Is morality objective, even without God?

[Ana the Ist]

Sure.

Well....is it?

Subjectively.

This sort of demonstrates the problem of even claiming some objective existence of morality. If it's only accessible subjectively....then we cannot access any objective moral truths.

Would you agree?

 

[Niels]

Should be is a moral claim.

Yes. I suppose this is a moral claim.

It's not obvious it should be...after all, whatever you hope to lay claim as moral and good or evil will be immediately abandoned under certain conditions.

Objective morality is not moral absolutism. The existence of exceptions is not only compatible with objective morality but such exceptions are arguably necessary for morality to be just.

If you're tying justice directly to objective morality.

I am indeed tying justice to objective morality.

Had that been in our founding...I might care.

It wasn't.

The idea is that we are subject to an objective reality. This underlying concept is present in our legal and financial systems regardless of whether one believes in the Christian God. It means there is an objective position outside of ourselves.

We are unfortunately, a nation created to maximize individual freedom and liberty. Therein is the cause of such disagreement regarding morality. We act as if we need not account to justify the small or large moral goods and evils to those around us.

Your liberty shouldn't come at the expense of mine and mine shouldn't come at the expense of yours. Where do you get the idea that we "need not justify" moral goods and evils to those around us? We do it all the time. There's this thing called accountability, to others and to ourselves, that accompanies objectivity.

 

[Niels]

Law is linked to the objective.

Agreed. At least ideally. The way I see it, a just system is linked to the objective whereas an unjust system is subjective. That's why crooked judges and kangaroo courts are a bad idea.

We lay down very specific rules that we must, as a society, obey. But morality is something that we each determine.

We each subjectively interact with the rules, but moral accountability extends beyond ourselves. The closer we get to moral objectivity, the more fair we can be about drafting such rules and enforcing them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes. I suppose this is a moral claim.

Well don't worry, I won't ask you to prove it. Just wanted to be certain we both understand that.

Objective morality is not moral absolutism.

It appears it would need to be.

The existence of exceptions is not only compatible with objective morality but such exceptions are arguably necessary for morality to be just.

I don't think morality has to be just. I think that's an error of what we are as human beings. We like to imagine ourselves just... but we aren't.

I am indeed tying justice to objective morality.

I think that's interesting, because it frees it from the law and becomes a discussion of what is just.

The idea is that we are subject to an objective reality.

Right.

This underlying concept is present in our legal and financial systems regardless of whether one believes in the Christian God. It means there is an objective position outside of ourselves.

Position is a fuzzy word there.

I can objectively say, for example, Bengal Tigers exist. I can't describe the morality of a Bengal Tiger though. It doesn't seem to need justice. This distinction seems to make morality an issue amongst only relatively intelligent social animals. Packs of wolves for example make certain that particular members of the pack eat first....but reasons why are unknown to me. It appears like social moral behavior on a very basic level. Without it, perhaps there's no reason to hunt as a pack, and therefore survival rates drop as hunters fail more often.

Your liberty shouldn't come at the expense of mine and mine shouldn't come at the expense of yours.

It's an interesting idea....but it does not seem entirely true. I can eat a fish...and you can eat a fish. However, you cannot eat the fish I ate.

We are in a world of finite anything....and it seems to me that infinite liberty (even in respect of others) is inevitably going to remove the fish from one man's plate and place two upon another.

Where do you get the idea that we "need not justify" moral goods and evils to those around us? We do it all the time.

How well do you know your neighbors?

 

[J_B_]

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.

Interesting. It'll take me time to chew on this before I can decide if I agree or disagree and to what extent. But it sounds promising. Briefly, are you saying people generally like to think there is a touchstone; we just can't agree on what it is?

God would seem the obvious touchstone for the religious, Nature possibly for the unbeliever. But, as @essentialsaltes said (or at least I think he's implying something like it), any attempt to justify said touchstone to opponents becomes a game of infinite turtles.

 

[Bradskii]

Agreed. At least ideally. The way I see it, a just system is linked to the objective whereas an unjust system is subjective. That's why crooked judges and kangaroo courts are a bad idea.

I don't think I put it very well. What I was trying to say in too few words was that we decide, individually - or as a society in general, what constitutes behaviour that we consider to be harmful to that society. And which we try to dissuade people from doing by nominating a punishment. That behaviour isn't immoral. Simply detrimental. That's not to say that immoral behaviour is not harmful. It is. In fact, it cannot be immoral if it is not harmful. But that which is immoral is not necessarily illegal.

But defining the laws is, by definition, subjective. We decide on what is detrimental and we arbitrarily nominate punishments for breaking them. But the law itself then becomes an objective fact. If you do X then Y will happen (notwithstanding that Y represents a probable range of punishments which is subjectively decided upon by those deciding what the punishment will be).

 

[zippy2006]

That behaviour isn't immoral.

Why not?

Simply detrimental. That's not to say that immoral behaviour is not harmful. It is. In fact, it cannot be immoral if it is not harmful. But that which is immoral is not necessarily illegal.

Your conclusion that the behavior isn't immoral cannot be logically drawn from these statements. What you require is an altogether different premise, "That which is illegal is not necessarily immoral."

But defining the laws is, by definition, subjective.

By what definition?

But the law itself then becomes an objective fact. If you do X then Y will happen

But the hypothetical, "If you commit X crime then you will suffer Y punishment" is not a fact. It often doesn't obtain at all.

 

[zippy2006]

But, as @essentialsaltes said (or at least I think he's implying something like it), any attempt to justify said touchstone to opponents becomes a game of infinite turtles.

See my response to @essentialsaltes <here>. If he thinks his morality is the most reasonable and persuasive, then it is in no way clear that he really thinks his morality is subjective. For example, we think 2+2=4 is objective because we think it is reasonable and persuasive. The very fact that we have so many uncontroversial laws is evidence that there are uncontroversial "touchstones." If there were no such touchstones then we wouldn't be able to agree on a secular law against murder, for example.

 

[Bradskii]

Why not?

The law doesn't deal with morals. Some acts are both illegal and immoral of course. But not illegal because they are immoral.

Your conclusion that the behavior isn't immoral cannot be logically drawn from these statements. What you require is an altogether different premise, "That which is illegal is not necessarily immoral."

I'll go with that. Plus the other side of coin obtains: That which is immoral is not necessarily illegal. There's definitely an overlap.

By what definition?

We decide what the laws should be. For example...a crime of passion is treated in some states and countries much less severely than a cold blooded killing. The punishment is relative to the circumstances.

But the hypothetical, "If you commit X crime then you will suffer Y punishment" is not a fact. It often doesn't obtain at all.

Well, I'm assuming that you are caught. So 'If you blow more than 0.05 then you will be arrested'. That's an objective fact.

 

[Bradskii]

See my response to @essentialsaltes. If he thinks his morality is the most reasonable and persuasive, then it is in no way clear that he really thinks his morality is subjective.

It must be. As you said, he thinks that his morality is the most reasonable. You might not. I might also disagree. What he thinks - literally his opinion, is not objectively true.

 

[zippy2006]

The law doesn't deal with morals. Some acts are both illegal and immoral of course. But not illegal because they are immoral.

That's not an argument. Why doesn't the law deal with morals? It seems pretty obvious it does (and I don't know of any respectable philosophers who disagree). For example, a law against sex trafficking is clearly a moral law.

I'll go with that.

Then try to provide an argument to defend it.

We decide what the laws should be.

Does it strike you as a giant coincidence that every nation on Earth decided on a law against murder?

Well, I'm assuming that you are caught. So 'If you blow more than 0.05 then you will be arrested'. That's an objective fact.

But you're conflating an enforcement mechanism with a law. The law isn't against blowing. The law is against driving drunk. There are lots of ways to enforce laws, and the enforcement methods obviously need to be measurable. I'm not sure how that makes the law "objective." This goes back to your confusion about rules vs. consequences.

In fact you haven't given any definitions of the terms you are relying upon, including, "Law," "Morality," "Objective," "Subjective," etc.

It must be. As you said, he thinks that his morality is the most reasonable. You might not. I might also disagree. What he thinks - literally his opinion, is not objectively true.

No, that's entirely wrong. Go to the example I gave: 2+2=4. I think that mathematical proposition is reasonable and persuasive. On your strange reasoning that means it is not objectively true.

 

[Bradskii]

That's not an argument. Why doesn't the law deal with morals? It seems pretty obvious it does (and I don't know of any respectable philosophers who disagree). For example, a law against sex trafficking is clearly a moral law.

The law doesn't deal with morality because it's not its job to do so. It's only concerned with preventing harm (to individuals and society in general). Giving examples of laws that are there to prevent acts which are harmful which you might also consider to be immoral doesn't change that.

Then try to provide an argument to defend it.

I'm agreeing with you. You want me to defend your argument?

Does it strike you as a giant coincidence that every nation on Earth decided on a law against murder?

No, of course not. Some things that are harmful we also consider to be immoral as well.

But you're conflating an enforcement mechanism with a law. The law isn't against blowing. The law is against driving drunk. There are lots of ways to enforce laws, and the enforcement methods obviously need to be measurable. I'm not sure how that makes the law "objective." This goes back to your confusion about rules vs. consequences.

As I said, if you break the law - and are caught, then the punishment is defined. We don't leave it up to someone's opinion as to whether the law has been broken (assuming the act has been proven to have occurred). I'm not really interested in how you get caught. I'm not sure why you think that matters.

In fact you haven't given any definitions of the terms you are relying upon, including, "Law," "Morality," "Objective," "Subjective," etc.

Surely not. Really..?

Law is 'the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties'.

Morality: 'the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour'.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts'.

Subjective: 'influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts'.

No, that's entirely wrong. Go to the example I gave: 2+2=4. I think that mathematical proposition is reasonable and persuasive. On your strange reasoning that means it is not objectively true.

2+2 = 4 is a fact. It's not an opinion (I hope you don't need definitions for those as well). It's 'not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts'.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Saying something is "socially constructed" almost a sign of mental handicap. What part of society isn't socially constructed in some way?

We don't need the phrase at all. It's entirely meaningless inside society....totally useless outside it.

So, the next time a Marxist gets in my face and expects me to "conform,"

They aren't doing that because of morals though....it's a power grab.

Christians ask you to act morally...and forgive you and allow you back into their group when you do so. Marxists demand you act as they tell you to....because their only moral praxis is purely a utilitarian power grab. It's not as if they have any clear set of moral values at all....but they will enforce whatever demands they make, however they can.

Somehow, though, most people I meet really DO think that all people and constructive relationships have inherent value of an objective nature.

If you've never watched Alone....that TV wilderness survival show....yes, they do have an inherent value. You'd die otherwise.

As for an expectation of conformity....why wouldn't any group you were joining or born into expect you to conform to their moral standards of behavior if you want to stay in the group?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't think I put it very well. What I was trying to say in too few words was that we decide, individually - or as a society in general, what constitutes behaviour that we consider to be harmful to that society.

I'd argue morality has little to do with harm. Consider trade...nobody ever trades two things of equal value. If they did....no wealth disparities would exist.

Inevitably, all trades involve at least one party getting far less than the value of their trade....which would make all trade immoral.

And which we try to dissuade people from doing by nominating a punishment.

Here, we generally don't do that unless they broke a law. The authority to punish residing in large groups of angry people is nothing more than mob justice aka lynch mobs. That's why cancel culture was so distasteful. People going after people's jobs or opportunities over a thing they said years ago....petty and childish.

Simply detrimental. That's not to say that immoral behaviour is not harmful. It is. In fact, it cannot be immoral if it is not harmful. But that which is immoral is not necessarily illegal.

I don't think we can categorically link harm with morality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting. It'll take me time to chew on this before I can decide if I agree or disagree and to what extent. But it sounds promising. Briefly, are you saying people generally like to think there is a touchstone; we just can't agree on what it is?

Yes, that is essentially what I'm saying. I think that we all more or less have a common moral "minimum" built within us, whether we can articulate details about that "minimum" or not. I think this premise can be supported both from a secular angle and from a Biblical angle, even if each angle isn't exactly congruent with the other.

God would seem the obvious touchstone for the religious, Nature possibly for the unbeliever. But, as @essentialsaltes said (or at least I think he's implying something like it), any attempt to justify said touchstone to opponents becomes a game of infinite turtles.

I think it is "nature" in both cases, just described through different ontological and diagnostic lenses.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Saying something is "socially constructed" almost a sign of mental handicap. What part of society isn't socially constructed in some way?

We don't need the phrase at all. It's entirely meaningless inside society....totally useless outside it.

I agree. But by social construct, Liberals of all stripes tend to mean that social rules are negotiated as a composite idea from diverse streams and as such can be revised as needed. To small degree, there is some truth in this; it's just not the whole truth about Truth.

The upshot here of course, and in the case of Christianity is one that is always the fly in the democratic ointment, is the idea that the "Real Rule" wasn't delivered by diverse amalgamation, but that it arrived to us through revelation and cannot simply be dismissed and countermanded by demagogues, radicals, socialists, or various Liberals, however much they muse that they think "better" about it all.

They aren't doing that because of morals though....it's a power grab.

Christians ask you to act morally...and forgive you and allow you back into their group when you do so. Marxists demand you act as they tell you to....because their only moral praxis is purely a utilitarian power grab. It's not as if they have any clear set of moral values at all....but they will enforce whatever demands they make, however they can.

Yes, exactly. I agree.

If you've never watched Alone....that TV wilderness survival show....yes, they do have an inherent value. You'd die otherwise.

As for an expectation of conformity....why wouldn't any group you were joining or born into expect you to conform to their moral standards of behavior if you want to stay in the group?

Who said anything about "staying in the group"? Biblically speaking, sometimes one has to stand apart from what "the Group" has decided.

Sometimes, too, "Groups" become too sure of themselves and their demands for conformity are shot through by their own fallacious, even culturally relativistic, reasoning.

 

[J_B_]

I think it is "nature" in both cases, just described through different ontological and diagnostic lenses.

I'm surprised you would say this, which means I'm asking for further clarification.

The upshot here of course, and in the case of Christianity is one that is always the fly in the democratic ointment, is the idea that the "Real Rule" wasn't delivered by diverse amalgamation, but that it arrived to us through revelation and cannot simply be dismissed and countermanded by demagogues, radicals, socialists, or various Liberals, however much they muse that they think "better" about it all.

Especially surprised in light of this statement.

 

[J_B_]

If he thinks his morality is the most reasonable and persuasive, then it is in no way clear that he really thinks his morality is subjective.

There are ways of reasoning by which @essentialsaltes could think that, but I'm not going to speak for him. It doesn't mean he is right or that you agree with him, but it's a silly exercise for us to tell him what he thinks.

 

[J_B_]

The upshot here of course, and in the case of Christianity is one that is always the fly in the democratic ointment, is the idea that the "Real Rule" wasn't delivered by diverse amalgamation, but that it arrived to us through revelation and cannot simply be dismissed and countermanded by demagogues, radicals, socialists, or various Liberals, however much they muse that they think "better" about it all.

@Bradskii , Not that it would matter to you, but while I agree with the reply (quoted above) @2PhiloVoid gave you, I don't myself quite think that way. Instead, I tend to think more in terms of the distinction between morality and law you have been promoting. To me it seems God's Word is God revealing morality to us and then giving us the task of making our laws (though religious language for this can be confusing). For those who love God, they are definitely motivated to make their laws conform to God's morality, but it also seems God's Word tells us such efforts are for the Church only, and not the unbeliever.

Since lawmaking includes an attempt to protect people from harm, which includes harm by unbelievers, that creates a conundrum when living among unbelievers that I've never really resolved - except the hope that they will one day become believers.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There are ways of reasoning by which @essentialsaltes could think that, but I'm not going to speak for him. It doesn't mean he is right or that you agree with him, but it's a silly exercise for us to tell him what he thinks.

My taste for pineapple on pizza is most good, reasonable and persuasive ['Try it, you'll like it!'], but I do not consider it objective.