Is morality objective, even without God?

[partinobodycular]

If one chooses some particular meta-ethics with an objective metric, e.g. "The moral choice is the one that results in the most ants."

Then all moral questions become objective. [Though many choices that neither increase nor decrease the quantity of ants would be morally neutral.]

But the choice of meta-ethics was not determined objectively. So this is not a convincing way for morality to be objective.

But what if there's a meta-ethic that supersedes all other meta-ethics? That's self-referential. That must be true in order to even begin to formulate any other meta-ethics. For example, the meta-ethic that it's better to have meta-ethics. That there's such a thing as desirable outcomes. It's a moral concept that supersedes all other moral concepts, and without which all attempts to construct any subsequent meta-ethics will fail.

If that foundational meta-ethic must exist because all attempts to construct an ethical system without it will collapse, then we can indeed point to an objective truth... if only because all other forms of ethical systems will fail. It becomes objectively true by default. And all subsequent moral systems will stand or fall depending upon how well they adhere to that fundamental truth... that some things are good, and some things are bad.

Perhaps all complex systems... be they physics, or math, or morality have just such an underlying truth... that certain things must be true, because all other attempts at constructing a coherent system will fail without them.

And perhaps someone could refer to this set of underlying truths as God. And as per @Bradskii's reference to Euthyphro's dilemma, as to which came first, God or morality, the answer is that they're one and the same thing.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But what if there's a meta-ethic that supersedes all other meta-ethics? That's self-referential. That must be true in order to even begin to formulate any other meta-ethics.

If that foundational meta-ethic must exist because all attempts to construct an ethical system without it will collapse, then we can indeed point to an objective truth...

I don't think that's going to stand up to much scrutiny.

 

[eleos1954]

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.

It depends on one's "foundation" ... it can be objective or subjective

If Morality is based on human evolution it will always be subjective unless you introduce a “higher power”, then it becomes objective

if morality is solely based on human evolution, it is generally considered to be subjective because different evolutionary pressures across different cultures and environments would lead to varying moral codes, making a single "objective" morality difficult to establish; essentially, what is considered morally right or wrong could change depending on the context and societal norms developed through evolution.

If morality is based on God, according to the traditional theistic perspective, it would be considered objective because God's moral code is seen as an external, unchanging standard that applies universally to all people, regardless of individual opinions or cultural norms;

 

[Laodicean60]

This is interesting and the meta stuff is above my pay grade but the way I rationalize our morality is that God said he has written the law in our hearts so every human has a sense of what is right and wrong, +/- a few million and probably due to mental issues.

 

[Jerry N.]

There are three positions required, God, subjective necessity and situational parameters.
Those are the three elements of morality. The point is to arrive at an Objective Truth.
The secular legal realm substitutes Justice or Law for the word God.

The idea that morality is progressive, societal or dependent on time and place is only to consider the first two positions, 1) subjective individually or collectively and 2) situational parameters, time and place. such as 1850's Georgia, slavery.

The third position is Jesus. The morality of Jesus was not progressive, it is not consensus and it is not subjective.
It was counterintuitive, blessed are the meek, turn the other cheek. pray for those who despitefully use you.
When applied, it provided for the greater subjective good of individuals or collectives
It is situational because of the elements of justice, forgiveness and mercy.

I agree. We must consider how we know that Jesus's morality is correct. Even as children, we know when our parents have done wrong.

 

[RDKirk]

Morality is socially constructed and it takes a while to create or change it. Claiming objectivity represents a short cut.

1. Make a list of widely accepted moral precepts.
2. Add your own moral precepts that you would like to see adopted to the list.
3. Claim moral objectivity--or even better, divine authorship--for the entire list.
4. Offer the universality of the already accepted moral precepts as evidence of their objectivity and thus the objectivity of the entire list.
5. Assert that the only possible alternative to objective morality is individual moral relativism and moral chaos.

Here is where I have to point out the difference between morality and ethics.

Morality is the set of existing community standards of behavior that have developed over time from any number of sources or combinations of sources. A particular community may have one moral standard that arose from the dictates of a monarch, another from the persuasion of a "holy man," another from the aftermath of a disaster, another as the result of contact with a weaker community, another as a result of contact with a stronger community, et cetera. Morality is whatever set of community standards of behavior that simply exist.

An ethic, OTOH, is always a rationally determined, systematic set of principles for behavior with a particular "end good" established as the goal of that behavior.

I am emphasizing that morality is more of a descriptive concept, reflecting the community's prevailing standards of behavior, regardless of their origin, whether from tradition, authority, or circumstance. Morality, in this view, is a reflection of what IS, whether shaped by history, power dynamics, or social influences.

On the other hand, ethics are prescriptive and rational, involving a deliberate, reasoned process aimed at achieving a specific "end good" or goal. Ethics are focused on guiding actions according to a logical framework or set of principles that lead to a desirable outcome.

This perspective makes a useful distinction between the empirical nature of morality (what a community does) and the normative nature of ethics (what individuals or societies ought to do based on reason and intended outcomes).

 

[QvQ]

I agree. We must consider how we know that Jesus's morality is correct. Even as children, we know when our parents have done wrong.

Yes
It is astonishing the morality of Jesus that was not based on subjective necessity, reason or intuition could so capture the world.

Interesting question, how do men recognize the morality of Jesus as fundamentally correct?
The morality of Jesus is just, so perhaps that is the inherent sense of "fair and right" which is the concience of man, written on their hearts.
What is Just and Fair to me is then applied to thee.
It is how a person, even if a person does not believe in God, would want God to treat them, righteously, with justice, mercy and redemption (forgiveness)
It is the vision of a relationship with a God who loves men as men love themselves and are then commanded to love one other.

 

[RDKirk]

I agree. We must consider how we know that Jesus's morality is correct.

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

Even as children, we know when our parents have done wrong.

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

 

[QvQ]

"deontological ethics.

When I was a rational atheist, the Christian Morality was always Correct in my estimation if I had particularly thought about it.
It had nothing to do with God, who I didn't believe in.
It wasn't a "duty" to perform either. It was rather a strange wiring diagram of the ethical universe that was a definite challenge to decode and practice, just because it was so "new and radical" way to navigate in this strange and savage world.

I think Christianity is such an "old shoe" that cultural Christians and raised in the Faith Christian have lost the sense of how radical, revolutionary the Gospel of Christ actually was and is.

 

[partinobodycular]

I don't think that's going to stand up to much scrutiny.

You may well be correct. Consider the following.

If Morality is based on human evolution it will always be subjective unless you introduce a “higher power”, then it becomes objective

Then perhaps you're looking at morality incorrectly. It's not that which people define as being right or wrong, because that can change over time, instead let's simply define it as "that which is merciful". And by that I don't mean "that which people define or assume to be merciful."

By doing this I've created an absolute, albeit one that I'm capable of expressing, but not capable of applying. Hence morality is objective... there's always a merciful choice, I'm just not always capable of knowing what that merciful choice is.

But the fact that I don't know what it is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

 

[eleos1954]

You may well be correct. Consider the following.



Then perhaps you're looking at morality incorrectly. It's not that which people define as being right or wrong, because that can change over time, instead let's simply define it as "that which is merciful". And by that I don't mean "that which people define or assume to be merciful."

By doing this I've created an absolute, albeit one that I'm capable of expressing, but not capable of applying. Hence morality is objective... there's always a merciful choice, I'm just not always capable of knowing what that merciful choice is.

But the fact that I don't know what it is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

My base is God .... God defines morality .... I know many people who do not believe in God yet many of their moral beliefs are in line with Gods moral values ... what they may attribute as to how/where their moral beliefs come from varies.

The concept of morality can't be strictly categorized as true or false, unless ones sense of morality is based on God and accepting His moral values as indisputable truth.

Without God there is no true or false ... because there is no consistency, what one might consider to be true might be considered false by someone else (or vice versa). That is people decide for themselves what their truth is and that varies from one person to another.

Again .... it's dependent on ones foundation/base

 

[o_mlly]

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.

An area of agreement I would have with Singer is the non-value of intuitions (emotions) not regulated by reason as reliable guides to living the moral life.

However, he dismisses human rights as a foundation for determining objective morality but does not replace clearly human rights with some other objective guideline. Rather, he suggests reason, and I suppose he means right reason, and that would make morality subjective as no one could deny Genghis Kahn was rational but quite immoral (Kahn did not avoid killing which Singer suggests is a universal moral mandate).

As to morality being math-like, the idea that 1+1=2 always is only true if one believes that all reality is base 10 mathematically. In base 2, 1+1=10. The point being that morality is not math like, but dependent on one's own presuppositions.

 

[Bradskii]

That's not a legitimate question and is necessarily precluded since to ask the question is to assume you, me or anyone knows what "God" is and how He can (or cannot) do anything or know anything.

It was stated that 'God is the objective view'. If that's true then asking 'how do we know what that is?' is entirely relevant. It might have been better had you addressed that original comment and said that it wasn't a legitimate statement.

 

[Bradskii]

"Morals — all correct moral rules derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above all else." --Robert Heinlein

For atheist author Robert A. Heinlein, morality wasn’t about lofty ideals or divine commands; it was about what helps people and societies survive and thrive. He thought moral actions were those that ensured survival and fostered cooperation. Any rule that did not somehow rest ultimately upon ensuring the survival of the group (nation, species, whatever), was invalid.

I agree. What works (or more accurately what worked) to ensure the survival of the species is what we term good. What doesn't, we term bad. The other side of the coin being that if there is no harm then it cannot be bad.

 

[Bradskii]

The video is very interesting, but objective morality can’t be more than the law that God wrote in our hearts, which is not the same as intuition. God wrote it in our hearts...

So what if what is written in your heart is different to what is written in mine?

 

[RDKirk]

When I was a rational atheist, the Christian Morality was always Correct in my estimation if I had particularly thought about it.
It had nothing to do with God, who I didn't believe in.
It wasn't a "duty" to perform either. It was rather a strange wiring diagram of the ethical universe that was a definite challenge to decode and practice, just because it was so "new and radical" way to navigate in this strange and savage world.

I think Christianity is such an "old shoe" that cultural Christians and raised in the Faith Christian have lost the sense of how radical, revolutionary the Gospel of Christ actually was and is.

I think everyone forgets that the Enlightenment had been long tainted by Christianity, and those concepts were not as original as they thought them.

 

[RDKirk]

I agree. What works (or more accurately what worked) to ensure the survival of the species is what we term good. What doesn't, we term bad. The other side of the coin being that if there is no harm then it cannot be bad.

I think Heinlein would say, If it's not good (i.e., tending to the survival of the group), then it is bad because it's always a resource cost to the group.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not sure there is moral progress. There is only agreement and it is temporary. For the moment, many of would agree that gay rights make society better. Of course, I think that "no slavery" is infinitely better than "slavery". But, I am a product of "now". If I had the same DNA and were born in 1830 Georgia, how would I feel? I'd like to think I'd be an abolitionist, but it's likely I'd be slave owner and think it perfectly moral.

I agree. There but for the grace of God etc. But...when we make what we describe as progress we don't seem to revert to the previous conditions at any time. Well, with odd exceptions that I would say prove the rule. Nobody is going to suggest that we start burning people at the stake again. Or hanging people for stealing a loaf of bread. Or taking the vote away from women or reintroducing slavery. Anyone who thinks that we should is now seen as immoral.

I think the line on the Morality Graph is slowly moving upwards. Yes, if you zoom in then you'll see that it's not a smooth line by any means. But stand back and I can't see it's anything but heading upwards.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

When I evaluate a choice, I evaluate that choice against my experiences. I evaluate that against my experience of the person it's going to affect. (Because if it doesn't affect someone, it may be a choice but it is not a moral one.) What is this but subjective?

"I evaluate, I evaluate, I evaluate, my experience" Yes, it is subjective unless you are yourself to be the omniscient arbiter of truth. Then it is absolutely subjective. Now God on the other hand...

 

[Bradskii]

I think Heinlein would say, If it's not good (i.e., tending to the survival of the group), then it is bad because it's always a resource cost to the group.

I wouldn't go that far. Neutral or amoral acts would then be described as bad.