Is morality objective, even without God?

[partinobodycular]

If there is no Intelligent Mind or Authority in regard to Morality which is above Man's - then all mortality is subjective.

I still don't see how that makes morality objective. Something isn't objectively true simply because some authority declares it to be true. In fact that's the basis for the exact opposite, that morality is dependent upon God's personal opinion. Now I may or may not agree with that opinion, but my acquiescing to it doesn't make it objective either.

I'm not simply dismissing the idea, but you're going to have to give me a better argument than simply because God says so.

 

[Aaron112]

Something isn't objectively true simply because some authority declares it to be true.

God is not a man that He could lie ....
God's Word is immutable (someone said). Unchangeable. Unchanging. Eternal. Perfect. Right and Righteous.
I think God Says He Honors His Word even more than His Name.
God is not "some authority".

 

[Bradskii]

We should always honor our parents - even if they do things we do not agree with.

Is it correct for a daughter to honour someone who beats and rapes her? That's an extreme example, but I need to know if you think that there is a limit. Why should she honour someone like that?

 

[Aaron112]

Abigail , a chosen woman, a woman of faith, did not fail to honor her mean angry husband.

God honored her as God chose to do.

 

[Aaron112]

Corrie ten Boom learned in prison to love and to pray for those who beat and killed her relatives and fellow countrymen, and to do what was best for them even after the war.

God blessed her more than any other woman I've seen or heard anything about in the last several centuries.

 

[partinobodycular]

God is not a man that He could lie ....
God's Word is immutable (someone said). Unchangeable. Unchanging. Eternal. Perfect. Right and Righteous.
I think God Says He Honors His Word even more than His Name.
God is not "some authority".

That still doesn't make it objectively true. It only makes it true by reason of authority. But objectivity and authority are two different things.

I'm not trying to be contentious, if you like you can think of me as anal retentive, but I still don't understand how the existence of God makes things objectively moral.

 

[Aaron112]

That still doesn't make it objectively true.

Maybe the definitions your used to aren't correct in this context.

God's Word is Absolutely True. No ones feelings, emotions, changes of heart, or other aspects changes that at all.

 

[Aaron112]

"Synthesis:​

• While there are valid arguments on both sides, a nuanced perspective might acknowledge that morality has both objective and subjective aspects. Objective morality could refer to universal moral principles, such as the inherent value of human life or the importance of justice, which transcend cultural and historical variations. Subjective morality, on the other hand, would encompass the specific applications and interpretations of these principles within different societies and cultures.
• Ultimately, the question of whether morality is objective or subjective may depend on how one defines “objectivity.” If objectivity requires absolute, universal agreement, then morality might be considered subjective. However, if objectivity implies a foundation or standard that transcends individual opinions and cultural variations, then morality can be seen as having both objective and subjective components."

 

[o_mlly]

Harris says that some actions are wrong and we can know this, so he feels confident in declaring it to be objectively wrong.

Do you mean that Harris subjectively declares that some acts are always objectively wrong? Do you see the internal contradiction in his claim?

if you were effectively omniscient, then you could determine it objectively. Well, yeah. If we could do that then we'd be God.

And Harris is not, nor am I, or you, or anyone else.

Reason, according to Singer, is the common touchstone in his objective morality argument. But reason is a fallible faculty, so whose reason controls all others. The "Is morality objective?" argument then must always be an appeal to some authority, and that authority must transcend all humanity.

Atheists can only appeal to their god-authority, which is necessarily themselves. So, within their own community there is disagreement, and always will be, on the issue of morality.

Is it correct for a daughter to honour someone who beats and rapes her?

Only if she appears to the rapist to be malevolent, and has the nuclear codes according to your subjective morality, right?

 

[Jerry N.]

In ethical terms, Christianity (like military service) can be considered "deontological ethics." We as individuals and as the Body of Christ accept Jesus' morality as correct as the initial presumption of Christian deontology, and that our "end good" is achieving a state in which we are fully obedient all of Jesus' commands. The challenge, however, is in making sure that we do properly hear and understand those commands.

You made a very good point. Before becoming a Christian most of my ethics was consequential. My father was always very clear about that. Now, my ethics is more a mix of deontological ethics and aesthetic ethics, if I understand the terminology correctly. We obey God out of love and duty, rather than fear.

When I wrote “We must consider how we know that Jesus's morality is correct,” I was referring to the work of the Spirit of God. We inherently know some things are wrong, but the Holy Spirit and God’s word improve and enhance that.

And as children we are very often wrong because we usually don't understand the full context of our parents' actions. A child might think her parents are absolutely wrong for taking away her cell phone until she finishes her homework or does her chores.

Children can often be wrong about the actions of parents; however, some parents have a very poor connection to truth, and most children notice this very early. In my case, it was things like, “Answer the phone and tell them I’m not home.” I was probably around four.

 

[Jerry N.]

"Synthesis:​

• While there are valid arguments on both sides, a nuanced perspective might acknowledge that morality has both objective and subjective aspects. Objective morality could refer to universal moral principles, such as the inherent value of human life or the importance of justice, which transcend cultural and historical variations. Subjective morality, on the other hand, would encompass the specific applications and interpretations of these principles within different societies and cultures.
• Ultimately, the question of whether morality is objective or subjective may depend on how one defines “objectivity.” If objectivity requires absolute, universal agreement, then morality might be considered subjective. However, if objectivity implies a foundation or standard that transcends individual opinions and cultural variations, then morality can be seen as having both objective and subjective components."

"Synthesis:​

• While there are valid arguments on both sides, a nuanced perspective might acknowledge that morality has both objective and subjective aspects. Objective morality could refer to universal moral principles, such as the inherent value of human life or the importance of justice, which transcend cultural and historical variations. Subjective morality, on the other hand, would encompass the specific applications and interpretations of these principles within different societies and cultures.
• Ultimately, the question of whether morality is objective or subjective may depend on how one defines “objectivity.” If objectivity requires absolute, universal agreement, then morality might be considered subjective. However, if objectivity implies a foundation or standard that transcends individual opinions and cultural variations, then morality can be seen as having both objective and subjective components."

The interview that started this thread is a little misleading. Peter Singer, who doesn’t believe in God, implies that ethics and math are independent concepts outside of God’s creation, which makes them objective. However, the only thing that is possibly outside of God is the Lake of Fire, which is a concept I wouldn’t want to touch here. Therefore, Peter Singer’s objective ethics must come from God as part of His creation or being. For our purposes as Christians, they are about as objective as can be. There is also a "hierarchy" of ethics. For example, "Do you have Jews hiding in your house?" "No, SS officer."

 

[Jerry N.]

I don't know why the post I reply to is sometimes copied twice. Is there a way to fix that?

 

[Mark Quayle]

We need to know what the grey areas. And those will always include what appears to be a very specific command. I keep going back to this example, but it's not getting much of a response: Honour your father and mother. It doesn't get much clearer. But in all circumstances? So who decides when the circumstances dictate that you shouldn't?

Shouldn't that depend on what "honor" means, there? I honor my mother and father many ways, and I attempt to never dishonor them. But I don't, for example, agree with them on several things, and both of them had foibles that I hardly even respect, but I try to avoid talking about whatever might be dishonorable to them, and only if it serves some purpose besides scorn, do I reference an attitude or pov they had that I don't agree with.

So, let's say, Mom was one who, among other things, thought one of the duties of a Christian was to "figure out God's will for your life, and to pursue it to fulfill it." The only place, off the top of my head, where I see a statement in Scripture that could be taken to mean that is Eph 5:17, "Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is." In most the situations I have seen, even attempting it is damaging and stressful, and borders on divination which is worse than superstition. I can't begin to know how many people have taken a wrong turn in life because they thought that was where the Lord was leading them. I'm one of them.

I don't respect that, but I honor her, and believe her to be sincere in it, no matter how misguided. Further, I admit I could be wrong about it.

 

[Sabertooth]

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.

IMX, God has given me the "short" answers first and, after growing me up a bit, "longer" answers later.

 

[zippy2006]

When you have the details then you, personally, can decide. I might decide differently. But it'll be our call. So if you say '"Agony is a bad thing and it is good to reduce agony" is a good moral rule, I'd say it's not even associated with morality. If it does, if it relates to, for example, torturing someone, then if we have the details then we can decide. Otherwise, if you make a general statement about reducing pain if possible then I'd say 'Well, yeah, it's generally a good idea'.

This is just a basic misunderstanding of moral judgment. When do we have "all the details"? We never do, and you can always cook up some extraneous detail or exception to any moral rule. Even so, morality is based on general rules, and when we speak about a moral rule we are considering cases where that rule is applicable and there aren't countervailing "details."

Just because there are exceptions to reducing agony does not mean that reducing agony is not a moral rule. And just because there are exceptions to the prohibition on killing does not mean that not killing is not a moral rule. Moral rules are generally applied ceteris paribus, not in an exceptionless way. This does not invalidate them as rules. Another example: the speed limit is a law, and just because the police officer does not ticket you when you are taking your pregnant wife to the hospital does not mean it is not a law.

The idea that we never apply the rule of reducing agony to our actions is simply incorrect. We often apply that rule in order to act, and in those cases there are no countervailing "details." If the rule is guiding our moral actions then surely it is a moral rule.

 

[Jerry N.]

Shouldn't that depend on what "honor" means, there? I honor my mother and father many ways, and I attempt to never dishonor them. But I don't, for example, agree with them on several things, and both of them had foibles that I hardly even respect, but I try to avoid talking about whatever might be dishonorable to them, and only if it serves some purpose besides scorn, do I reference an attitude or pov they had that I don't agree with.

“Honor your father and mother,” has often been misused by parents. I doubt that examples are needed.

So, let's say, Mom was one who, among other things, thought one of the duties of a Christian was to "figure out God's will for your life, and to pursue it to fulfill it." The only place, off the top of my head, where I see a statement in Scripture that could be taken to mean that is Eph 5:17, "Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is." In most the situations I have seen, even attempting it is damaging and stressful, and borders on divination which is worse than superstition. I can't begin to know how many people have taken a wrong turn in life because they thought that was where the Lord was leading them. I'm one of them.

I don't respect that, but I honor her, and believe her to be sincere in it, no matter how misguided. Further, I admit I could be wrong about it.

Trying to determine what God wants you to do is very difficult, particularly when young, if you don’t see a clear answer. One can convince oneself that they know God’s will and get it wrong, resulting in painful experiences. However, there are Jonah type experiences, and there are times when God just lets us make our own decisions. Making the wrong choices is part of life. Learning God’s will that “borders on divination” is a big problem, and it can be caused by our own vanity. I had a friend that surprised me by saying that God wanted him to be a dairy farmer, because it didn’t sound like a very glamorous path in life.

 

[partinobodycular]

Maybe the definitions your used to aren't correct in this context.

Indeed the definitions that we're using don't seem to be up to the task. But the definition that I think needs refining here doesn't just involve the one for 'objective', more so it involves the one for 'moral'.

In your above post on "Synthesis" it posits the following:

Objective morality could refer to universal moral principles, such as the inherent value of human life or the importance of justice, which transcend cultural and historical variations.

If we take this to heart, but we apply it to morality instead of objectivity then we may be closer to understanding how morality can be objective.

If the definition of morality includes the stipulation that it's that which is just, then 'Thou shalt not kill' becomes the less stringent, 'Thou shalt not murder'. But the same would be true for all other supposed immoralities as well. Like the one against homosexuality. For if there's a genetic predisposition to homosexuality then there may be times when homosexual behavior is indeed just, for it's in keeping with the way that God created that specific person. It doesn't mean that homosexuality is always moral, but as with 'Thou shalt not kill', it does allow for exceptions... and isn't allowing for just exceptions in keeping with the nature of God?

So if we redefine morality to include a greater emphasis on that which is just, and a lesser emphasis on that which is wrong, then haven't we both come closer to reflecting the true nature of God, but also closer to morality being objective? For what's just is indeed dependent upon something greater than any person's opinion, and must therefore have a source outside of those opinions.

In any case, thanks for giving me food for thought.

 

[partinobodycular]

IMX, God has given me the "short" answers first and, after growing me up a bit, "longer" answers later.

It does seem to me though that there are a lot of people running around frantically judging others according to the "short" answers.

 

[o_mlly]

Like the one against homosexuality. For if there's a genetic predisposition to homosexuality then there may be times when homosexual behavior is indeed just, for it is in keeping with the way that God created that specific person.

Under that premise, one could always claim their acts to be moral. For instance, one who claims "genetically" to be promiscuous excuses himself/herself of moral responsibility to control their immoral appetites.

Christians explain the dichotomy of what we are, from that which we ought to be as a consequence of the Original Sin. Through Christ's life, death and resurrection, we now have the graces necessary to be what we ought to be.

 

[partinobodycular]

Under that premise, one could always claim their acts to be moral.

Don't they do that anyway? And wouldn't God be willing to allow the unjust to go unpunished rather than wrongly punish the just?