Is morality objective, even without God?

[QvQ]

t was stated that 'God is the objective view'. Asking 'how do we know what that is?' is entirely relevant.

It is the idea of Justice.
In our legal system there are those three elements or views or positions
1) The subjective necessities (which Heinlein seems to believe rules the collective)
2) The situational parameters
3) Justice (God)

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

There is a fundamental concept in US Justice system which is stated as:
Compliance with the Law is voluntary
That assumes that for the vast majority of people what is "law" or "Just" or "right" will be something that dwells within and is known by man himself (written in your heart)

 

[Bradskii]

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;

It seems it is considered objective fact by many. But each of those holding that position has to personally decide what God wants in every conceivable circumstance. Do you torture the terrorist to save the city? To save one person? What degree can you torture him? Break all his bones? Slap him a few times? Send him to his room?

It's why we have the Trolley Problem. Not to solve any moral positions. But to show that everyone has different views on what is acceptable.

 

[Bradskii]

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

There is a fundamental concept in US Justice system which is stated as:
Compliance with the Law is voluntary

I'd agree. Nobody forces you to drive at the speed limit. You personally decide whether the rule is valid and then decide whether you are going to obey it.

That assumes that for the vast majority of people what is "law" or "Just" or "right" will be something that dwells within and is known by man himself (written in your heart)

But again, what I think is a valid 'law' or what I think is just will often not be the same as what you think. Agreeing on a matter doesn't make it objectively true. But not agreeing obviously makes it relative.

 

[Tinker Grey]

"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...

If God is evaluating something, then God is the subject of the sentence and hence its views are subjective.

 

[QvQ]

But again, what I think is a valid 'law' or what I think is just will often not be the same as what you think. Agreeing on a matter doesn't make it objectively true. But not agreeing obviously makes it relative.

Those are the first two positions
1) subjective necessity (speed limit)
2) situational parameters (corner)
I can take that next corner at 95. That old lady slows to 25.
3) However, there is the third position, Justice, which is either the resulting crash or the police officer with the radar gun.

Speed limits are merely suggestions. It is for every person to decide for themselves how fast to take that corner
However there is an element of Justice that deals the wreck if your subjective analysis of the situational parameters is incorrect.
That makes the Law, the speed limit objectively true.
That really is a 45 mile an hour corner.

 

[RDKirk]

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

No, we're not talking about acts, we're talking about moral rules. A rule that requires people to act a certain way is either good or it's bad.

 

[Bradskii]

Speed limits are merely suggestions.
That makes the Law, the speed limit objectively true.

That the speed limit is 40mph is objectively true. But who decides whether it's actually valid in all circumstances? Who decides if you are going to obey it? That'll be you.

God issued a commandment: Honour your mother and father. That (for the sake of argument) is objectively true. But who decides whether it's actually valid in all circumstances? Who decides if you are going to obey it? Again, that'll be you.

Nobody else makes these decisions. Same with the terrorist. Same with the Trolley Problem. In every single case without fail, it's you making the call.

 

[Bradskii]

No, we're not talking about acts, we're talking about moral rules. A rule that requires people to act a certain way is either good or it's bad.

Yes, in that case I'd agree. Because the moral acts (either do this or don't do that) are there, or have evolved, for the good of the society in which they are found.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

If God is evaluating something, then God is the subject of the sentence and hence its views are subjective.

If God is omniscient, omnibebevolent, and the author/creator of the universe, He is both the subject and the object of truth. Note, this answers Erythos dilemma.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If God is omniscient, omnibebevolent, and the author/creator of the universe, He is both the subject and the object of truth. Note, this answers Erythos dilemma.

It's Euthyphro. No, it doesn't answer the dilemma. All you've said is "God is God"; it's tautological and renders "God is good" meaningless.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

It's Euthyphro. No, it doesn't answer the dilemma. All you've said is "God is God"; it's tautological and renders "God is good" meaningless.

It is really quite simple. If God is truly omniscient, omnibenevolent, and the author/creator of the universe, then He would be both the author and declairor of what is both true and good. Otherwise, the best we can hope for is moral relevatism in which your standard of morality is completely subjective. The bottom line is this, morality cannot be absolute without an absolute moral law giver, like God. Otherwise, we must conclude that our standard for morality is measured by the subjective standard of the majority who then imposes that standard onto the minority. There is no middle ground. There is no alternative. If absolute/objective morality exists, God must also exist. Otherwise, we are all just making things up as we go.

 

[Tinker Grey]

There is no alternative. If absolute/objective morality exists, God must also exist. Otherwise, we are all just making things up as we go.

Yet no objective morality exists and we are, in fact, making things up as we go.

 

[zippy2006]

So where does objectivity come in unless it is simply objective facts about the world such as we would all try to avoid agony. He's then on the same page as Sam Harris. But morality based on objective facts does not equate to objective morality.

Why not?

 

[RDKirk]

Why not?

Because the response to the same objective fact is based on the beholder. What should be the moral response if we see a man abusing a woman on the street? Just that objective fact: What we see with our eyes at that moment. What should be our response? How would our response depend on the subjectivity of the individual contexts we build around the fact that we see? Why might a utilitarian have a different response from a hedonist or a deontologist?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Yet no objective morality exists and we are, in fact, making things up as we go.

That is a valid option if we are being honest. Even rape and murder could be subjectively wrong/right depending on the culture. Who are we to judge?

 

[zippy2006]

Because the response to the same objective fact is based on the beholder.

Singer gives an example of an objective moral norm, "Agony is a bad thing and it is good to reduce agony" (4:25). This is not something that one must interpret before acting. In itself it leads one to act in a particular way.

(As I recall, Harris' view is similarly prescriptive rather than merely descriptive.)

 

[RDKirk]

Singer gives an example of an objective moral norm, "Agony is a bad thing and it is good to reduce agony" (4:25). This is not something that one must interpret before acting. In itself it leads one to act in a particular way.

(As I recall, Harris' view is similarly prescriptive rather than merely descriptive.)

I think there are Catholics who would dispute that "agony is a bad thing" in all cases. And not just them...I've met people in the secular realm who would say there are contexts in which agony is appropriate.

Even if we were in agreement that agony should be reduced, people might have very different opinions of the response that should be taken in the presence of agony might still be very different.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That is a valid option if we are being honest. Even rape and murder could be subjectively wrong/right depending on the culture. Who are we to judge?

Who are we to judge? We are members of a society in which, if we are lucky, we have a voice. If morality is a corporate agreement, the idea that anything goes is false.

 

[RDKirk]

That is a valid option if we are being honest. Even rape and murder could be subjectively wrong/right depending on the culture. Who are we to judge?

Inasmuch as the concepts of both rape and murder are only overlapping sets and not identical sets from society to society (heck, even from state to state in the US), you're right.

 

[zippy2006]

I think there are Catholics who would dispute that "agony is a bad thing" in all cases.

So does Singer.

Even if we were in agreement that agony should be reduced, people might have very different opinions of the response that should be taken in the presence of agony might still be very different.

Sure, in which case we have a moral disagreement ensconced within a moral agreement. That is, a disagreement among moral realists. Even so, both parties still "act in a particular way" (namely, the way that is ceteris paribus contrary to agony).