Is morality objective, even without God?

[Ana the Ist]

In the context of this thread, acquiring moral knowledge is a process. At the start of this process, the objective knowledge of what is good or bad is external, ie., objective. While the source of that knowledge remains external, over time with one's assent that knowledge becomes internal, ie., subjective.

I don't think I'd call morals "knowledge".

My parents and other teachers transmitted and entrusted to me the framework of our two thousand-year old Catholic Christian heritage.

Ok...I sort of thought it went down that way.

The “entrust” component implies, I think, a covenant I have with my ancestry. The covenant requires me, in the course of my lifetime, to internalize the teaching about morality, make it my own, but altering it only if I must.

I can understand that...it's just a sort of different claim than "I have God telling me what is good and evil to certainty."

If I alter the teaching that I pass on to my posterity, I believe the covenant requires that the truth of my alterations be to me beyond a shadow of doubt.

Christians believe God did write a novel.

This is the first I'm hearing about it.

All translations of that novel, that we call Scripture, are interpretations. Catholics further believe that the teaching authority of our Magisterium cannot err in its interpretations.

Right it certainly wouldn't be useful if it were filled with odd contradictions and provable errors.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We may have a different understanding of the work "coherent." And IMO being "grounded in something" would aid coherency. Heinlein introduces an essentially Utilitarian ethic with the "end good" being "we survive as a species."

I know it sounds like it's grounded on an "end good" but since nearly anything could under circumstances be described as good or even necessary for survival....I think what you're actually have with that is a morality that has no real "good" if any behaviour is justifiable in survival and only "bad" behaviors which are retroactively assigned by the damage they've done to survival.

As to coherent...sure, it's rationally consistent and based upon something real. It's not "whole" or "complete" as I said....it seems to lack any clearly defined good. You can rather easily imagine a situation wherein someone does something horrific, ending their life and millions of others... and we can call this good if we learned from it and devised a way to avoid the problem in the future. Literally anything can become a good, either as a lesson or reminder. The only clearly defined behaviours are those well known negatives which are never beneficial.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Whose "philosophical argument" are you referring to specifically here, Ana. Mine? Or Dummett's? I almost get the feeling that I'm either misunderstanding your comments, or that perhaps you're misunderstanding mine.

Sorry....the realism or anti-realism discussion. It's been awhile so pardon me if I'm wrong, but the terms are essentially a question about the nature of concepts in existence. If I'm wrong...feel free to make fun of me.

I'm asking because in my previous post, I didn't make an argument about, or even for, my own moral point of view.

Right. It wasn't meant as an argument against your position. I simply see it as an entirely useless and purposeless discussion.

Rather, I criticized that of any anti-realists like Dummett.................because I despise anti-realists ideas of all kinds. I also despise the musings of hardcore advocates of Marx or Nietszche,

All of Nietszche? I think he also disliked pointless philosophical discussions.

or of any others similar to them (like those of Hugh Hefner or Bob Guccione).

Check out Don Simpson in his 1995 Charlie Rose interview.

In fact, I see those ideas as expressing and promoting corruptive elements within the World and within our nation.

Uh huh. Well.....ok. I can't really argue with whatever you see as corruptive.

But whatever the failings of the anti-realists or nihilists may be, let's put those to the side for a moment so I can make a confession: For me, my choice of ethics isn't about making myself look good or even to somehow imagine myself as 'good.'

Ok.

I'm a Realist; and I'm a sinner. I'm probably even a hypocrite occasionally, and I know for sure that I'm not abstractly a sinner. No, unfortunately, I've been an objectively identifiable sinner, and what's more, I think I have an objective idea about 'why' I sin, with that idea being gleaned from the Bible and from my educated observation of the corrupt world we live in-------------------------------that I live in.

Oh boy...

You got me feeling like it's old 2010s CF.

How badly do you want to do this dance? I know you've done it before...plenty ov times. I haven't done it in awhile, but I'll gladly dance with you just to show off my moves. I like my Christians that think they would fall into horrible choices without their moral judge to keep their moral judge so....I'm not going to try and convince you of anything.

I'll even keep it loosely in the confines of Christian morality.

It's up to you though...as I said, I wasn't arguing against your position.

So, you won't see me trying to imagine I'm "good."

Humility on display. Why not show some virtue? Be brave and declare yourself good. Be wise and proclaim what's good.

However, you may see me, from time to time, stating that I wish I could be a better person more easily than I am often able to maintain.

Ahhh...always wanting more. Is it more morally good then to resign oneself to one's nature, with acceptance and dignity....or strive against your nature, to struggle to reach even if for a moment something you are not?

But whatever my moral failings or successes are, and being the 'good philosopher' I strive to be, I will also critically rip apart other people's ethical and moral point's of view when I see those people relying upon fallacious reasoning,

I'll just point out that most of my view of morality is based on the fallacy that's really just a bias to be inclined to imagine others think as I do.

or when they initiate an attack upon my point of view beyond what I regard to be reasonable bounds, and I won't blink when doing so................

I asked if you want to dance.

It's not that serious though.

just like they don't blink when critically evaluating the morality of the Old Testament contents or of what they think is my alleged "moral subjectivity."

I'll let you believe whatever you like....might have to ask a few questions though.

And I'll do this because, metaphorically speaking, I recognize that the my world of morality isn't flat or that the sun revolves around it.

I think the world of morality disappears in a world without people....and there's the strongest clue to what it is.

There's a reason that in any of my 'protesting' I may do, I begin by siding with Copernicus and not with Luther.

Ok.

 

[Ana the Ist]

.... secondly, Jesus of Nazareth is an objective rather than an abstract 'idea' upon which to ground my .... **cough**... attempts at being moral.

Yeah this gets into a discussion about the realism-anti-realism thing....which I see mainly as an attempt to reorient the concepts of objective reality and subjective reality....

Because if ideas are "real" then you can proclaim them a part of objective reality and avoid that ugly unsatisfactory truth again....for awhile. Objectivity need only be grounded in another's subjectivity.

Regardless....ground them on whomever. Jesus...Copernicus....Don Simpson...doesn't matter.

So, being that it's Christmas and all, I'm giving this bit of info to you as a gift. Besides, it's time for you to take the plunge and become a Christian, Ana.

Never needed it before. I thought you folks were sweeping people up at their lowest points? Do you ever reel them in while they're doing rather well?

 

[Ben Leevey]

Builders and architect....got it.



Ok...samey same.




Wait a second....

You said builders and architect. That's not 1. That's more than one. I'm not Frank Loyd Wright but I'm pretty sure he wasn't laying his own foundations and hanging his own drywall. Also, the fine piece of machinery you're speaking with was made by a ton of people. And what exactly is perfect about this universe exactly? There's a ton a dead space between stars....that's awfully inconvenient considering how crowded it's getting. Aren't you supposed to be full of sin? The universe is perfect but you're basically a big mistake? Is that how this works?

There's a lot wrong with this argument so far.





So just the architect....ignore all the stuff you said before.....got it.




It's unclear why he wants your devotion or worship then. He seems rather dependent upon it. So much so that he made a rule or two about it.

Is that all unnecessary?




Just give me a simple answer....do you have 3 gods or 1.

Someone insisted God is above logic so if you believe that then I guess you don't have to answer....but please stop with the attempted explanation if that's the case.

"Aren't you supposed to be full of sin? The universe is perfect but you're basically a big mistake? Is that how this works?"
If you believe in the God of the Bible then you will understand how man in his rebellion made the once perfect universe imperfect in many ways. (By the way, as far as things getting crowded, this is common propaganda. The surveys show if we all stood shoulder to shoulder we'd fit in the state of Florida. There's till lots of room).

"You said builders and architect. That's not 1. That's more than one."

Note, I am arguing a single designer. Polytheistic religions always have multiple God's in conflict. Even in its fallen state the universe work with way too much regularity to be created by conflicting forces.
"It's unclear why he wants your devotion or worship then. He seems rather dependent upon it. So much so that he made a rule or two about it."

"Is that all unnecessary?"

He wants our devotion and worship for our sake, very much. Also note, if you grossly disrespect, and rebel against an emperor, he will justly have you executed, because of His authority, not because he needs your respect and obedience.

"Just give me a simple answer....do you have 3 gods or 1."

One God, three persons.

"Someone insisted God is above logic so if you believe that then I guess you don't have to answer....but please stop with the attempted explanation if that's the case."

One can never fully explain God with logic. But that does not mean He is completely above it. He created it!

 

[Ana the Ist]

"Aren't you supposed to be full of sin? The universe is perfect but you're basically a big mistake? Is that how this works?"

Those were the questions I asked. I'm disappointed that you didn't answer.

If you believe in the God of the Bible then you will understand how man in his rebellion made the once perfect universe imperfect in many ways.

We talking floods or eden here?

(By the way, as far as things getting crowded, this is common propaganda. The surveys show if we all stood shoulder to shoulder we'd fit in the state of Florida. There's till lots of room).

I always thought this was a strange argument. Surely you understand the sheer violence and atrocity that would result if we were shoved into Florida shoulder to shoulder.

"You said builders and architect. That's not 1. That's more than one."

Right. I mean that in a factual sense. You describe creation as needing creators.

Note, I am arguing a single designer. Polytheistic religions always have multiple God's in conflict.

I guess it's a good thing no other spiritual entities are vying for your soul in Christianity.

Even in its fallen state the universe work with way too much regularity to be created by conflicting forces.

You're entitled to think that.

"It's unclear why he wants your devotion or worship then. He seems rather dependent upon it. So much so that he made a rule or two about it."

"Is that all unnecessary?"

Yeah...seems pertinent to this entity without any needs.

He wants our devotion and worship for our sake, very much.

It's unclear what we get out of it.

Also note, if you grossly disrespect, and rebel against an emperor, he will justly have you executed, because of His authority, not because he needs your respect and obedience.

I've accepted that possibility long ago.

"Just give me a simple answer....do you have 3 gods or 1."

One God, three persons.

We'll skip the second half of that since you seem to feel really strongly about the one god part.

"Someone insisted God is above logic so if you believe that then I guess you don't have to answer....but please stop with the attempted explanation if that's the case."

Right. No need to try and logic in what requires no logic.

One can never fully explain God with logic. But that does not mean He is completely above it.

Well then you get into the limits of omnipotence and other things with dumb questions like...

Can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? Can God make a being he cannot destroy?

So he's either not constrained by logic and indescribable or limited in very significant ways.

 

[RDKirk]

I know it sounds like it's grounded on an "end good" but since nearly anything could under circumstances be described as good or even necessary for survival....I think what you're actually have with that is a morality that has no real "good" if any behaviour is justifiable in survival and only "bad" behaviors which are retroactively assigned by the damage they've done to survival.

As to coherent...sure, it's rationally consistent and based upon something real. It's not "whole" or "complete" as I said....it seems to lack any clearly defined good. You can rather easily imagine a situation wherein someone does something horrific, ending their life and millions of others... and we can call this good if we learned from it and devised a way to avoid the problem in the future. Literally anything can become a good, either as a lesson or reminder. The only clearly defined behaviours are those well known negatives which are never beneficial.

Actually, Heinlein uses this ethical philosophy in a proscriptive, not a prescriptive manner. An action is immoral or at neutral unless it directly enhances survival, with most actions being neutral and thus irrelevant.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Actually, Heinlein uses this ethical philosophy in a proscriptive, not a prescriptive manner.

You said "actually"....then sort of described what I described.

A set of negative morals. Proscriptive means those "things prohibited" doesn't it?

In what has been shared on the thread... it's ultimately a set of transgressions to avoid but no clear goods to reach for.

An action is immoral or at neutral unless it directly enhances survival,

Which can always be argued post hoc.

with most actions being neutral and thus irrelevant.

Right...so you do understand why I said it seems incomplete?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sorry....the realism or anti-realism discussion. It's been awhile so pardon me if I'm wrong, but the terms are essentially a question about the nature of concepts in existence. If I'm wrong...feel free to make fun of me.



Right. It wasn't meant as an argument against your position. I simply see it as an entirely useless and purposeless discussion.





All of Nietszche? I think he also disliked pointless philosophical discussions.





Check out Don Simpson in his 1995 Charlie Rose interview.





Uh huh. Well.....ok. I can't really argue with whatever you see as corruptive.




Ok.




Oh boy...

You got me feeling like it's old 2010s CF.

How badly do you want to do this dance? I know you've done it before...plenty ov times. I haven't done it in awhile, but I'll gladly dance with you just to show off my moves. I like my Christians that think they would fall into horrible choices without their moral judge to keep their moral judge so....I'm not going to try and convince you of anything.

I'll even keep it loosely in the confines of Christian morality.

It's up to you though...as I said, I wasn't arguing against your position.



Humility on display. Why not show some virtue? Be brave and declare yourself good. Be wise and proclaim what's good.



Ahhh...always wanting more. Is it more morally good then to resign oneself to one's nature, with acceptance and dignity....or strive against your nature, to struggle to reach even if for a moment something you are not?



I'll just point out that most of my view of morality is based on the fallacy that's really just a bias to be inclined to imagine others think as I do.




I asked if you want to dance.

It's not that serious though.




I'll let you believe whatever you like....might have to ask a few questions though.



I think the world of morality disappears in a world without people....and there's the strongest clue to what it is.




Ok.

No, being the realist that I am, I really don't intend to dance with you. In part because I think I misunderstood your earlier point. Also, because I don't think I have to argue the point that Christians shouldn't see virtue signaling as a value. I also don't think that citing my own moral failures is a mark of humility. It's just a fact in the face of a Holy Savior.

And what's more, as educated as I am, I know very well that I'm not really humble because I'm pretty sure a lot of people around me in the world are just plain dead wrong about a whole lot of things where ethics and morality (or I should say, their immorality) are concerned, and because I also know that next to folks like Hugh Hefner and Don Simpson, I'm a veritable angel.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah this gets into a discussion about the realism-anti-realism thing....which I see mainly as an attempt to reorient the concepts of objective reality and subjective reality....

Because if ideas are "real" then you can proclaim them a part of objective reality and avoid that ugly unsatisfactory truth again....for awhile. Objectivity need only be grounded in another's subjectivity.

I'd say this is patently false, Ana. Objectivity, in a robust sense, needs to be not only grounded but actually recognizable on something much more than another single person's subjectivity. But if all you're intending to say is that the Objectivity/Subjectivity distinction is conceptually blurry on 1st order levels, I'd agree.

Regardless....ground them on whomever. Jesus...Copernicus....Don Simpson...doesn't matter.

Reality is reality, and other, regardless of what anyone thinks. Reality has a way of biting us on the rear when we think we're the ones in control of it.

Never needed it before. I thought you folks were sweeping people up at their lowest points? Do you ever reel them in while they're doing rather well?

I'm not an evangelical, so I sweep anyone and everyone who engages me, regardless. I'm self assured like that.

 

[Fervent]

No, since morals are value-laden they require something capable of making value judgments. Morals and ethics make no sense apart from moral agency, they can't be disembodied or treated apart from the agents as if there are moral laws tha. If God exists, this gives us an objective moral agent to declare that one thing is good and another evil. On the other hand, if God does not exist then in order for something to achieve a status such that it can be said to be objectively moral it must be a universally held moral judgment or principle.

 

[Bradskii]

...in order for something to achieve a status such that it can be said to be objectively moral it must be a universally held moral judgment or principle.

So if everyone thinks we should do X then is X objectively good? I don't think it works like that. If everyone thinks it's good then they have individually decided that it's good. Which obviously makes it...relative.

And what if some people change their mind? Does it then cease to be objective?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So if everyone thinks we should do X then is X objectively good? I don't think it works like that. If everyone thinks it's good then they have individually decided that it's good. Which obviously makes it...relative.

And what if some people change their mind? Does it then cease to be objective?

The question about objectivity in ethics doesn't center merely on whether or not everyone could decide whether or not Act X is good, but rather on the robustness of the reason(s) involved for WHY everyone may think that Act X is good. Or bad, or even evil.

For instance, the moral recognition that murdering one's own children is evil should be about as objective as the fact that the sun rises in the East. In fact, everyone does typically recognize this within the landscape of their own ethical outlook, unless they're a sociopath or they live in a highly dysfunctional and violent (or ignorant) culture.

Fortunately for Christians, we have a Lord who breaks many of the moral deadlocks we may encounter have due to our seeming fickle human moral relativity. Sometimes, it's good to be overruled by a Higher Power and have our moral course lit up like a jet runway.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah this gets into a discussion about the realism-anti-realism thing....which I see mainly as an attempt to reorient the concepts of objective reality and subjective reality....

Because if ideas are "real" then you can proclaim them a part of objective reality and avoid that ugly unsatisfactory truth again....for awhile. Objectivity need only be grounded in another's subjectivity.

Regardless....ground them on whomever. Jesus...Copernicus....Don Simpson...doesn't matter.




Never needed it before. I thought you folks were sweeping people up at their lowest points? Do you ever reel them in while they're doing rather well?

What's more, there is no subjectivity in how to safely (and morally) land an aircraft, nor is there utter subjectivity in much of anything real outside of a modern museum of art. Another instance that should be obvious to everyone is the prohibition against creating modes of germ warfare in a lab. But apparently, there are some political ideologies that dull the objective sense of morality and ethics that we human being should otherwise have and share (Communism being an obvious, objective culprit in this regard).

So, I think we can drop this disinclination toward recognizing objectivity when it truly does manifest in the real world we find around us.

 

[Astrid]

"Aren't you supposed to be full of sin? The universe is perfect but you're basically a big mistake? Is that how this works?"
If you believe in the God of the Bible then you will understand how man in his rebellion made the once perfect universe imperfect in many ways. (By the way, as far as things getting crowded, this is common propaganda. The surveys show if we all stood shoulder to shoulder we'd fit in the state of Florida. There's till lots of room).

"You said builders and architect. That's not 1. That's more than one."

Note, I am arguing a single designer. Polytheistic religions always have multiple God's in conflict. Even in its fallen state the universe work with way too much regularity to be created by conflicting forces.
"It's unclear why he wants your devotion or worship then. He seems rather dependent upon it. So much so that he made a rule or two about it."

"Is that all unnecessary?"

He wants our devotion and worship for our sake, very much. Also note, if you grossly disrespect, and rebel against an emperor, he will justly have you executed, because of His authority, not because he needs your respect and obedience.

"Just give me a simple answer....do you have 3 gods or 1."

One God, three persons.

"Someone insisted God is above logic so if you believe that then I guess you don't have to answer....but please stop with the attempted explanation if that's the case."

One can never fully explain God with logic. But that does not mean He is completely above it. He created it!

Your “Satan“ fits all criteria for a
god.
And he is said to be in conflict
with another god.

Ive never understood the Christian insistence
that their religion is monotheistic.
Or why it is so important.

 

[o_mlly]

I don't think I'd call morals "knowledge".

For quite a few millennia, we metaphorically called the tree recorded in genesis as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Ok...I sort of thought it went down that way.

Better to think of it as going forward that way.

I can understand that...it's just a sort of different claim than "I have God telling me what is good and evil to certainty."

Some require their own personal backyard resurrection to come to believe (Lawyers Case for Christianity, John Warwick Montgomery). Others put the puzzle together with the help of their ancestors, aka, the Democracy of the Dead, (Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton).

Right it certainly wouldn't be useful if it were filled with odd contradictions and provable errors.

Scripture is a theological book, secondarily a history book. Israel’s history becomes our sacred drama when distilled of Israel’s particulars of time and place. The contradictions and provable errors reside in the myths the scribes employed, not in the theological messages they disclosed.

 

[Fervent]

So if everyone thinks we should do X then is X objectively good? I don't think it works like that. If everyone thinks it's good then they have individually decided that it's good. Which obviously makes it...relative.

It could be argued that way, though objectivity seems a little murky so perhaps we need to define what we mean by objective. If we mean that it is a disembodied fact that will be true regardless of subjective influence, then it's not clear that such a thing even exists at all when we consider physical realities like what it is that collapses the wave function. It seems that universally accepted would be a fair approximation of objective in regard to subjective evaluation, because it would seem that if something was universally accepted by every human being that has ever lived then that couldn't simply be a coincidence. Of course, since no such moral value or principle exists it's a moot point.

As for the idea of relative "morality", if it is the case that moral evaluation truly is relative/subjective at root then there is no real point in talking about it since there isn't an objectively priviliged agent and we may as well say a favorite television shows or music are moral issues. If morality is relative or purely subjective, then the only reason it is important is social cohesion so the only reason to discuss it is to enforce conformity.

And what if some people change their mind? Does it then cease to be objective?

I suppose it would, but again since no such moral value seems to exist it's rather pointless to speculate on.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, being the realist that I am, I really don't intend to dance with you.

Wise choice.

In part because I think I misunderstood your earlier point.

That was my fault for lack of clarity.

Also, because I don't think I have to argue the point that Christians shouldn't see virtue signaling as a value.

Is that where you thought I was going?

I was going to argue god hates you.

I also don't think that citing my own moral failures is a mark of humility.

If others did it....perhaps not.

And what's more, as educated as I am, I know very well that I'm not really humble because I'm pretty sure a lot of people around me in the world are just plain dead wrong about a whole lot of things where ethics and morality (or I should say, their immorality) are concerned, and because I also know that next to folks like Hugh Hefner and Don Simpson, I'm a veritable angel.

Ahhh....see? Imagine yourself good.

 

[Ana the Ist]

For quite a few millennia, we metaphorically called the tree recorded in genesis as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Can't be knowledge of good and evil though...could it? How did Eve know temptation if she didn't know what good and bad was?

Bible, King James Version

It's a bit of a discrepancy. She knows she's not supposed to do something....which is bad....and does it anyway.

Keep that in mind because for the evil deed of knowing morality....they were cast out of paradise. As if they were intended to be ignorant animals all along....

And what is the result of this knowledge? They understand their sin....their wicked nature....as god created them.

Are you very certain god is all good? Any chance that a man made in his image....who learns he is riddled with sin....means that god is perhaps evil and cruel?

Better to think of it as going forward that way.

Well it's an expression.

Some require their own personal backyard resurrection to come to believe (Lawyers Case for Christianity, John Warwick Montgomery). Others put the puzzle together with the help of their ancestors, aka, the Democracy of the Dead, (Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton).

Ok. I only require his manifestation.

Scripture is a theological book, secondarily a history book.

Those are very different things.

Israel’s history becomes our sacred drama when distilled of Israel’s particulars of time and place.

Particulars of time and place.

The contradictions and provable errors reside in the myths the scribes employed, not in the theological messages they disclosed.

Well...ok...this isn't apologetics so I won't push it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It could be argued that way, though objectivity seems a little murky so perhaps we need to define what we mean by objective.

I would suggest we mean something that exists independent of any subjective perspective. We may not know such things due to the limitations of our understanding, but to say anything at all is true in a sense that it can be considered factual and correct to the greatest degree we can demonstrate....we would have to agree on this starting point at least.

An argument about truth without an objective reality that we agree exists becomes an unresolvable mess of pure speculation. If we cannot agree that something exists independent of ourselves.....then it's unclear what we really have to discuss at all.