Is morality objective, even without God?

[Bradskii]

I suppose we are, because I'm not arrogant enough to believe that if I decide something is wrong then that's the end of the story.

It isn't. It's only my personal opinion. Others are free to agree or not as they see fit.

I use reason to make my decisions, but if one reason is as good as any other then "God said so" seems well enough to me.

Now, you're going to have to pick a lane and stick to it. I asked you if you made decisions yourself and you said that God made them for you. Now you say that you use reason to make them (but if all reasons are equal then you defer to God).

Which is it?

So what criteria can we sort the strength of reasons from that aren't arbitrary? What is your non-arbitrary yet relative basis for moral values?

The strength of the arguments themselves. I base my decision on the strength of the arguments put to me. So if you present good arguments and I agree with them then we'll reach consensus on whatever moral problem we are discussing.

 

[WatchmanofGod]

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.

without God everything would be permissible everybody would be a bunch of brute beast carnal animals.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Natural law informs us. For example, before the age of reason, children often complain, "That's not fair!".

In the Genesis story, God tells both Adam and Eve that He forbids them eating the fruit from the tree.

Yeah...I know. To understand what that meant....both Adam and Eve must have known that the transgression of what is forbidden is morally bad.

It's a fun story though.

The abuse of free will at work.

I agree she did wrong according to God's commands of good and bad.....

However, we may instruct children or the ignorant about the moral norms of our societies...but rarely do we punish them with utter separation. The ignorance of a moral norm is entirely expected in children, foreigners, and anyone outside of a particular sub-group of social peers which hold vastly different moral norms....like a criminal gang for example. Newcomers to the group get the norms explained to them before they typically get judged so severely as god did Adam and Eve.

If they were truly ignorant of morality....and expected to behave morally....then they should have been given the fruit first before any explanation was made.

Instead, they were punished for understanding.

And while it may seem rash of me to cast judgement upon your god....please know that I'm not trying to convince you but simply want to be understood as all people do.

Well, knowing what is evil is not evil per se. In the story, the knowledge of good and evil preceded the evil deed which they were told but did not believe, meant death for Adam and Eve.

Right...and it's not exactly clear if they would have believed or chosen differently if they were able to understand in some way before the fruit was eaten.

If they would have chosen differently had they understood good and evil....perhaps then they were made in the image of god. But I have a hard time seeing the good in the exile punishment of the completely ignorant.

God exists in eternity. In eternity, the past like the future is present to His mind.

This is a tough one. Let's avoid discussion of your idea of God's relationship with time. Let's leave it as something incomprehensible....because if there was a moment the universe was created, then surely what preceded it was a moment that god was alone without any universe of his making. This alone marks a passage of time without any universe or something to consider the change of to mark it.

If you want to say god knows past, present, and future....that's fine. I won't argue against free will.

Knowing we would mess up His initial arrangement, He eternally intended that we would, if we freely willed to, join Him in eternity ... "In Scripture, to see is to possess.... Whoever sees God has obtained all the goods of which he can conceive (CCC#2548).

This seems like an unnecessary and very roundabout way to achieve an end that an omnipotent god wouldn't have to take.

 

[Bradskii]

without God everything would be permissible everybody would be a bunch of brute beast carnal animals.

So if you had an accident and woke up with no concept of God, then do you change into a beast?

 

[Ana the Ist]

without God everything would be permissible everybody would be a bunch of brute beast carnal animals.

Hence why I'm not very interested in convincing anyone that morality is subjective....even if I'm arguing it.

 

[Fervent]

It isn't. It's only my personal opinion. Others are free to agree or not as they see fit.

Sure, but I assume you don't believe that your personal opinion is entirely arbitrary. You said yourself, you think you have reasons for those opinions but if they're only your opinion, then why would you need a reason?

Now, you're going to have to pick a lane and stick to it. I asked you if you made decisions yourself and you said that God made them for you. Now you say that you use reason to make them (but if all reasons are equal then you defer to God).

That's not what I said, I said I use reason to make my decisions but specifically on questions of morality I defer to God. My statement about all reasons being equal was simply to provide a reason I might provide, which if any will do then "God said so" is as good as anything else I might come up with. So why not just be persuaded by God's word on it?

Which is it?

I reason through my decisions,, but what is and isn't moral I draw from what God said. And if all reasons are equivalent, then there's no reason for me to place anything higher than "God said so." Because I feel like it, because I want to, because I am ok with it. Because I think so. None of these are any better than "God said so" at the end of the day if the basis for morality is arbitrarily relative.

The strength of the arguments themselves. I base my decision on the strength of the arguments put to me. So if you present good arguments and I agree with them then we'll reach consensus on whatever moral problem we are discussing.

Strength of what arguments? How do we determine a strong argument and a weak argument for a moral propositon if the sole determining factor is whether we agree with the argument or not?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I completely agree on giving reasons. Rather than a simplistic 'Do not do X', there should be reasons put forward why we shouldn't do X. And if I give you the bare bones 'Do not do X' then you will either follow it blindly, whether you think it's right or not, in which case I have personally decided it's wrong. Or, if I give you the reasons then you will decide if they are valid.

Either way, one of us is making a personal decision on whether it's right or wrong. So it cannot, by definition, be objective.



So do you follow the rules blindly or do you decide if the reasons given (if any, and they mostly are not given) are valid?

Which ones do you have in mind? .... as far as I'm concerned, anything Jesus asks us to do, whether I completely understand His reason or not, is the right moral choice.

 

[WatchmanofGod]

So if you had an accident and woke up with no concept of God, then do you change into a beast?

Romans 1:19-20:
"Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Thi passage highlights that even if someone "forgot" about God, evidence of His existence and nature remains present in creation and in our conscience.

Additionally, Romans 2:14-15 says:
"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness."

Here, Paul explains that God's moral law is written on the hearts of all people. So even if someone lost their concept of God, that wouldn't erase the inherent sense of morality or God's truth that He has already imprinted on humanity.

In essence: God's existence, His law, and His order remain constant, regardless of individual awareness. The conscience, which comes from God, would still serve as a guide.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well let's consider the runway bomb dive in Baghdad.

Redirect Notice

You'll note that the approach is a fairly dangerous steep dive with a twist.

I imagine that it's unlikely you would find that a "morally good" landing on a routine trip to Dallas from Denver.

Yet you probably agree that it is under the circumstances of Baghdad at the time.

Regardless of whatever you may be more comfortable with or find immoral, I'm certain that we can find disagreements.

Sure. There's a 'situation' involved in your example which prompted a more expressed landing, but it was still a landing upon the same gear designed for that very thing, so I think our analogy doesn't quite show 'difference' as much as you surmise that it does.

But that's ok. At least it shows me that you and I think along similar lines.

Are you saying that's good or bad?

It should be obvious that I think it's bad, and that it's bad when anyone, anywhere does it.

I don't know what part the concept of communism would easily be described as immoral. The problem is that it's beyond the reach of mankind and our general nature. It's not unlike Christian morality in that sense.

Communism is quite different sexually, actually. Ever read The Communist Manifesto?

I don't know what you're hoping to claim here.

That's ok.

In the concept of communism....what specifically about the dogma is evil? The universal peace and respect of others? The equality of ownership? The utopian ideal of everyone putting the social group before themselves?

In asking these questions, you're telling me you really haven't studied it or the various attempts by certain regimes over the past 100 to put it into effect.

And before you tell me it's never played out that way, it always fails to reach those ideals....I'll just point out that I agree. The same can be said of a Christian hope to emulate the ideals set forth by Jesus or the 10 commandments. They will always fail as well.

They don't always fail. But it can be expected that in a world that follows a corrupt, Solomonic type of wisdom, it will make it increasingly more difficult for anyone, even Christians, to follow God's will in Christ.

 

[Bradskii]

Sure, but I assume you don't believe that your personal opinion is entirely arbitrary. You said yourself, you think you have reasons for those opinions but if they're only your opinion, then why would you need a reason?

That's a nonsensical question. I base my opinions on the reasons given.

That's not what I said, I said I use reason to make my decisions but specifically on questions of morality I defer to God.

That's just muddying the water. This is quite straight forward. In matters of morality, do you decide what is right or wrong by using your reason OR does God tell you what is right or wrong?

My statement about all reasons being equal was simply to provide a reason I might provide, which if any will do then "God said so" is as good as anything else I might come up with. So why not just be persuaded by God's word on it?

All reasons aren't equal. Which I shouldn't have to point out. Not every reason 'will do'. And 'God says so' is used by people who believe in Him who have completely different views on moral matters. So they both need reasons to explain why they think that 'God says so'.

I reason through my decisions...

What? Is that a typo? You make decisions based on reason. Based on the arguments that are presented.

And if all reasons are equivalent...

Why on earth are you repeating this nonsensical assertion? Everything said from that point on is then equally nonsensical.

then there's no reason for me to place anything higher than "God said so." Because I feel like it, because I want to, because I am ok with it. Because I think so. None of these are any better than "God said so" at the end of the day if the basis for morality is arbitrarily relative.

Which makes no sense whatsoever if you think that all reasons are equivalent.

Strength of what arguments? How do we determine a strong argument and a weak argument for a moral propositon if the sole determining factor is whether we agree with the argument or not?

Again, just...what? Agreeing with an argument isn't the determinant. It's the conclusion. We agree with an argument based on how strong we think it is. Some arguments are stronger than others. And that I have to keep pointing this doesn't give me a lot of confidence that this discussion is going anywhere

 

[Fervent]

I'm starting with the axiomiatic concept that objective reality must exist independently of perception in order to say anything which one might begin to consider true.

I'm curious what you mean by this axiom, because I don't find it self-evident based on how a few key terms are understood. When you say "perception" what exactly do you mean? Are you saying there can't be an objective observer who perceives reality if we are to say anything true axiomatically?

 

[Bradskii]

In essence: God's existence, His law, and His order remain constant, regardless of individual awareness. The conscience, which comes from God, would still serve as a guide.

And I'll go with our naturally evolved sense of morality as a guide.

 

[Bradskii]

Which ones do you have in mind? .... as far as I'm concerned, anything Jesus asks us to do, whether I completely understand His reason or not, is the right moral choice.

The golden rule is a good example. And he gives the reason for following it. Effectively he says to treat others well because...you yourself would like to be treated well.

 

[WatchmanofGod]

And I'll go with our naturally evolved sense of morality as a guide.

It's your choice, your own free will to choose...but when you stand before the LORD let's see how those prideful knees hold up.

I'll be praying for you.

 

[Fervent]

That's a nonsensical question. I base my opinions on the reasons given.

Except if something is a matter of opinion, then all reasons are equal. Opinions don't need reasons, they need facts.

That's just muddying the water. This is quite straight forward. In matters of morality, do you decide what is right or wrong by using your reason OR does God tell you what is right or wrong?

God tells me what is right or wrong. My reason for accepting it is because God tells me its wrong.

All reasons aren't equal. Which I shouldn't have to point out. Not every reason 'will do'. And 'God says so' is used by people who believe in Him who have completely different views on moral matters. So they both need reasons to explain why they think that 'God says so'.

Oh? So what are the non-arbitrary facts involved? What are the moral truths that allow us to prioritize one reason over another that aren't just one person's opinion?

What? Is that a typo? You make decisions based on reason. Based on the arguments that are presented.

If there is no relevant fact to argue about, then any argument is as good as any other. If it ultimately comes down to my opinion, no reason needs to be specified. If it is my opinion that chocolate ice cream is good, then chocolate ice cream is good. Are you going to argue with me? Or say that your own flavor preferences are based on arguments?

Why on earth are you repeating this nonsensical assertion? Everything said from that point on is then equally nonsensical.

The only nonsense is your statements. It's all just your opinion, but your opinion iis based on non-arbitrary reasons that depend on arguments that convince you. But what is it about the arguments that convinces you? What makes for a good moral argument?

Which makes no sense whatsoever if you think that all reasons are equivalent.

Oh? So what's the non-arbitrary fact that separates them? I don't think all those reasons are equivalent, or else I'd be a nihilist. But if the only thing that separates them is personal opinion, then it doesn't really matter which reason I give preference to. So is morality subjective/relative or are there objective moral facts?

Again, just...what? Agreeing with an argument isn't the determinant. It's the conclusion. We agree with an argument based on how strong we think it is. Some arguments are stronger than others. And that I have to keep pointing this doesn't give me a lot of confidence that this discussion is going anywhere

So what makes for a strong moral argument other than that it is strong? How do we determine what a strong moral argument is? What is the non-arbitrary but relative basis for us to sort moral arguments?

 

[Fervent]

The golden rule is a good example. And he gives the reason for following it. Effectively he says to treat others well because...you yourself would like to be treated well.

Uh...that's not the reason He gives. The reason He gives is "this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

 

[Bradskii]

It's your choice, your own free will to choose...but when you stand before the LORD let's see how those prideful knees hold up.

I'll be praying for you.

Oh, we'll have plenty to discuss. Trust me on that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The golden rule is a good example. And he gives the reason for following it. Effectively he says to treat others well because...you yourself would like to be treated well.

Sure. I do. Most of us aren't sado-masochists and enjoying being mistreated.

But we both know there's another reason as well even behind Jesus' reason for giving the Golden Rule, and it has to do with the biblical doctrine of loving those who have been created in God's Image as best we can, even if they don't reciprocate.

 

[Bradskii]

Uh...that's not the reason He gives. The reason He gives is "this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

He wasn't telling us that there was a law to be followed. He was reminding us of what was a very common idea for living well.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

He wasn't telling us that there was a law to be followed. He was reminding us of what was a very common idea for living well.

I see @Fervent and I will disagree with you on this point, Bradskii.