Is morality objective, even without God?

[partinobodycular]

In the video below Peter Singer equates morality/ethics with mathematics, which is a concept that I'd never considered before. Most people probably agree that mathematics is objective. It's true independent of our opinions about it. And I can see how it could be argued that morality is exactly the same. In math the understanding that 1+1=2 doesn't instantaneously lead to an understanding of Pi, because although the latter is equally true, coming to understand that it's true is a complicated process. Perhaps the same is true with morality. As with mathematics, morality may be objectively true, but understanding why it's true may be just as complicated as understanding why Pi is true. You don't instantly go from understanding that math exists, to understanding trigonometry, and you don't instantly go from understanding that morality exists, to understanding that slavery is immoral.

Thus there may be an objective morality, but as with math we're still in the process of understanding it, and the fact that we may disagree about what's moral doesn't by necessity mean that morality is subjective. It just means that we don't have a sufficient understanding of morality so as to understand why things are moral, and so instead, morality without God looks subjective, when it really isn't.

And in my opinion, having some God attempting to dictate to me what is and isn't moral will never be as gratifying as actually understanding why things are immoral without a need for that God.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What does it even mean for morality to be objective? (I've queued up the video, but haven't watched it yet.) Serious question.

When I evaluate a choice, I evaluate that choice against my experiences. I evaluate that against my experience of the person it's going to affect. (Because if it doesn't affect someone, it may be a choice but it is not a moral one.) What is this but subjective?

Now I've seen some youtubers (and Sam Harris in his Moral Landscape) argue that if we know what our objectives are (typically, well-being) we can measure, sort-of, whether a choice improves well-being or not. This can be "objective".

Nevertheless, that evaluation is me doing the evaluating ... it's subjective. That nearly all humanity regards "unnecessary killing" (neglecting further nuances) as wrong doesn't make it objective.

We say taste is subjective: chocolate over vanilla, say. Few dispute that. The fact that no one thinks eating poison ivy is a good is not really a clue that taste is somehow objective. The fact that most people find "murder" wrong isn't a clue that morality is objective.

Let me repeat what I've said before. Most internal moral debates are post hoc rationalizations of an action. (Maybe it's just me.) I think debates about systems of morality are useful in that it is part of the feedback loop that will modify our future instinctual actions.

Anyway, I find myself more and more reductionist. If it isn't about the existence of, say, a rock in my front yard that can be intersubjectively verified, it's subjective.

Math may be objective-ish, but only in the ways that the rules of chess are objective. The choice of what game are we going to play in the first place is subjective (or inter-subjective). We made up the rules of math with a goal for modelling what we see in reality. (Yes, there are modern maths that seem to be "because we can".) Does that make it objective? Maybe, but only to the degree it succeeds in modelling objective reality.

YMMV

 

[RDKirk]

What clearly makes morality subjective in my view is that we see species all around clearly behaving according to moral rules, even in non-humans, and so much of it is different that we can't claim any of it is objective. Bonobos, for instance, clearly behave according to group moral rules, as do chimpanzees, yet they're as different as the rules between human civilizations...which shows them to be more than instinct (which is objective).

And, btw, even though I believe in God, I don't believe that morality is objective because God is not an object. Morality is subjective to God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In the video below Peter Singer equates morality/ethics with mathematics, which is a concept that I'd never considered before. Most people probably agree that mathematics is objective. It's true independent of our opinions about it. And I can see how it could be argued that morality is exactly the same. In math the understanding that 1+1=2 doesn't instantaneously lead to an understanding of Pi, because although the latter is equally true, coming to understand that it's true is a complicated process. Perhaps the same is true with morality. As with mathematics, morality may be objectively true, but understanding why it's true may be just as complicated as understanding why Pi is true. You don't instantly go from understanding that math exists, to understanding trigonometry, and you don't instantly go from understanding that morality exists, to understanding that slavery is immoral.

Thus there may be an objective morality, but as with math we're still in the process of understanding it, and the fact that we may disagree about what's moral doesn't by necessity mean that morality is subjective. It just means that we don't have a sufficient understanding of morality so as to understand why things are moral, and so instead, morality without God looks subjective, when it really isn't.

And in my opinion, having some God attempting to dictate to me what is and isn't moral will never be as gratifying as actually understanding why things are immoral without a need for that God.

We will never know why "things are immoral" on our own, and this is essentially due to all of the Meta-Ethical issues involved.

As it is, Peter Singer has always been a Utilitarian, so it's not surprising that you found a video illustrating his mathematical approach to morality. But there are several other equally robust views on Ethics that compete with his.

 

[Bradskii]

Now I've seen some youtubers (and Sam Harris in his Moral Landscape) argue that if we know what our objectives are (typically, well-being) we can measure, sort-of, whether a choice improves well-being or not. This can be "objective".

Therein lies the problem. I don't think there is anything that can be described as 'our objectives'. That is, things that ought to be the objective for us all. But I have to admit to being a little perplexed about what we might describe as moral progress. As MLK said: '...the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.' So if we are improving, and I'm certain that we are, then where does this arc take us?

I'm re-reading Fukuyama's The End Of History (prompted by recent events) and it was his claim that we'll reach a stage where (political) progress will have nowhere left to go. We'll get to universal liberal democracy and that will be it. It'll be the end of the journey. Can that be the same for moral progress? If that's true, then the difference between having universal agreement on morality and (not 'therefore') declaring it to be objective gets even more blurred.

 

[Mark Quayle]

'Social mores' are necessary for society

• We do have a conscience

But there is no 'morality' without God.

 

[zippy2006]

In the video below Peter Singer...

I watched the first seven minutes. It looks to be interesting and worthwhile, especially given Singer's long career. I will finish the video before I would post about it.

(This is one of those threads where one will receive infinitely more by simply watching the 22 minute OP video, rather than reading posts from those who haven't watched it.)

 

[Bradskii]

I watched the first seven minutes. It looks to be interesting and worthwhile, especially given Singer's long career. I will finish the video before I would post about it.

(This is one of those threads where one will receive infinitely more by simply watching the 22 minute OP video, rather than reading posts from those who haven't watched it.)

Excellent interview that covered a lot. In that respect it was way too short. That could have gone on for a few hours and I'd have listened to it all.

Too many points to cover in one post so I'll just mention one. Springer said that emotionally our feelings can give us a direction as to correct moral positions but we should rationally question them. And he used an example of a terrorist with a nuclear bomb. Should we torture him to find out the means to disarm it. But simple black and white situations like that don't address the problem.

Emotionally we might all say that torturing someone is wrong. Unless you're a sadist then we'd all agree. But it then becomes a personal opinion as to when it is justified. Which is where it becomes obvious that it's relative to both our own perspective and to the situation itself. Would I torture someone to prevent millions being killed? There's no doubt that I would. Would I torture someone to prevent my family being killed. I'd actually be more certain that I would. But someone else's family? I'm not sure. To prevent one death? Probably not. To prevent serious harm? No, I wouldn't.

So we might get complete agreement on specific examples. But Springer agreed that universal agreement did not equate to objectivity. So where does objectivity come in unless it is simply objective facts about the world such as we would all try to avoid agony. He's then on the same page as Sam Harris. But morality based on objective facts does not equate to objective morality.

 

[partinobodycular]

But there is no 'morality' without God.

I don't actually have a problem with this assertion. What I do have a problem with is the assertion that this God has any say in what is or isn't moral, any more than He has a say in whether 1+1=2. In fact that's sort of the point of this thread... that like math we don't decide what's morally true, we simply discover what's morally true.

That to me is an intriguing idea... that as much as we may think that we do, we humans don't really choose what's moral, we simply make naive attempts to express what we think it looks like, and then extol ourselves for having done so.

Now this morality may indeed be encompassed in this thing that you refer to as God, I don't know. But what I do know, is that if it is, then you and I have an entirely different understanding of God. And I'm hoping that someday you'll come to realize that our different versions of God are in fact one and the same.

 

[QvQ]

Yes, morality is objective
Because, morality cannot be subjective
Any morality that is limited to a subjective view, which only considers the want, feelings and reasons of a person is not going to be a true analysis of what the situation requires.
It is akin to relativity in that there are two positions, the person who is required to a moral act and the situation that sets the parameters of that act. The third position, God is the objective view, the position of the observer to continue with the analogy.
Any "moral" act must consider all positions, God, subjective necessity and the situational parameters.
That amounts to "objective" when all three, the two objects relative to each other and the position of the observor are taken into consideration.

 

[Bradskii]

But there is no 'morality' without God.

And...

I don't actually have a problem with this assertion.

I'm not sure if Mark means that there is no morality without God. Or whether there is no morality without a belief in God.

What I do have a problem with is the assertion that this God has any say in what is or isn't moral

Then He doesn't dictate what is moral. He is bound by what is moral. Which is independent of God. It's Euthyphro's dilemma.

 

[Bradskii]

The third position, God is the objective view...

Who determines what God's view is?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Who determines what God's view is?

That's not a legitimate question and is necessarily precluded since to ask the question is to assume you, me or anyone knows what "God" is and how He can (or cannot) do anything or know anything.

Let's cut the rhetorical "who made God" type questions. They're not really incisive and don't dig at anything we can clearly discern at a human level. Let's not pretend otherwise just to boost the seeming verve of our atheistic predilections.

 

[RDKirk]

"Morals — all correct moral rules derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above all else." --Robert Heinlein

For atheist author Robert A. Heinlein, morality wasn’t about lofty ideals or divine commands; it was about what helps people and societies survive and thrive. He thought moral actions were those that ensured survival and fostered cooperation. Any rule that did not somehow rest ultimately upon ensuring the survival of the group (nation, species, whatever), was invalid. A collection of such invalid morals might even lead to the destruction of the group...which was the ultimate immorality.

He also tied morality to personal responsibility, saying that moral people take ownership of their actions and work to strengthen their communities. This view reflects his libertarian streak, emphasizing individual freedom balanced with social responsibility. Morality, to him, was a tool for navigating the balance between personal desires and the needs of the group.

 

[Jerry N.]

The video is very interesting, but objective morality can’t be more than the law that God wrote in our hearts, which is not the same as intuition. God wrote it in our hearts so that we know that we fall short of pleasing Him, and it also exists for our own good in society. If objective morality is outside of God, then saying that God did wrong by killing the first-born of Egypt becomes a possibility. If I smash my neighbor’s vase maliciously, I have done wrong. If I make a vase and smash it while it is still mine, I have not done wrong. Babies and children in Egypt were innocent, but God destroyed them because He is God and made them for that purpose. God is not an elected positions who can be judged by His creation.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Therein lies the problem. I don't think there is anything that can be described as 'our objectives'.

I agree. I think well-being is a fine goal. And, I think within some paradigms that there are measurable better and worse ways to achieve those goals. However, the choice of a goal and agreeing on it is a subjective activity. Another goal might be to please Allah. As such, I don't think there is an objective measurable way to determine that one thing is better and another worse. And, those that would choose this goal would not agree with the goal of well-being. In fact, I'm sure we'd agree that some of those in charge of Afghanistan have actively harmed well-being. (Of course, they might just redefine the term and say they are helping, but ...)

That is, things that ought to be the objective for us all. But I have to admit to being a little perplexed about what we might describe as moral progress. As MLK said: '...the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.' So if we are improving, and I'm certain that we are, then where does this arc take us?

I'm re-reading Fukuyama's The End Of History (prompted by recent events) and it was his claim that we'll reach a stage where (political) progress will have nowhere left to go. We'll get to universal liberal democracy and that will be it. It'll be the end of the journey. Can that be the same for moral progress? If that's true, then the difference between having universal agreement on morality and (not 'therefore') declaring it to be objective gets even more blurred.

I'm not sure there is moral progress. There is only agreement and it is temporary. For the moment, many of would agree that gay rights make society better. Of course, I think that "no slavery" is infinitely better than "slavery". But, I am a product of "now". If I had the same DNA and were born in 1830 Georgia, how would I feel? I'd like to think I'd be an abolitionist, but it's likely I'd be slave owner and think it perfectly moral.

A woman's right to choose a job, a divorce, an abortion merely raises her to full partnership in humanity. I say merely because it's a shame that there are times, both in the past and now, when women were second class citizens. This fact check rates 6/9 claims about the state of women in 1971 (in the US) as true.

And yet, on these very boards, we have those that would reverse this progress. And the point is, if they did so, they would call it progress.

As such, statements like "people were more moral back then" is meaningless to me. They had a dominant set of rules and the rules are in permanent flux. The things that I think make society better quite likely may disappear in the next decade if certain attitudes prevail.

Yes, I will say things are worse ... but, that would be my subjective based on my observations of what is good.

 

[BCP1928]

Morality is socially constructed and it takes a while to create or change it. Claiming objectivity represents a short cut.

1. Make a list of widely accepted moral precepts.
2. Add your own moral precepts that you would like to see adopted to the list.
3. Claim moral objectivity--or even better, divine authorship--for the entire list.
4. Offer the universality of the already accepted moral precepts as evidence of their objectivity and thus the objectivity of the entire list.
5. Assert that the only possible alternative to objective morality is individual moral relativism and moral chaos.

 

[QvQ]

There are three positions required, God, subjective necessity and situational parameters.
Those are the three elements of morality. The point is to arrive at an Objective Truth.
The secular legal realm substitutes Justice or Law for the word God.

The idea that morality is progressive, societal or dependent on time and place is only to consider the first two positions, 1) subjective individually or collectively and 2) situational parameters, time and place. such as 1850's Georgia, slavery.

The third position is Jesus. The morality of Jesus was not progressive, it is not consensus and it is not subjective.
It was counterintuitive, blessed are the meek, turn the other cheek. pray for those who despitefully use you.
When applied, it provided for the greater subjective good of individuals or collectives
It is situational because of the elements of justice, forgiveness and mercy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Morality is socially constructed and it takes a while to create or change it. Claiming objectivity represents a short cut.

1. Make a list of widely accepted moral precepts.
2. Add your own moral precepts that you would like to see adopted to the list.
3. Claim moral objectivity--or even better, divine authorship--for the entire list.
4. Offer the universality of the already accepted moral precepts as evidence of their objectivity and thus the objectivity of the entire list.
5. Assert that the only possible alternative to objective morality is individual moral relativism and moral chaos.

The thing is that if any of us claims to know in absolute terms that morality is socially constructed, then we need to realize from that claim that no one has to be expected to conform.

So, the next time a Marxist gets in my face and expects me to "conform," I can say that their implementation of Marxian terms and ideology is merely a social construct and NOT really an eschalating progress of democratic, collective equalities among people.

Somehow, though, most people I meet really DO think that all people and constructive relationships have inherent value of an objective nature. Even if they don't aver for the recognition of this value in an absolute way, then they usually do at least in a pragmatic way, worked out and negotiated as a civic principle.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If one chooses some particular meta-ethics with an objective metric, e.g. "The moral choice is the one that results in the most ants."

Then all moral questions become objective. [Though many choices that neither increase nor decrease the quantity of ants would be morally neutral.]

But the choice of meta-ethics was not determined objectively. So this is not a convincing way for morality to be objective.