Is morality objective, even without God?

[.Mikha'el.]

No, morality is not objective. One person's evil deeds is another's reasonable behavior.

 

[Bradskii]

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?

No, maths is objective, period. The answer to two plus two doesn't depend on my personal interpretation of arithmetic (assuming that I've been told which base I'm working to). It's objectively true. But simply using the word objective in a sentence doesn't make the subject matter one of morality. Maths has no relevance to morality. If I decide to drop my pen onto the table that doesn't make gravity relative and it has nothing to do with morality either.

Singer no doubt recognizes that moral judgments involve moral decisions.

So you're saying that his judgement is the deciding factor? That his decision is what determines the morality of whatever act he performs as he sees it? Yes, you bet that it involves judgement. You better believe it involves decisions.

That doesn't make morality non-objective.

If Singer's judgement, if his decision is what he will use to determine what is morally correct, then yes, it is.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

It seems that we're on the same page there.

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.

Then why do we get God working in different ways within different people? It may be that every single act that you do that involves morality is determined by God as objectively moral or objectively immoral. But we can never know that. So to say that morality is objective is meaningless. We have to make our own judgements on moral matters.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, morality is not objective. One person's evil deeds is another's reasonable behavior.

So, truth is the in the purview of mere humans? The way we see it is all there is...?

 

[.Mikha'el.]

So, truth is the in the purview of mere humans? The way we see it is all there is...?

The second you try to inject faith into the discussion, any notion of objectivity can be flushed down the toilet.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It seems that we're on the same page there.

Then why do we get God working in different ways within different people? It may be that every single act that you do can that involves morality is determined by God as objectively moral or objectively immoral. But we can never know that. So to say that morality is objective is meaningless. We have to make our own judgements on moral matters.

This descends into the realm of free will vs predeterminism/causation. That we decide isn't in doubt. What we decide, however, is caused. If God exists, morality isn't all that is at play here, but purpose. This is not a testing ground, so much as a construction site. And every room is different. What we are is what God has in mind concerning us. IF God is omnipotent creator, what we are is in HIS mind —not in ours.

Moral responsibility is about choices and mindset —not about outcomes (not at all to say that we are not wrong to neglect to consider outcomes, but that in the end, the outcomes happen by all causes, and not just by our choices). IF God is God —omnipotent, self-existent— then whatever it is that he had in mind when he caused all else to come to pass, will happen. And that, of course, by use of every fact, to include at least art, sin, goodness, all metaphysics and physics, thought and purpose and principle, and, of course, right choices and wrong, and the reasons behind them.

To me it is almost funny that objective morality will measure us, but that judgement is not the purpose for this temporal passage. It is beyond severe, but still not the point of creation. IF God is God, the safest place to be is at the mercy of God, but I digress.

Yes, we must make our own judgements on moral matters, and that, subjectively, but we do have some pretty strong indicators as to the objective facts. As, I think, Mark Twain said, something like, "The problem I find is not to know what is the right thing to do, but to do it."

 

[Mark Quayle]

The second you try to inject faith into the discussion, any notion of objectivity can be flushed down the toilet.

Is that just a reprimand, or is there some relevance to what I said?

It is, to me not a statement concerning faith, but a point in fact that should be agreed by the secular, too. What in the world it is that makes us think that WE are the purveyors of truth? We might be smart, but we are just passengers on this bus too.

Is something fact only because WE notice it? Do you suppose that if 'nobody' (whoever THAT is!) is there when the proverbial tree falls in the forest, that it doesn't make a sound? Do you fall for the notion that Schrodinger's cat IS INDEED both alive and dead? I saw the enormous headline a few years back, "Because of Recent Scientific Discoveries, Lightning Can Now Have Up To a Million Volts!"

 

[Jerry N.]

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.

Thank you very much. The problem could be my mouse. I tried the delete function, and it worked fine.

 

[Jerry N.]

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.

I put “hierarchy” in quotes, because I am not sure what the proper word might be. The context is choosing the lesser of two evils. Do you lie or try to save a life? However, it becomes foggy when one is selfishly trying to avoid one’s own trouble, or if somebody is trying to protect somebody’s feelings. For example, “I didn’t see the red light,” and “Honey, that dress doesn’t make you look fat.” I’ve gotten it wrong on both counts. The other case I have gotten wrong is with older people with senility. I have lied to protect their feelings, and it came back and bit me. I might be wrong, but it demonstrates the overlap of ethics and morals.

 

[Jerry N.]

Is that just a reprimand, or is there some relevance to what I said?

It is, to me not a statement concerning faith, but a point in fact that should be agreed by the secular, too. What in the world it is that makes us think that WE are the purveyors of truth? We might be smart, but we are just passengers on this bus too.

Is something fact only because WE notice it? Do you suppose that if 'nobody' (whoever THAT is!) is there when the proverbial tree falls in the forest, that it doesn't make a sound? Do you fall for the notion that Schrodinger's cat IS INDEED both alive and dead? I saw the enormous headline a few years back, "Because of Recent Scientific Discoveries, Lightning Can Now Have Up To a Million Volts!"

Fact and truth are not relative, but we have to operate with insufficient knowledge. We call something true, because we think it is true and act accordingly. I believe that Christ saved my soul, but it has to be based on faith. If there is no doubt, then there is no faith. However, is it faith that tells me the chair won’t break when I sit on it? Is the stability of the chair objective truth? Where is the line?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes. Even if we accept that God has knowledge of absolute morality and knows what we should all do in all circumstances for...some good as He has decided is the relevant factor, then we have no idea what all that should entail at every moral point we encounter. So it becomes a subjective decision. It can't be anything other than that.

So it does seem to me to be a waste of time saying that objective morality exists if we have no way of knowing what it is.

Just for the record, I don't think I'm the one who has been claiming that morality is 'objective.' No, I only suggest that morality as we know it is a diverse competition for absolute moral claims among 8 billion subjects. Some of us in that number think "God/Jesus" has the answers.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's why we have laws.

You've missed my point then. No one should be expected to conform to that which we all disagree about where both Ethics and morality are concerned, laws or no laws.

Now, as luck has it, the Christian Church is telling me, via Jesus' commands, to show general fealty and obedience to the common law of the land, within certain limits. So, I'm obliged to mostly obey as a Christian, even when I'd rather ignore what I'm being told to do.

I know one thing---I'm not going to be a sycophant for socialism.

 

[o_mlly]

So we have no way of knowing what an objectively correct act should be.

No, not "we", just atheists have no way of knowing.

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.

And I have such an omniscient authority that informs me, atheists do not.

And you will defer to your authority. Or, to be more specific, to your interpretation of what you believe your authority demands.

Not quite. I defer to Sacred Scripture, the Magisterium, and Tradition's interpretation, not my own.

And, as you say, there is disagreement within your own community.

Again, no. Those who give assent to the authority of the infallibility of our teachers do not disagree.

 

[BCP1928]

No, not "we", just atheists have no way of knowing.

And I have such an omniscient authority that informs me, atheists do not.

Not quite. I defer to Sacred Scripture, the Magisterium, and Tradition's interpretation, not my own.

Again, no. Those who give assent to the authority of the infallibility of our teachers do not disagree.

The difficulty with most arguments like that for objective morality is that they are basically self-serving.

See post #17:

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.

The argument generally asserts that an atheist has no basis for judging things like murder and stealing to be immoral because his moral opinions are based on nothing but personal opinion. The additional moral precepts of step two generally spring from a desire to control culturally derived sexual behavior or are a blatant attempt to gain political advantage.

 

[Jerry N.]

The difficulty with most arguments like that for objective morality is that they are basically self-serving.

See post #17:

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.

The argument generally asserts that an atheist has no basis for judging things like murder and stealing to be immoral because his moral opinions are based on nothing but personal opinion. The additional moral precepts of step two generally spring from a desire to control culturally derived sexual behavior or are a blatant attempt to gain political advantage.

One of the basic concepts put forth by St. Augustine and restated by C.S. Lewis is that we have a conscience, and that comes from God. I believe this, but it doesn’t change the fact that an atheist also has a conscience. It is above and beyond personal opinion, and it may have been the foundation of Singer’s thought. So, unless an atheist was born without a conscience or has destroyed it, murder and stealing would still be considered immoral.

 

[partinobodycular]

However, is it faith that tells me the chair won’t break when I sit on it?

To understand the difference between having faith in God and having faith that the chair won't break when you sit on it, all that you need to do is ask the believer in God whether it's possible that God doesn't exist. Almost universally they'll say no. But ask an atheist if it's possible that the chair will break when they sit on it, the answer is almost universally yes. One answer is rational, the other one isn't. That's why one is faith and the other one isn't.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Fact and truth are not relative, but we have to operate with insufficient knowledge. We call something true, because we think it is true and act accordingly. I believe that Christ saved my soul, but it has to be based on faith. If there is no doubt, then there is no faith. However, is it faith that tells me the chair won’t break when I sit on it? Is the stability of the chair objective truth? Where is the line?

Interesting question. Fun merry-go-round of thought.

Yes, we are ignorant, but we manage. "True", by the way, is not assumed —or, it should not be assumed— to be the same as "truth". (It only 'heads that direction', toward truth. When one's aim is true, the deer is still standing.)

Not that 'faith the floor will be there when I swing my legs off the bed' is the same sort of thing as 'faith that my soul belongs to Christ' —it isn't— but the faith in something empirically 'proven' to us is based only on what WE have experienced —subjectively observed. If my chair becomes wobbly, my faith in it becomes wobbly.

To me it is interesting that there are two different sorts of faith. One is based on empiricism or at least experience, and treated as though it is based on objective fact. The other is based on objective fact and feels subjective as all get out! We even make the mistake of supposing it to be OUR effort of will to believe.

But, regardless, truth is objective, even if we don't see it, and morality (moral standard) is based on God, or it remains subjective, being of OUR derivation and practice. There may be true things to say about it, even axioms, but they are not THE truth, apart from God.

 

[Jerry N.]

To understand the difference between having faith in God and having faith that the chair won't break when you sit on it, all that you need to do is ask the believer in God whether it's possible that God doesn't exist. Almost universally they'll say no. But ask an atheist if it's possible that the chair will break when they sit on it, the answer is almost universally yes. One answer is rational, the other one isn't. That's why one is faith and the other one isn't.

The assumption to your argument is that I can calculate the properties of the chair using science, but I can’t “calculate” the existence of God using science. Therefore, whatever is outside of science is not rational. The world contains much more than science can explain, but rational choices are made. To marry the one you love is very rational. To sacrifice yourself for your child is rational. Not all rational decisions are based on science. It is the object of faith that makes the difference.

 

[Jerry N.]

Interesting question. Fun merry-go-round of thought.

Yes, we are ignorant, but we manage. "True", by the way, is not assumed —or, it should not be assumed— to be the same as "truth". (It only 'heads that direction', toward truth. When one's aim is true, the deer is still standing.)

Not that 'faith the floor will be there when I swing my legs off the bed' is the same sort of thing as 'faith that my soul belongs to Christ' —it isn't— but the faith in something empirically 'proven' to us is based only on what WE have experienced —subjectively observed. If my chair becomes wobbly, my faith in it becomes wobbly.

To me it is interesting that there are two different sorts of faith. One is based on empiricism or at least experience, and treated as though it is based on objective fact. The other is based on objective fact and feels subjective as all get out! We even make the mistake of supposing it to be OUR effort of will to believe.

But, regardless, truth is objective, even if we don't see it, and morality (moral standard) is based on God, or it remains subjective, being of OUR derivation and practice. There may be true things to say about it, even axioms, but they are not THE truth, apart from God.

I agree, and it is well written.

 

[partinobodycular]

The assumption to your argument is that I can calculate the properties of the chair using science, but I can’t “calculate” the existence of God using science.

No, it's about epistemology... specifically being honest about the things that you can know, and the things that you can't. The existence of God is something that you can't know, that's why it's called faith, but theists are almost universally unwilling to admit that.