Is morality objective, even without God?

[RDKirk]

Shouldn't that depend on what "honor" means, there? I honor my mother and father many ways, and I attempt to never dishonor them. But I don't, for example, agree with them on several things, and both of them had foibles that I hardly even respect, but I try to avoid talking about whatever might be dishonorable to them, and only if it serves some purpose besides scorn, do I reference an attitude or pov they had that I don't agree with.

So, let's say, Mom was one who, among other things, thought one of the duties of a Christian was to "figure out God's will for your life, and to pursue it to fulfill it." The only place, off the top of my head, where I see a statement in Scripture that could be taken to mean that is Eph 5:17, "Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is." In most the situations I have seen, even attempting it is damaging and stressful, and borders on divination which is worse than superstition. I can't begin to know how many people have taken a wrong turn in life because they thought that was where the Lord was leading them. I'm one of them.

I don't respect that, but I honor her, and believe her to be sincere in it, no matter how misguided. Further, I admit I could be wrong about it.

Jesus made "honor your father and mother" a matter of financially supporting them in their old age (Matthew 15:3-6 and Mark 7:10-13). The Pharisees were using religious traditions to avoid their responsibility, which contradicted God's command. Jesus underscores the practical and moral implications of honoring parents, showing that true obedience to God's law involves tangible actions, including financial support when needed. This is not to say that "honor" doesn't include abject obedience, but certainly that it is broader than obedience.

 

[RDKirk]

Under that premise, one could always claim their acts to be moral. For instance, one who claims "genetically" to be promiscuous excuses himself/herself of moral responsibility to control their immoral appetites.

Christians explain the dichotomy of what we are, from that which we ought to be as a consequence of the Original Sin. Through Christ's life, death and resurrection, we now have the graces necessary to be what we ought to be.

The Stoics, however, also arrived at a similar conclusion without being Christian. We can say that they were merely accommodating the natural law that the Holy Spirit made apparent in creation. But it remains true that they got there without explicitly hearing the Gospel.

 

[o_mlly]

Don't they do that anyway? And wouldn't God be willing to allow the unjust to go unpunished rather than wrongly punish the just?

One of the requirements to belong to my faith tradition is to openly admit one is a sinner and totally dependent on God's mercy. So, no ... not everyone tries to rationalize their immoral behaviors.

I don't know the will of God, save that which He has revealed, knowing that what He has revealed is sufficient for me to obtain my salvation. As we are all unjust at one time or another, God does not will to punish the unjust, rather He wills all men come to salvation. The unrepentant unjust punish themselves, both in this life and the next.

 

[o_mlly]

The Stoics, however, also arrived at a similar conclusion without being Christian. We can say that they were merely accommodating the natural law that the Holy Spirit made apparent in creation. But it remains true that they got there without explicitly hearing the Gospel.

God is great! He even talks (natural law) to those who do not believe in Him.

 

[Bradskii]

Do you mean that Harris subjectively declares that some acts are always objectively wrong? Do you see the internal contradiction in his claim?

Yes. I don't agree with him either. He conflates objectives facts with moral actions.

And Harris is not, nor am I, or you, or anyone else.

So we have no way of knowing what an objectively correct act should be. It's always our subjective opinion. Even the specific commands like 'Honour your father and mother' are surely context dependent. Otherwise what is the point of honouring someone who is evil? I can understand forgiveness. But to honour someone who abuses you on a daily basis\? It makes nonsense of the term.

Reason, according to Singer, is the common touchstone in his objective morality argument. But reason is a fallible faculty, so whose reason controls all others. The "Is morality objective?" argument then must always be an appeal to some authority, and that authority must transcend all humanity.

I agree that your reason can be fallible. So you might then say that you need that authority to determine what you should do. But as
we have agreed, we are not omniscient, so to repeat: we have no way of knowing what the objectively correct act should be. Notwithstanding that you have to agree with any specific commands you are given. Or are you going to suggest that you'll follow them even though you think they are wrong?

Atheists can only appeal to their god-authority, which is necessarily themselves. So, within their own community there is disagreement, and always will be, on the issue of morality.

And you will defer to your authority. Or, to be more specific, to your interpretation of what you believe your authority demands. And, as you say, there is disagreement within your own community. We're all in that same boat.

Only if she appears to the rapist to be malevolent, and has the nuclear codes according to your subjective morality, right?

That makes no sense. Can you try again and address the question more directly?

 

[Bradskii]

Shouldn't that depend on what "honor" means, there?

I can't go past the usual definition. To honour someone would be to show respect to that person and give them thanks for what they have done. How can you respect someone who treats you like a piece of meat?

 

[Bradskii]

There is also a "hierarchy" of ethics. For example, "Do you have Jews hiding in your house?" "No, SS officer."

A hierarchy of ethics? That's a new one on me. I take it to mean that divine commands such as 'Do not bear false witness' are context dependent.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't know why the post I reply to is sometimes copied twice. Is there a way to fix that?

I take it that you click the 'Reply' button in the post to which you want to respond. If you then start to type under the quoted post then it should appear like this. If there's a glitch somewhere and you get two then you can delete everything in the second and it will disappear.

 

[Bradskii]

This is just a basic misunderstanding of moral judgment. When do we have "all the details"? We never do, and you can always cook up some extraneous detail or exception to any moral rule. Even so, morality is based on general rules, and when we speak about a moral rule we are considering cases where that rule is applicable and there aren't countervailing "details."

That's my point. We don't have all the details so we just have to make a value judgement on the information that we have based on some general rules that we all mostly accept. So as per an example someone used above, 'Do not bear false witness' stands us in good stead most of the time, but is context dependent ('no, there's no-one hiding in the basement'). So in every case we are making a personal decision.

Just because there are exceptions to reducing agony does not mean that reducing agony is not a moral rule. And just because there are exceptions to the prohibition on killing does not mean that not killing is not a moral rule. Moral rules are generally applied ceteris paribus, not in an exceptionless way. This does not invalidate them as rules. Another example: the speed limit is a law, and just because the police officer does not ticket you when you are taking your pregnant wife to the hospital does not mean it is not a law.

Maybe there's some confusion about a law, or a command and a moral act. The command is 'do not lie'. Or 'do not exceed 40kph' (can we also say that 'reduce pain' is a law? I don't think so. It's more a suggestion. But anyway...). How we act in regard to those laws will vary depending on the context. And that is when we have to decide if our actions are morally acceptable or not. So barrelling down the road outside a school at 100kph is morally wrong. But bending the rules to get your wife to the hospital is not. And lying to blame someone else for a broken window is immoral, but lying to save the family in the basement is not.

It's how we interpret the law, or the command that takes us into the realm of morality.

If the rule is guiding our moral actions then surely it is a moral rule.

I tend to disagree. Morality surely only relates to what we do. To actions that we take. 'Do not lie' is simply a command. How we apply it will determine if our actions are moral or not. And in any case, if I were to accept what you said for the sake of argument then it is still blindingly obvious to me that it is, as I keep saying, context dependent. So we personally have to decide whether we obey it or not.

 

[RDKirk]

So we have no way of knowing what an objectively correct act should be. It's always our subjective opinion. Even the specific commands like 'Honour your father and mother' are surely context dependent. Otherwise what is the point of honouring someone who is evil? I can understand forgiveness. But to honour someone who abuses you on a daily basis\? It makes nonsense of the term.

Even within Christianity--by the very words of Jesus Himself--that is context-dependent. Christianity forms a new family context which separates the spiritual family from the genetic family.

But we see that in the Old Testament as well. Yes, there is command prohibiting "bearing false witness against thy neighbor." But I can use the Old Testament to argue that command is in the context of testimony to whom the truth is owed about whom the truth is owed (back into deontology again). We see "tactical deception" against enemies lauded in the Old Testament and even practiced by God Himself, and arguably in the New Testament even by Jesus.

 

[Aaron112]

For if there's a genetic predisposition to homosexuality then there may be times when homosexual behavior is indeed just

Post interrupted....... no no no, not ever.

People are predisposed to wickedness in many ways, desires, lusts, greed, and idolatry and witchcraft......
NEVER is that something just or right or righteous , but is cause for judgment.

 

[Sabertooth]

It does seem to me though that there are a lot of people running around frantically judging others according to the "short" answers.

A short answer would be, "This will hurt you."
A long answer would be, "Here is why it would hurt you..."

 

[partinobodycular]

Post interrupted....... no no no, not ever.

Unfortunately I would then have to conclude that your God isn't just, and I would find it difficult to accept Him as the source of morality.

But you're free to believe whatever you want to believe, you just won't find me following along.

 

[Bradskii]

Post interrupted....... no no no, not ever.

People are predisposed to wickedness in many ways, desires, lusts, greed, and idolatry and witchcraft......
NEVER is that something just or right or righteous , but is cause for judgment.

An immoral act causes harm. I just thought I'd remind you of that.

 

[Aaron112]

Unfortunately I would then have to conclude that your God isn't just, and I would find it difficult to accept Him as the source of morality.

But you're free to believe whatever you want to believe, you just won't find me following along.

That's standard - apart from and without Christ, the world definitely claims God Himself is wrong. They do not want to obey Him, nor to abide by His rules and regulations, and the law of life. They want to , and they remain, outside of salvation and continue their merry way to destruction along with everyone else they are able to take with them to darkness.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I can't go past the usual definition. To honour someone would be to show respect to that person and give them thanks for what they have done. How can you respect someone who treats you like a piece of meat?

Very difficult. Same goes for "children obey your parents", when the parents demand things clearly at odds with morality. (I have an answer but it really is irrelevant, as far as the point we are working on is concerned.)

(FWIW many things people quote out of context are used as the final word on the matter, when they were not given as the final word on the matter. Throughout Scripture, common sense and consideration of more than just the one statement is the way people thought back then. (Ha! And even that is not completely true!)

 

[zippy2006]

So we personally have to decide whether we obey it or not.

You've fallen back into your old rut here. It's all you seem to want to talk about. Our topic is Singer and the existence of objective moral norms. Obviously applying a moral norm requires a moral decision. This has little to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Bradskii]

You've fallen back into your old rut here. It's all you seem to want to talk about. Our topic is Singer and the existence of objective moral norms. Obviously applying a moral norm requires a moral decision. This has little to do with the topic at hand.

It's exactly the topic at hand. Because it's how us heathens reach moral decisions. We decide how our actions will affect others. We look at what might be determined to be acceptable behaviour in society (moral norms as you might describe them) and see if the general rule is applicable and if so, to what extent. So if each of us decide what we ought to do then our moral acts are not objective. By definition.

As regards 'moral norms' we might define those as actions that are normally expected within a particular society. There's no way that they can then be described as objective.

 

[zippy2006]

So if each of us decide what we ought to do then our moral acts are not objective. By definition.

So if each of the math students has to fill out their own test, does it follow that math is not objective? Is math only objective if the teacher comes around and fills out all of the tests herself?

Singer no doubt recognizes that moral judgments involve moral decisions. That doesn't make morality non-objective.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's exactly the topic at hand. Because it's how us heathens reach moral decisions. We decide how our actions will affect others. We look at what might be determined to be acceptable behaviour in society (moral norms as you might describe them) and see if the general rule is applicable and if so, to what extent. So if each of us decide what we ought to do then our moral acts are not objective. By definition.

As regards 'moral norms' we might define those as actions that are normally expected within a particular society. There's no way that they can then be described as objective.

Even for those of us who accept that morality is objective, (it being established by God and not by his creation), it is still subjectively decided on. On that I agree.

Funny thing is, it still remains objective, and there is reason for Christians to believe that, in spite of our angst and effort, it may even be applied objectively, since, "It is God who works in us, both to will and to do, according to his purposes." In spite of our will, we are caused to decide what we do. We really don't know very much.