Does morality exist without God?

[Eudaimonist]

There are different "flavors" of moral relativism. (And I suppose some relativists do allow for individual differences of ethical opinion, but I usually see this in the context of cultures.)

As an ethical doctrine, it usually objects to any sort of universal truths about morality or objective moral standard, and makes morality "relative" to a particular culture or people. Thus, one can say that one views another culture as immoral from one's own perspective, but one can't say that they are acting inappropriately from either their own perspective or from some humanity-wide perspective.

"if someone believes it is right, it is right".

Reading through various of Hitler's texts, I have never seen him express such a view.

True, he doesn't say specifically that, to my knowledge.

In contrast, he seems quite fixed in his views of what is right, allowing no opposition regardles of "what someone believes".

What do you think he thinks is right that is universal and unquestionable? He values strength and racial purity, but these can clash with each other in warfare. Did he advocate any moral values that weren't specifically "Aryan" moral values for the Aryan people? Did he think that non-Aryan people should live in an Aryan way?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Or "right" and "wrong", in the moral sense.

To me, right and wrong in the moral sense refer to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of a course of action. Right courses of action are to be prefered over wrong courses of action. One ought to do what is right, and shun what is wrong. To put it another way, right actions are desirable and are worthy of choice, and wrong actions are the opposite.

These are extremely basic concepts, and may be difficult to break down further. Are you still unclear, or do you need more?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'll get back to this thread later today. I made the big mistake of entering the fray before my morning cup of coffee.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Ideally, the statement "I, Adolf Hitler, am a moral objectivist". Failing that, some clear statement that strongly implies that he takes such a position.

I don't see anything against the existence of a genocidal moral relativist (or other non-objectivist), so his actions are not a clear indication in themselves.



Cool. Now you are.



No, no, no. Sorry. You made the positive claim, and you have the burden of proof here.

Well, I think the request to prove someone else´s philosophical position is asking too much, to begin with. Or else my initial response to the entire 'Mother Theresa was a moral objectivist, and psychpathy is the result of moral relativism' would have been "Prove it!".

I will just say that I am aware that Hitler gave some lip service to doing divine will, though (if this was honest) it is not clear that this makes his view of morality objective, since divine will can change or apply differently to different people. One could still end up with a de facto moral relativism where God places different moral expectations on different "races".

Ok. So not even biblegod (and his followers) can be a moral objectivist since he clearly put up different rules, rights and duties for different races (people) and genders.
You are free to redefine terms as you see fit - but these certainly aren´t the broadly held and accepted definitions of "moral objectivism" and "moral relativism". Your definitions practically leave no space for anything else but "de facto moral relativism".

And, I think that this view needs to be counterbalanced by his worship of strength. It seemed that for him, might made a kind of right,

And statements like "strenght is a virtue" or "might (or racial superiority) makes right" are de facto relativistic?

His view of the world seemed to be of different racial groups proving themselves through their strength and racial purity. He admired the Spartans, for instance, and commended modern day Greeks for their courage and disregard for death in battle. They are all justified in this, apparently even if they come into conflict with each other.

So the superiority of the "Arian race" and the inferiority of the "Jewish race" were not - in his understanding - cut in stone facts but cultural achievements and subject to eventual change?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, I think the request to prove someone else´s philosophical position is asking too much, to begin with. Or else my initial response to the entire 'Mother Theresa was a moral objectivist, and psychpathy is the result of moral relativism' would have been "Prove it!".

Prove may have been an overly strong choice of word. I withdraw the request. I simply wanted some substantiation for the claim.

Ok. So not even biblegod (and his followers) can be a moral objectivist since he clearly put up different rules, rights and duties for different races (people) and genders.

No, my point is that one has to be careful labelling Hitler a moral objectivist just because he may happen to try to justify himself by reference to divine will.

You are free to redefine terms as you see fit - but these certainly aren´t the broadly held and accepted definitions of "moral objectivism" and "moral relativism".

You could be right. What are the broadly held and accepted definitions of those terms? And how do you think that I had strayed from them?

Your definitions practically leave no space for anything else but "de facto moral relativism".

I'm not certain that I understand your reasoning process here.

And statements like "strenght is a virtue" or "might (or racial superiority) makes right" are de facto relativistic?

I don't recall Hitler saying that strength is a virtue, though he clearly approved of strength and thought God did as well.

As for might makes right, that is not morally objective. If right is simply the will of the strong, then there is no objective standard for right. There is only the "right" imposed by strong tribal factions in the world.

That is consistent with moral relativism in the sense that strength is what leads to the rightness within a particular culture. If your "will" to impose a moral code is strong enough (backed up by guns at first, and then indoctrination later on), the culture will then follow.

It seems to me that Hitler could be taking the view that when one has won a cultural victory, one has created one's "rightness". Admittedly, it can be difficult to figure Hitler out at times because he isn't very philosophical, so I am in part speculating.

So the superiority of the "Arian race" and the inferiority of the "Jewish race" were not - in his understanding - cut in stone facts but cultural achievements and subject to eventual change?

The allegedly superiority or inferiority of races does not appear to be a moral view for Hitler. They appear to be observations of the "strength" of various races.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Prove may have been an overly strong choice of word. I withdraw the request. I simply wanted some substantiation for the claim.

So we can return to our normal kind of conversation - without references to "burdon of proof" and other such technicalities?

No, my point is that one has to be careful labelling Hitler a moral objectivist just because he may happen to try to justify himself by reference to divine will.

Actually, this particular argument didn´t even cross my mind when I concluded Hitler was a moral objectivist.

On another note (and if I am understanding your previous post correctly) reference to divine will would render someone a moral relativist rather than an objectivist in your view, anyway (since the underlying "might makes right" is "de facto relativistic").
I find that a quite innovative approach, btw, because it would throw most every theistic argument "It´s objective because God says so" out the window.

You could be right. What are the broadly held and accepted definitions of those terms? And how do you think that I had strayed from them?

In my understanding "absolute morality" refers to the idea that there are cut in stone truths as to what´s moral - and these truths are indisputable. The mere fact that a certain set of such cut in stone truth involves cut in stone differences between different subsets of humanity (e.g. different gender roles or different treatment of different races) does not render this moral set relativistic.
When Hitler said "Jews are an inferior race and need to be extinguished" I am actually not hearing the implication "but when Jews think differently about that they might just a correct".

I don't recall Hitler saying that strength is a virtue.

Well, you were the one saying that Hitler "worshipped strength". I am not sure what you feel he worshipped it as - if not as a virtue.

As for might makes right, that is not morally objective. If right is simply the will of the strong, then there is no objective standard for right.

So do I get this right: With a snip of your fingers you hand over all those theist self-professing moral objectivists over to us moral subjectivists?
Nice move.

There is only the "right" imposed by strong tribal factions in the world. That is consistent with moral relativism in the sense that strength is what leads to the rightness within a particular culture. If your "will" to impose a moral code is strong enough (backed up by guns at first, and then indoctrination later on), the culture will then follow.



The allegedly superiority or inferiority of races does not appear to be a moral view for Hitler. They appear to be observations of the "strength" of various races.

If I am not mistaken, he went to great efforts arguing that this inequal distribution of strength/weakness were "naturally" given, and thus came with different "objective" moral implications for different races.

Mark, I do understand that your brand of "moral objectivity" is different than e.g. the traditional theistic/Christian one. However, I find it a little odd when you label everyone who doesn´t argue from your personal idea of objective morality a "moral relativist" even though they represent one of the oldest traditions of moral objectivism.
On top, I find that particularly odd when I made my initial objection to a protagonist of said traditional school of objectivism and in response to an argument that was based on that particular idea.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So we can return to our normal kind of conversation - without references to "burdon of proof" and other such technicalities?

In the context of this discussion, yes. Lack of coffee made me overzealous, I think. Perhaps even objectively so.

If, OTOH, you try to convince me of the existence of UFO aliens, we will have to change our standards of discussion.

On another note (and if I am understanding your previous post correctly) reference to divine will would render someone a moral relativist rather than an objectivist in your view, anyway (since the underlying "might makes right" is "de facto relativistic").
I find that a quite innovative approach, btw, because it would throw most every theistic argument "It´s objective because God says so" out the window.

Yes, true. It is something that I had realized when debating theists on ethics.

Although, I do want to note one thing. Only a subset of Christians use some version of "might makes right" to justify their ethics. (IIRC, self-declared Calvinists especially used this approach, at least from what I have seen at CF.)

I've seen other Christians take a different approach, and this one seems to be more popular. They argue that God's very existence somehow includes or implies ethical obligation. E.g., they might declare "God is Goodness" or "God is Love". For them, ethical obligation doesn't have to do with God's power to smite you, but arises from God's very nature. This probably comes from Augustine trying to deal with Euthyphro's Dilemma.

That truly is an "objective" approach to morality, although I've never been able to make sense of it when considering how God is said to have committed what amounts to an act of genocide that would make Hitler envious, by which I mean the Great Flood, of course.

In my understanding "absolute morality" refers to the idea that there are cut in stone truths as to what´s moral - and these truths are indisputable. The mere fact that a certain set of such cut in stone truth involves cut in stone differences between different subsets of humanity (e.g. different gender roles or different treatment of different races) does not render this moral set relativistic.

Thank you, that helps me to understand your position. We are reacting to different aspects of the use of those terms. It is often the case that people who argue that morality is different from one people to another are considered moral relativists, even if they they might have some element of that "cut in stone" aspect you are talking about. I'll try to keep that in mind as we discuss.

When Hitler said "Jews are an inferior race and need to be extinguished" I am actually not hearing the implication "but when Jews think differently about that they might just a correct".

Granted, though I don't personally "not hear that" either. After all, Hitler may simply not care what the Jews think. A moral relativist may have a strong preference for his own perspective. One of my concerns, though, is that they may find it difficult to argue against other perspectives and explain how they are wrong, and not merely inconvenient for one's own goals.

And, yes, I understand that moral objectivists can be destructive people (we may count Hitler as a potential candidate here), but the reason why I don't see this as constituting as much of a problem is that as long as moral objectivists can agree that mistreating others is wrong, they need not experience even the slightest self-doubt in opposing mistreatment.

Well, you were the one saying that Hitler "worshipped strength". I am not sure what you feel he worshipped it as - if not as a virtue.

He seemed to value strength for what strength enabled one to do.

Um... maybe you are right. Maybe he did consider it a virtue of a sort. I don't know quite how he thought of it in ethical terms, but it is clear that he thought of strength as somehow desirable.

So do I get this right: With a snip of your fingers you hand over all those theist self-professing moral objectivists over to us moral subjectivists?
Nice move.

My powers of philosophy are awesome indeed, but as I had explained above I can't hand over to you all of the Christians. (I'm sure you are disappointed.) Some Christians are definitely moral objectivists (or absolutists).


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

A moral relativist may have a strong preference for his own perspective. One of my concerns, though, is that they may find it difficult to argue against other perspectives and explain how they are wrong, and not merely inconvenient for one's own goals.

Strange... that is exactly my concern regarding moral absolutist positions. That's why I asked you for a definition... and while I understand and agree with your explanation of the terms in question, I cannot see how they would be able to adress this specific problem.

"Right" actions are "appropriate", "prefered", "ought to [be done]", "desirable"... but you haven't explained the reason for that. They just are.
Now it is possible to give reasons, e.g. in your system "because it increases human well-being" or in a Christian system "because God says so".
But that still doesn't give a reason why "increasing human well-being" or "obeying God" is appropriate, prefered or desirable. At last, it comes all down to "it just is".

And here I see a lot more problems for convincing people of "it just is good" in contrast to "it is good for you".

...I understand that moral objectivists can be destructive people (we may count Hitler as a potential candidate here), but the reason why I don't see this as constituting as much of a problem is that as long as moral objectivists can agree that mistreating others is wrong, they need not experience even the slightest self-doubt in opposing mistreatment.

Why should there be a problem for moral relativists to agree that mistreating others is wrong? I see only one problem in this whole dichotomy at all... and this is the already morally judging term "mistreatment". I have the same problems with the term "murder", as when TomZzyzx said "[Moral relativists] believe that their morality says it's ok to murder someone."
Moral relativisim does not say murder is ok, or murder is ok when someone believes it is ok, or that mistreatment of others is ok. These terms are defined as not ok.
It is just a question of which actions constitute "murder" or "mistreatment"... and here the self-proclaimed moral absolutists have no different method than the relativists: their own preference.

 

[Common Sense]

Ok. So not even biblegod (and his followers) can be a moral objectivist since he clearly put up different rules, rights and duties for different races (people) and genders.

I see no example of that at all.
If Hitler viewed strength as a good thing, I agree with him but it's his use of strength I disagree with. I disagree with men thinking to be a real man you need to have complete control of your wife and not allow her to have a life. I disagree with the child that believes the world owes it a living. When you interpret right and wrong to suit what you want to do your so far off base you will need a taxi just to get back to the ball field.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Mother Teresa did many good things, she also taught many immoral things.

Like many people, she meant well. But she wasn't perfect.

I never said she was perfect, no one is. What are the many immoral things Mother Teresa did?

 

[TomZzyzx]

No...

No matter whether morality is absolute or relative, Anyone doing anything would believe what are doing is good.

And to comment on your earlier post... Hitler did believe murder was wrong, assuming you're talking about murdering people who fit in with his ideology (i.e. White People, especially of German descent). But that's really not a whole lot different than the Catholic Churches historical view on non-believers either, Jews included.

Luckily Naziism was defeated, and Catholicism has lost much of it's power. Although it's still a very destructive force.

Murder is the unjust killing of any innocent human being. Which Hitler did continuously throughout his reign.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Murder is the unjust killing of any innocent human being. Which Hitler did continuously throughout his reign.

I don't disagree, however from his point of view, it wasn't unjust.

 

[TomZzyzx]

You are mixing two different categories here.

Just stating "morality is objective" does not tell you what is moral.

For example, Hitler believed that killing subhuman people was right. That is an objective moral statement. You believe that murdering people is wrong. That also is an objective moral statement.

But both statements are "what you believe it to be"... you believe one thing, Hitler another.

I am not defining what is moral. You are the one mixing categories. I am stating that moral rules are objective in that they are self evident in the same way that math is self evident. We don't invent morality. It's not subjective based on internal preferences. We discover it like we discover math. Moral rules are true whether anyone believes them.

Hitler was a moral relativist because he believe morality was whatever he believed it to be.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Wrong

This is just simply poorly thought out logic. Any society can say whatever they want to. If there is a society that conflicts with another societies accepted moral code, they have every right to say what is going on is immoral.

You're trying to make the case that two societies with some differing moral views are not allowed to criticize each other just because they don't accept the idea there's "one true more code". There is just simply no logic to your argument.

Going down the same point, you are factually incorrect. A society that believes Rape, Murder and Ethnic Cleansing is immoral, not only is allowed to think a society that permits such things are wrong... They would by necessity think that the other society is immoral.

Just because we believe different societies have different moral codes, we don't accept those codes as moral, or right and by no way do we have to respect what they consider moral belief.

If you lived at any point of human history up until the mid 1800's, you may not have seen a moral objection to slavery. In fact there's another thread on this very forum in which many Christians are trying to make a case that the slavery outlined in the bible is perfectly moral. That says to me, that people are still willing to accept the moral validity of slavery even in the present day, under certain circumstances.

Likewise, if you lived in Germany in the 1930/1940s, you too may have bought into what the Nazis were doing. Antisemitism was still acceptable by Christian standards, and was widespead even in the United States. The images of the Holocaust were a major catalyst in showing people the price such beliefs have, and made it far more acceptable to be Jewish. "Christian Values" in the 1920s, became "Judeo-Christian" Values by the 1950s.

The morality of the society shifted, in part because we were exposed to a far more extreme version of our previously held immoral (but formerly considered moral) beliefs that Jews were Christ-Killers and whatnot.

What is a moral truth, and what is the absolute moral code?

If so, what things in present day society which we accept as perfectly moral will at some point in the future be considered backwards and immoral? Going by history, there's bound to be far more than one thing we presently believe to moral that actually isn't. And in that case, is it still moral for us?

No, actually if absolutism is true, then the blacks would not have been able to change the status-quo. That's what absolutism is....

Their work shifted our perception of morality and lead us to widespead acceptance that black people are not any different than anyone else, apart from the amount of pigmentation in their skin. Our morals shifted dramatically over the last century in that regard. Can you imagine a black president in 1912? That is a demonstration of how a societies morals are not set in stone to one true moral code.

Again, you are focusing on the individual, not the society. Accepted morals are not dictated by individuals, making your point null and void. In a world of absolute morals, or a world of moral relativism, you're still going to have a segment of people rape and murder others. In both societies, those people would be viewed as immoral.

What I described was 'society says relativism'. If you don't believe it then either society doesn't what morality is or you believe morality is objective.

Just because people try to defend slavery doesn't mean that it is morally right.

Antisemitism is only acceptable by liberal Christian standards. And that still doesn't mean that it is morally right.

The morality of a society doesn't change, it's that the people of a society realize that what some of them may have thought was ok was if fact immoral.

Actually if absolute moral rules exist then people begin to realize that what they did in the past was in fact immoral and blacks and other minorities should be treated as equals.

A moral truth is a moral rule that is true regardless of whether anyone believes it.

Morals don't shift, our understanding of what is morally right is what changes. Moral rules are self evident just like mathematical rules are. We don't invent morality, we discover morality.

If society decides what is morally right and a society says that murder and rape are ok then the people of the society would not view there society as immoral.

We should focus on individuals, it's the individual's that make the society and not the other way around.

 

[TomZzyzx]

I don't disagree, however from his point of view, it wasn't unjust.

That's right because he was a moral relativist. Which is why moral relativism is a dangerous world view.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I never said she was perfect, no one is. What are the many immoral things Mother Teresa did?

Mother Teresa believed in the "Theology of Suffering", meaning she believed that suffering brought people closer to Jesus. She was quoted as saying "it is the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ."

That in itself isn't the end of the world, however that belief had a major impact on the living conditions within her orphanages and hospitals.

She was aware of, but did nothing to fix things in her hospitals, especially in regards to terminally ill patients. Things like


- Mandated cold baths for everyone,
- Reuse of hypodermic needles
- Widespread neglect along with regular Physical and Emotional abuse in her orphanages. (These findings were made after an investigative report done by the very reputable British Newspaper "The Guardian")
- Diagnoses were regularly not made by doctors, instead being made by unqualified volunteers or nuns. Even worse, she actively discouraged the nuns from seeking medical training believing instead God would empower the weak and ignorant. Secular books and newspapers were also banned from nuns in the interest of obedience.
- They did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who otherwise may have survived died of infection and lack of treatment
- It was mandated on principle that painkillers would not be used even in severe cases, as they would lessen someone's suffering and prevent them from being closer to Christ. One investigative group going through her hospitals described hearing the screams of patients having maggots tweezered out of open wounds, without the use of anaesthetic.


Fun stuff, eh?


I could keep going with even more stuff, but you get the point. She was far from the "saint" that the Catholic church inevitably will make her within the next couple years.

 

[selfinflikted]

Hitler was a moral relativist because he believe morality was whatever he believed it to be.

Then, by these qualifications, so is everyone else on the planet.

 

[Dave Ellis]

What I described was 'society says relativism'. If you don't believe it then either society doesn't what morality is or you believe morality is objective.

Please restate this sentence in English.

Just because people try to defend slavery doesn't mean that it is morally right.

Agreed

Antisemitism is only acceptable by liberal Christian standards. And that still doesn't mean that it is morally right.

Huh? Typically it's the more fundamentalist you get, the more bigoted you get towards other religions and even other denominations. I don't think I've ever talked to a liberal christian anti-Semite. I have talked to the odd fundamentalist one though!

You are correct though, it's still not a moral belief either way.

The morality of a society doesn't change, it's that the people of a society realize that what some of them may have thought was ok was if fact immoral.

Here you're incorrect. The moral values of societies have demonstrably changed, and will continue to change.

How does the majority of people in a society, in the process of discovering what they thought was ok, is not ok, not affect the moral outlook of the society as a whole?

Actually if absolute moral rules exist then people begin to realize that what they did in the past was in fact immoral and blacks and other minorities should be treated as equals.

People do that in moral relativity too though. You're just attributing it to a cosmic code of morality, where I attribute it to people wisening up as they become more enlightened.

A moral truth is a moral rule that is true regardless of whether anyone believes it.

Please demonstrate what a moral truth is, and how you can confirm it's actually a moral truth. And where did this moral truth come from?

Morals don't shift, our understanding of what is morally right is what changes. Moral rules are self evident just like mathematical rules are. We don't invent morality, we discover morality.

Again, Morals have demonstrably shifted as we have grown up as a society. However, if moral absolutes were self evident, there would be no need to ever change our morals.

We don't "invent" morality, nor do we discover it. Morality is what as a people we perceive to be moral.

If society decides what is morally right and a society says that murder and rape are ok then the people of the society would not view there society as immoral.

You're correct, they wouldn't view it as immoral. However, given human nature, I would say the situation you're describing is impossible in a civilized society. You will never have a majority of the population agreeing that Murder and Rape is moral behaviour, so your argument is a non-starter.

But, in the spirit of your example, if such a thing ever did happen... Then yes, most people in that society would likely agree it's moral behaviour.

However, we'll use a better example, Euthanasia. Many people believe it's moral to let a terminally ill patient that's experiencing great suffering choose to end their lives. Many people also believe it's immoral to kill, or allow those people to kill themselves for any reason.

It's currently illegal, so we can say that it is currently against the moral code of our society. However, if one day it becomes legal, and becomes part of the societal norm, then larger and larger segments of the population will likely begin to view it as normal accepted practice. There will still likely be some opposition, especially from the religious groups... but over the course of decades will become a part of what's considered moral behaviour by that society as a whole.

We should focus on individuals, it's the individual's that make the society and not the other way around.

You can not focus on the individual in this case, as we are talking about the moral values of society. It's very rare to find individuals who believe everything accepted as moral by the society they live in is actually moral... Individual morals are far too varied to be able to make a comment on at all, unless you are talking about one specific person. Even then, it really has no impact on what's actually considered moral in the world that person lives in.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That's right because he was a moral relativist. Which is why moral relativism is a dangerous world view.

No, it means Hitler's opinions were a dangerous world view.

The fact he may or may not have been a moral relativist was irrelevant. He would have held the exact same beliefs as a moral absolutist as well. It's all about what he attributes his moral code to.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Then, by these qualifications, so is everyone else on the planet.

This is incorrect. Morality is not subjective. Morality is not an internal preference that changes according to our whims. Moral rules are not arbitrary and personal but are objective and cannot be changed be our internal feelings. Moral rules are self evident and apply equally to all regardless of whether anyone believes them.