may indeed have different answers to this question (even God), and as such here is the simple answer:

God knows everyone's favorite flavor. And since flavors can be tweaked over a broad range, and our taste might be different from moment to moment, He even knows exactly what flavor, and what range of that flavor would be most enjoyed by you at any given moment.

 

[Bradskii]

So, if there were such a thing as objective morality, how would any sentient being know what it is, if even a Being that fully understood every possible angle of every possible thought, motive, and action in every conceivable situation would be incapable of determining it? If you are saying that even such a Being could not be objective, then, might I suggest, that we just eliminate the word "objective" from our vocabulary, because it obviously has no useful meaning...

You're confusing objectivity with objective morals. It does seem to be a stumbling block for those supporting objective morality.

Things can be objectively known. If you're omniscient then it's a given. So let's say we're both omniscient and we know everything about act X to the nth degree. Does that tell us if it's a good act or not? You'll have your opinion and I'll have mine.

Let's say I'm dying and I've only a week to live. We both know that as a certainty. I'm in terrible pain. We both know that. I decide to end my life. All my family supports that decision. We know that. So there's everything you need to know. All the objective facts are available. Does that tell us if it's immoral or not? Obviously not. Sounds like I'll be making a subjective decision.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ah, I see. Not dealing with morality, but with the idea of an omniscient God. Since such a thing as a favorite flavor of food has no real moral application, and could be reduced to differences in individual's taste buds, and, perhaps, personality, and a diversity of such things is in no way bad by any "objective" (whatever you think that means) standard, individuals may indeed have different answers to this question (even God), and as such here is the simple answer:

God knows everyone's favorite flavor. And since flavors can be tweaked over a broad range, and our taste might be different from moment to moment, He even knows exactly what flavor, and what range of that flavor would be most enjoyed by you at any given moment.

That isn't an answer to the question. I didn't ask if He knows what my favorite flavor is, or what your favorite flavor is. I asked if He knows which is more delicious. I think you're sidestepping the question because you recognize the inherent nonsense in it, but I'd really prefer you acknowledge the nonsense (if that's the case) than try to come up with some answer just to say it got answered.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well its not hard to argue...

No, it's impossible to argue.

Our intuitions are our sense experience of the physical world. What we see around us, how it works, how people treat it and how we interact within it, trust it that it works that way. It all points to being exactly what we experience it to be.

Its exactly the same for morality. We can be justified to believe that our moral experience through our intuition is real and works the way we experience it and behave morally. There is no direct knockdown evdience that can assure us it is real and a proper representation. But still we treat it as real and fact. That our experience of it is the evdience and the evdience works when applied. Its elf-evidential.

Moral values and duties are simply self-evidence and intuitive.
If we see a child getting tortured, we don’t think that is how other people see the world and we should move on. No, we all think that must be stopped and justice must be done.
But why, because the idea of moral facts and duties are real and objective, is self-evident and is our intuitive starting point.
The burden is on the sceptic to show that our intuitions are wrong not the moral realist.
So even if we didn’t have any other arguments for moral realism this point on moral intuition would remain.

In the sciences we decide between theories based on observations, which have an important degree of objectivity. It appears that in moral reasoning, moral intuitions play the same role which observations do in science: we test general moral principles and moral theories by seeing how their consequences conform (or fail to conform) to our moral intuitions about particular cases. Richard Boyd Essays on Moral Realism, How to be a Moral Realist Page 184.

“Our moral thinking and discourse might be systematically mistaken. But this would be a revisionary conclusion, to be accepted only as a result of extended and compelling argument that the commitments of ethical objectivity are unsustainable. In the meantime we should treat the objectivity of ethics as a kind of default assumption or working hypothesis”.

This should also be obvious because we do this with every other topic.
For example, we do not assume scepticism for our experience of the physical world unless we are given reason to. It is possible you are a butterfly dreaming you are human but there’s no good evidence to suggest that.

So why accept a skeptical attack on intuition if there is no evidence to support it. Possibility is not probability likewise we do not doubt the intuitive trust of our 5 senses unless we have a good reason to think that one of them has failed us.

So why should we doubt intuitive sense of moral facts unless we are given good reason by moral non-realist to do so. The burden is on the skeptic who wants to argue moral realism is false.

Please stop churning out the same rehashed cut and paste arguments that the thread has been over repeatedly. Do you not have the interest to engage with what I've said?

No its a logically reasoned our arguement.

No, it's a well documented fallacy:

Your Logical Fallacy Is: Burden of Proof

 

[food4thought]

That isn't an answer to the question. I didn't ask if He knows what my favorite flavor is, or what your favorite flavor is. I asked if He knows which is more delicious. I think you're sidestepping the question because you recognize the inherent nonsense in it, but I'd really prefer you acknowledge the nonsense (if that's the case) than try to come up with some answer just to say it got answered.

I did, though... I think that you're just imposing arbitrary limitations on how I can answer the question. I DID answer your question by saying that favorite flavors (iow's, what would be most delicious) are unique to individual biology, personality, and, I would add, mood. These things are fluid over individuals and time. How I would answer this question at any given time would almost certainly differ from how a sentient being from the Andromeda Galaxy would have answered the question 1000 years ago. Is that correct or not? The ONLY way to answer your question in any meaningful way is exactly how I answered it.

 

[Moral Orel]

I did, though... I think that you're just imposing arbitrary limitations on how I can answer the question. I DID answer your question by saying that favorite flavors (iow's, what would be most delicious) are unique to individual biology, personality, and, I would add, mood. These things are fluid over individuals and time. How I would answer this question at any given time would almost certainly differ from how a sentient being from the Andromeda Galaxy would have answered the question 1000 years ago. Is that correct or not? The ONLY way to answer your question in any meaningful way is exactly how I answered it.

Are you acknowledging the question, as I stated it, is unanswerable? God, who knows everything, doesn't know the answer to that question because the answer is unknowable. Much in the same way you would answer the question, "Does God know what a square circle looks like?".

 

[food4thought]

Things can be objectively known. If you're omniscient then it's a given. So let's say we're both omniscient and we know everything about act X to the nth degree. Does that tell us if it's a good act or not? You'll have your opinion and I'll have mine.

In order to discern what is objectively moral in such a situation, just knowing everything about act x is insufficient. One must know how act x affects every act to the nth degree after it, and also understand the context of all the experience of every being affected by act x before act x occurred.

All that said, though... I do see your point. Even with all that context, there still must be a sense of right and wrong that ultimately determines the morality of act x within the larger context. Thank you for showing me that gap in my thinking, Bradskii.

I'll have to digest that for a bit.

 

[food4thought]

Are you acknowledging the question, as I stated it, is unanswerable? God, who knows everything, doesn't know the answer to that question because the answer is unknowable. Much in the same way you would answer the question, "Does God know what a square circle looks like?".

I would say that the answer to your question would be different for different beings at different, times, places, and situations. I would NOT say the answer is unknowable, and, in all honesty, neither should you.

Now, as to a square circle. Within our experience in this universe of space-time, such a question would be meaningless to begin with. There is a very large difference between not having enough knowledge and understanding to answer a question, and being able to definitively say that such a thing does not exist.

Yet, just to demonstrate the lack of imagination that your question suggests... since quantum mechanics has inferred the idea that there are more dimensions in reality than we currently experience, it is possible that, in the totality of these dimensions, what we would recognize as "a square circle" might actually exist, and God would answer your question by saying: "Why, yes, Orel, I do know what a square circle looks like." And even if this was not the case, I am quite sure God would be able to conceive of a dimensional reality in which something we would recognize as "a square circle" could exist. In which case, God would still be able to answer truthfully: "Why, yes, Orel, I do know what a square circle looks like."

And even in the unlikely scenario where no matter how dimensionality of space is tweaked, a square circle is still a geometrically impossible thing, God would be able to answer you with full assurance by saying: "Why, no, Orel, such a thing is physically impossible."

 

[food4thought]

This is a thought to ponder within the context of morality, God's omniscience, and His omnipotence... recognizing that even with all knowledge and all power, some things may not be possible.

Is it possible for God to create beings with the capacity to love, and then force such beings to love Him and receive His love? Can real, lasting, unfeigned love be coerced, even by an omniscient and omnipotent Being?

 

[Moral Orel]

I would say that the answer to your question would be different for different beings at different, times, places, and situations. I would NOT say the answer is unknowable, and, in all honesty, neither should you.

I didn't ask, "Does God know what flavor I prefer?" I asked "Does He know which is more delicious?". If you have to add "to Orel" at the end, you've changed the question.

Now, as to a square circle. Within our experience in this universe of space-time, such a question would be meaningless to begin with. There is a very large difference between not having enough knowledge and understanding to answer a question, and being able to definitively say that such a thing does not exist.

Correct, there's a difference between not having enough knowledge and understanding to answer a question and not being able to definitely say that one thing is more delicious than another.

Yet, just to demonstrate the lack of imagination that your question suggests... since quantum mechanics has inferred the idea that there are more dimensions in reality than we currently experience, it is possible that, in the totality of these dimensions, what we would recognize as "a square circle" might actually exist, and God would answer your question by saying: "Why, yes, Orel, I do know what a square circle looks like." And even if this was not the case, I am quite sure God would be able to conceive of a dimensional reality in which something we would recognize as "a square circle" could exist. In which case, God would still be able to answer truthfully: "Why, yes, Orel, I do know what a square circle looks like."

Squares and circles are two dimensional. More dimensions than two are irrelevant. A square and a circle are the same in a universe with 3 dimensions as they are in a universe with a billion dimensions.

And even in the unlikely scenario where no matter how dimensionality of space is tweaked, a square circle is still a geometrically impossible thing, God would be able to answer you with full assurance by saying: "Why, no, Orel, such a thing is physically impossible."

Right. It's impossible for a square to have the property of roundness. It's impossible for a circle to have the property of right angles. And it's impossible for any flavor of ice cream to have the property of deliciousness. "Delicious" is just how I describe my experience with chocolate ice cream, not how I describe the ice cream itself. If it were a property of the ice cream, God would know which is more delicious.

 

[Moral Orel]

This is a thought to ponder within the context of morality, God's omniscience, and His omnipotence... recognizing that even with all knowledge and all power, some things may not be possible.

Is it possible for God to create beings with the capacity to love, and then force such beings to love Him and receive His love. Can real, lasting, unfeigned love be coerced, even by an omniscient and omnipotent Being?

That's a whole other topic altogether. And I guarantee it would fall under the category of "General Apologetics" which isn't allowed on these forums anymore. There used to be a section for it, but it was closed down a while ago.

 

[Ken-1122]

So, if there were such a thing as objective morality, how would any sentient being know what it is, if even a Being that fully understood every possible angle of every possible thought, motive, and action in every conceivable situation would be incapable of determining it? If you are saying that even such a Being could not be objective, then, might I suggest, that we just eliminate the word "objective" from our vocabulary, because it obviously has no useful meaning...

A side note; why would you assume such a being exist? If a being did exist; how would you know it? How would you know he knows all instead of just more than you? My dog looks like me like I am the smartest guy on earth! What he doesn't know is that I ain't all that smart, I'm just smarter than he is. How do you know you don't look up to God the same way my dog looks up to me?

To answer your question; I didn't say he didn't know morality; (obviously if God knows all, he knows morality) I said he does not dictate morality. If we assume objective morality does exist, it is not determined by God, its existence is beyond God, just like everything else objective.

 

[food4thought]

I didn't ask, "Does God know what flavor I prefer?" I asked "Does He know which is more delicious?". If you have to add "to Orel" at the end, you've changed the question.


Correct, there's a difference between not having enough knowledge and understanding to answer a question and not being able to definitely say that one thing is more delicious than another.


Squares and circles are two dimensional. More dimensions than two are irrelevant. A square and a circle are the same in a universe with 3 dimensions as they are in a universe with a billion dimensions.


Right. It's impossible for a square to have the property of roundness. It's impossible for a circle to have the property of right angles. And it's impossible for any flavor of ice cream to have the property of deliciousness. "Delicious" is just how I describe my experience with chocolate ice cream, not how I describe the ice cream itself. If it were a property of the ice cream, God would know which is more delicious.

Yeah, within the narrow little keyhole boundaries of these questions and your limits to how they can be answered, the answers, or course, are what you expect. Just understand that the limitations you are imposing by asking these narrow questions are themselves arbitrary, and, from my perspective, seem to betray an intent to only get the answer you desire.

I suggest that, perhaps, you're asking the wrong questions...

 

[Moral Orel]

Yeah, within the narrow little keyhole boundaries of these questions and your limits to how they can be answered, the answers, or course, are what you expect.

So then you agree that even God doesn't "know" which is more delicious because that isn't a knowable thing. Preferences aren't correct or incorrect. Do we agree so far?

 

[food4thought]

A side note; why would you assume such a being exist? If a being did exist; how would you know it? How would you know he knows all instead of just more than you? My dog looks like me like I am the smartest guy on earth! What he doesn't know is that I ain't all that smart, I'm just smarter than he is. How do you know you don't look up to God the same way my dog looks up to me?

In the end, it boils down to whether I deem the Being trustworthy enough for me to believe that what He tells me about Himself is true. In a world that has been horribly marred by the consequences of sin, His goodness and trustworthiness can easily be called into question, can they not? Yet, knowing myself quite well, and seeing the actions of people in the world on a daily basis for the last 47 years, I am convinced that humanity is doomed if left to our own devices. And if He did create us, and the narrative of our rejection of Him and embracing our own desires by believing the lies of something less than Him is true... I have no problem with Him judging that, and continuing to judge such horrors as we continually perpetrate upon one another by imposing consequences, and/or by allowing the consequences to play themselves out. And the fact that God is STILL willing to reach down into our mess and try to helps us, even to the extent of Jesus, shows me a character that I do not find within myself, or see in anyone else, really. So, can I really know beyond any shadow of a doubt that He is who He says He is? No. (I dare you to keep reading and thinking about what I'm writing after that statement!) But ask yourself this: could He really demonstrate to you, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that He really is God, and not just some highly advanced interdimensional alien with a "god complex", bent on ruling little old us to assuage his bloated ego? How could He possibly prove that the former is true and the latter is false? If He parted the heavens tomorrow, and made a pronouncement, what would that really prove to a person without any faith in His Deity and goodness?

This is why it has always been about faith, really. But definitely not "blind" faith, at least not for me. What kind of Being could create the universe that we now are able to see? I've seen enough of myself and the rest of humanity to know that we are in the predicament that the Bible says we are in. I've experienced enough since believing to know that what He claims to offer us in this current world is true. And, like it or not, both before and after believing in Jesus, I've had no choice but to acknowledge that there are spiritual forces at work, both for good and evil, in this world that can rightly be described as "supernatural". And if what is described in the book of Revelation comes to pass, particularly the last 3 chapters, then that will prove my faith to be well placed. Until then, and perhaps even in some small sense after that, just as it has been for all human history, it boils down to faith. Faith is really just trust put into practice. And since real, lasting love is impossible without trust anyways, I'm ok with that.

To answer your question; I didn't say he didn't know morality; (obviously if God knows all, he knows morality) I said he does not dictate morality. If we assume objective morality does exist, it is not determined by God, its existence is beyond God, just like everything else objective.

Yeah, Bradskii already helped me see that even complete knowledge does not determine objective morality (although it does certainly help implement it). I'm not willing to concede that God cannot be the source of objective morality, but need some time to think it through.

 

[food4thought]

So then you agree that even God doesn't "know" which is more delicious because that isn't a knowable thing.

Within the narrow little keyhole of the boundaries you have set, yes.

Preferences aren't correct or incorrect. Do we agree so far?

That, I cannot agree with. You are attempting to jump from an extremely narrow set of preferences to a much larger set. Apples and oranges (at least potentially).