• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is morality objective, even without God?

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.

Objective how?

Mathematics is a language.



It's true independent of our opinions about it.

Difficult to know what you mean by true here.


And I can see how it could be argued that morality is exactly the same.

I can see the argument as well.



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.

Ok.


Perhaps the same is true with morality.

Or perhaps not.



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.

Argument of complexity.

I like to call these esoteric knowledge gambits.



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.

Is there a proof that can in any way demonstrate slavery is indeed immoral?

Because the underlying logic of Mathematics is demonstrated through mathematical proofs.


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.

Would that be a problem?


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.

I think that it’s difficult for most people to both understand and accept that truth may be entirely unsatisfactory to them. It exists independently of them, and as such, has absolutely no regard for their emotional satisfaction.

With that in mind, we can describe certain truths as "ugly" or "unsatisfactory" truths.....and other truths may be considered even dangerous to know.

It's entirely possible (since we aren't proving anything) that the truth of morality is in fact a dangerous one....so the satisfying lie that it is objectively true is a far more preferable lie in general.


Few things more pretentious than a philosopher of morality.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
"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. A collection of such invalid morals might even lead to the destruction of the group...which was the ultimate immorality.

He also tied morality to personal responsibility, saying that moral people take ownership of their actions and work to strengthen their communities. This view reflects his libertarian streak, emphasizing individual freedom balanced with social responsibility. Morality, to him, was a tool for navigating the balance between personal desires and the needs of the group.

Heinlein....all morality is animal morality. That's not very coherent. At least it's grounded in something though.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
But what if there's a meta-ethic that supersedes all other meta-ethics?

What if there's meta-nothing? And your mind is just holding space for an emotionally satisfying answer so you can continue to reject an ugly truth?



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.

Does self referential mean "circular claim" in this example?



That there's such a thing as desirable outcomes.

That's a result of desires, outcomes, and the possibility of undesirable outcomes.



It's a moral concept that supersedes all other moral concepts,

Well that's a claim that you've tried to hide through categorical definition.


and without which all attempts to construct any subsequent meta-ethics will fail.

I'm pretty sure I can construct an ethic...it's unclear what fail means in this context. Fail to what?



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

Why would we assume this?



if only because all other forms of ethical systems will fail. It becomes objectively true by default.

True by default lol.



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.

Well at least we've pinned down the categories. Good and bad....things.



Perhaps all complex systems... be they physics, or math, or morality have just such an underlying truth

Perhaps morality isn't complex but it's very nature obscures attempts at understanding.


that certain things must be true, because all other attempts at constructing a coherent system will fail without them.

The coherence of a system is not the end all of truth.

We believe we know things that are generally incomplete and incoherent.

This includes mathematics.

And perhaps someone could refer to this set of underlying truths as God.

Well what can't be god then?



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.

It doesn't seem morality is present in pure isolation. I would have to submit that god would also likewise disappear once alone.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.

I like to imagine that the trolley problem was the boulder problem before trolleys were invented.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If God is God, at least as I suppose him —the ONLY Self-Existent Omnipotent—(yes I know that is triply redundant. I can add some more upon request! :D )— then he is not subject to anything from outside of himself.

This is a logical argument claiming God is not bound by logic.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Since I'm still up and having fun, I'll try to field this (but answering from my POV—I can't answer for @Bradskii ). And I only mean to deal directly with the phrase, "You can't get a moral conclusion from a factual premise". I would agree with that assessment, except for in one case. If God exists, it is a factual premise from which moral conclusions can be drawn. Now, I'm not sure what YOU, or Bradskii, would mean by 'a moral conclusion', so.... oh well, it was logical.

I don't see why anyone would be unable to draw a moral conclusion from a factual premise. What I do think is that no one can prove their moral conclusion factually correct by any means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

"Synthesis:​

  • While there are valid arguments on both sides, a nuanced perspective might acknowledge that morality has both objective and subjective aspects. Objective morality could refer to universal moral principles, such as the inherent value of human life or the importance of justice, which transcend cultural and historical variations. Subjective morality, on the other hand, would encompass the specific applications and interpretations of these principles within different societies and cultures.
  • Ultimately, the question of whether morality is objective or subjective may depend on how one defines “objectivity.” If objectivity requires absolute, universal agreement, then morality might be considered subjective. However, if objectivity implies a foundation or standard that transcends individual opinions and cultural variations, then morality can be seen as having both objective and subjective components."

I don't think we can ground one completely abstract idea upon another completely abstract idea....especially when the grounding appears to be a result of the abstraction we're grounding it upon. Justice results from morality....not the other way around.

Regardless, if it must be grounded, anchored to something apart from our own subjective values....even Heinlein's survival grounding is more objectively real than some other subjective abstraction like Justice.

For example (if you're having trouble following) that Luigi guy who murdered the CEO acted either good or bad and which you believe will determine whether his legal judgment seems just or injust.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Do you fall for the notion that Schrodinger's cat IS INDEED both alive and dead?

Fall for the notion? It's a thought experiment to explain the problems of quantum mechanics. The notion that both outcomes are true until the box is opened is essentially a metaphor for the problems of describing physics at the quantum level.

It's not a thing to fall for....the problem is a lack of logical language to describe reality at a very small degree of observation.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
24,684
5,556
46
Oregon
✟1,097,315.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
I think the word "objective" when it comes to morality means neutral or just or fair judgement in all and every single case or in all circumstances or beliefs. To cover all cases this way means that it probably all has to be written down or fully spelled out 100%, 100% accurately in writing. Which could be a lot, or would be a very, very long book, or writing, to cover all and every single case, or every single exception to the normal rules in any or all cases, etc, 100% fairly and accurately and truly justly, etc. It is my belief that most exceptions to the normal rules would be in the minority, and that there are some rules that could work most of the time for the majority, etc, and that those could be short, or simple, but not at all short or simple with all that would need to be considered/taken into account to bring true justice to the minority, etc. But in this I am talking about the difference between those who are considered guilty, and those who might be considered 100% innocent, or would get off scott free, etc.

Because even with the guilty, then there still also probably needs to be consequences in a matter of degrees, and even in the majority of cases in which one might be considered guilty, that would mean considering most or all of the circumstances, which would add even a lot more words to the written down rules or writing in addition to how already long or big that book would be in describing every single individual case in which someone would or will be considered completely innocent of the crime, or would get off scott free for the crime, etc.

God Bless.

IOW's, true justice or judgment needs to include all of the when, where, what, how, and why's of all and everything always, etc, and when/what/how/where, etc, one should draw a line, etc. And only an always all-knowing God, or God-like being, who always has always/always does know "all" and everything always, etc, can decide/calculate/do all of this 100% truly accurately always, or 100% fairly or 100% truly justly always, etc. I don't think the world could handle or contain trying to write it all down or out in all it's full details fully, or in it's full/whole entirety fully, etc.

God Bless.
In addition to these (or in addition to what I have already said/stated/posted in addition to these two posts above) one also has to consider that day, or those days and ages in that period of time as well, as this also (in addition to what I already said above) also needs to be included in any kind of determination of morality as well, or needs to be included in any kind of determination of whether one is deemed guilty or innocent, or needs to face a varying degree of consequences/punishments for certain so-called crimes as well, etc, in addition to what I have already said or stated (above) that needs to be included in this overall determination as well, etc.

Because if you mean objective morality apart from any of this, or any human beings input at all, then I'm not sure if such a thing exists in or on the subject of morality or not, etc, or in determining if someone is either guilty or innocent of any quote/unquote "crimes" or not, or needs to face a varying degree of consequences/punishment(s) for certain quote/unquote "crimes" or not, as well, etc.

For any kind of, in this case "morality", to even exist or not, it always has to be within a context of, in this case what other human beings are or have made or not, or it might not even exist or not, etc. But that does not mean that we cannot say what some human beings are, or do, or have done, is not either right or wrong, or else good or bad or not, etc. It's just that that is most of the time determined by your peers, or when/where, or in what situation or circumstance, you are or were living in, or are/were existing in, at the time, etc.

The other things that would need to be considered in that calculation, or whatever, are listed in the two posts I just now quoted/listed above, etc.

Judgment is a complex calculation that is not at all simple at all, etc. Not if you want it to be 100% truly just, or 100% perfect for any and all cases/situations/circumstances that goes all the way down to the level of each and every single individual anyway, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No, not "we", just atheists have no way of knowing.

Fair enough. I guess that depends upon what you mean by "knowing."


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

How? Specifically, how does this authority inform you? Do you hear voices? What's the form of communication?

Sorry to get specific but as an atheist....I don't have any gods talking to me so I'm genuinely curious about what it's like.


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

Well that's another person then....between you and God. Unless you're claiming that God writes novels. Doesn't seem to be the same as getting the dirt from the ground.

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

The infallibility of your teachers? Who are these infallible teachers?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If I describe "cat" you know cat. You describe it and name it
Jung noted that if I describe God, you know God. You describe it and name it.
It exists independent on any cultural or educational teaching.

I actually don't know God upon serious consideration.

I know you're describing something which you will eventually speak of as unknowable or incomprehensible in some way if I dig hard enough.

I'd prefer you not chastising those of us who admit not comprehending what you ultimately believe incomprehensible.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Okay. :)
Well, what I generally point to is the fact that if you see a building, you assume it must have a builder(s) and an architect.

Builders and architect....got it.

The same applies to creation, which is more complex, in just one part, than any building.

Ok...samey same.


But then someone will argue for Polytheism. But the universe works in way to much of a perfect rhythm to be created by multiple powers. Just as no fine piece of machinery is created by two inventors who are rivals.

Wait a second....

You said builders and architect. That's not 1. That's more than one. I'm not Frank Loyd Wright but I'm pretty sure he wasn't laying his own foundations and hanging his own drywall. Also, the fine piece of machinery you're speaking with was made by a ton of people. And what exactly is perfect about this universe exactly? There's a ton a dead space between stars....that's awfully inconvenient considering how crowded it's getting. Aren't you supposed to be full of sin? The universe is perfect but you're basically a big mistake? Is that how this works?

There's a lot wrong with this argument so far.



This moves us to the question: which single God created the universe? There can be but one.

So just the architect....ignore all the stuff you said before.....got it.


Well, firstly, for this being to exist, he must be perfectly self sufficient, or else he cannot exist as the supreme being because he relies on something outside Himself.

It's unclear why he wants your devotion or worship then. He seems rather dependent upon it. So much so that he made a rule or two about it.

Is that all unnecessary?


We can't have Polytheism, we can't have non-trinitarian mono-theism. That leaves only the God of the Bible.

Just give me a simple answer....do you have 3 gods or 1.

Someone insisted God is above logic so if you believe that then I guess you don't have to answer....but please stop with the attempted explanation if that's the case.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Being that I've been influenced by various camps of Realism, my opinion of the ontological status of mental constructs lean in that direction rather than toward Anti-Realism. As a case in point: If we lived during the early 16th century and had to make the attempt to determine if Copernicus' fledgling ideas about the falsity of geo-centrism were "true," could we say that Michael DummEtt's anti-realist view holds up since truth and knowledge are dependence upon both human rational capabilities and human experience ............ as lived progressively in time?

This dandy little vid about Copernicus is a case in point where evidence is to be grappled with, even when it is indirect and incomplete....

Did the Church Actually Hate Copernicus? | Adam Ruins Everything​

So, for the "ontological status of mental constructs," whether they can be proved TODAY as either p or not-p isn't what the concepts of truth and knowledge should be conceptually defined by in sheer terms. There is also the fact of the 'other' as Reality (with a capital R), with Reality being the Universe as it is and requiring our studious and patient study to discover whatever aspects of that totality there are to discover and know from a human point of view.

I would then apply this to our parallel philosophical studiousness in ETHICS.

This is another one of those philosophical arguments I despise. It tries very hard at something I see no consequence in. Pick a side, it won't matter in regards to your life in any meaningful way.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter what anyone believes about the objectivity status of their morals because they want to imagine themselves good....not merely desireous of being perceived as good by others. We could say that your objective morals are the ones you're willing to hold at the peril of your life in the face of hatred and judgement of all others....and isn't that what most of the saints did anyway?

I don't think it's asking much to ground them upon something real if objective. Let's not abstract upon abstractions, call it objective so we can feel good because the first time our morals meet reality is upon the judgement of others.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,037
22,660
US
✟1,721,942.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Heinlein....all morality is animal morality. That's not very coherent. At least it's grounded in something though.
We may have a different understanding of the work "coherent." And IMO being "grounded in something" would aid coherency. Heinlein introduces an essentially Utilitarian ethic with the "end good" being "we survive as a species."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,579
11,473
Space Mountain!
✟1,355,216.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is another one of those philosophical arguments I despise. It tries very hard at something I see no consequence in. Pick a side, it won't matter in regards to your life in any meaningful way.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter what anyone believes about the objectivity status of their morals because they want to imagine themselves good....not merely desireous of being perceived as good by others. We could say that your objective morals are the ones you're willing to hold at the peril of your life in the face of hatred and judgement of all others....and isn't that what most of the saints did anyway?

I don't think it's asking much to ground them upon something real if objective. Let's not abstract upon abstractions, call it objective so we can feel good because the first time our morals meet reality is upon the judgement of others.

Whose "philosophical argument" are you referring to specifically here, Ana. Mine? Or Dummett's? I almost get the feeling that I'm either misunderstanding your comments, or that perhaps you're misunderstanding mine.

I'm asking because in my previous post, I didn't make an argument about, or even for, my own moral point of view. Rather, I criticized that of any anti-realists like Dummett.................because I despise anti-realists ideas of all kinds. I also despise the musings of hardcore advocates of Marx or Nietszche, or of any others similar to them (like those of Hugh Hefner or Bob Guccione). In fact, I see those ideas as expressing and promoting corruptive elements within the World and within our nation.

But whatever the failings of the anti-realists or nihilists may be, let's put those to the side for a moment so I can make a confession: For me, my choice of ethics isn't about making myself look good or even to somehow imagine myself as 'good.' I'm a Realist; and I'm a sinner. I'm probably even a hypocrite occasionally, and I know for sure that I'm not abstractly a sinner. No, unfortunately, I've been an objectively identifiable sinner, and what's more, I think I have an objective idea about 'why' I sin, with that idea being gleaned from the Bible and from my educated observation of the corrupt world we live in-------------------------------that I live in.

So, you won't see me trying to imagine I'm "good." However, you may see me, from time to time, stating that I wish I could be a better person more easily than I am often able to maintain.

But whatever my moral failings or successes are, and being the 'good philosopher' I strive to be, I will also critically rip apart other people's ethical and moral point's of view when I see those people relying upon fallacious reasoning, or when they initiate an attack upon my point of view beyond what I regard to be reasonable bounds, and I won't blink when doing so................just like they don't blink when critically evaluating the morality of the Old Testament contents or of what they think is my alleged "moral subjectivity."

And I'll do this because, metaphorically speaking, I recognize that the my world of morality isn't flat or that the sun revolves around it.

There's a reason that in any of my 'protesting' I may do, I begin by siding with Copernicus and not with Luther.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,579
11,473
Space Mountain!
✟1,355,216.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is another one of those philosophical arguments I despise. It tries very hard at something I see no consequence in. Pick a side, it won't matter in regards to your life in any meaningful way.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter what anyone believes about the objectivity status of their morals because they want to imagine themselves good....not merely desireous of being perceived as good by others. We could say that your objective morals are the ones you're willing to hold at the peril of your life in the face of hatred and judgement of all others....and isn't that what most of the saints did anyway?

I don't think it's asking much to ground them upon something real if objective. Let's not abstract upon abstractions, call it objective so we can feel good because the first time our morals meet reality is upon the judgement of others.

.... secondly, Jesus of Nazareth is an objective rather than an abstract 'idea' upon which to ground my .... **cough**... attempts at being moral.

So, being that it's Christmas and all, I'm giving this bit of info to you as a gift. Besides, it's time for you to take the plunge and become a Christian, Ana. ;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,136
574
Private
✟125,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Fair enough. I guess that depends upon what you mean by "knowing."
In the context of this thread, acquiring moral knowledge is a process. At the start of this process, the objective knowledge of what is good or bad is external, ie., objective. While the source of that knowledge remains external, over time with one's assent that knowledge becomes internal, ie., subjective.

My parents and other teachers transmitted and entrusted to me the framework of our two thousand-year old Catholic Christian heritage. The “entrust” component implies, I think, a covenant I have with my ancestry. The covenant requires me, in the course of my lifetime, to internalize the teaching about morality, make it my own, but altering it only if I must.

If I alter the teaching that I pass on to my posterity, I believe the covenant requires that the truth of my alterations be to me beyond a shadow of doubt.
Well that's another person then....between you and God. Unless you're claiming that God writes novels. Doesn't seem to be the same as getting the dirt from the ground. The infallibility of your teachers? Who are these infallible teachers?
Christians believe God did write a novel. All translations of that novel, that we call Scripture, are interpretations. Catholics further believe that the teaching authority of our Magisterium cannot err in its interpretations.
 
Upvote 0

Jerry N.

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2024
654
232
Brzostek
✟38,508.00
Country
Poland
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
It is a bit off topic, but my wife is very submissive. I make all the important decisions: What to do in case of nuclear war, how to deal with the increase speed of the expansion of the universe, and considerations on the fluctuations on the stock market. She decides the rest.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
24,684
5,556
46
Oregon
✟1,097,315.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
It is a bit off topic, but my wife is very submissive. I make all the important decisions: What to do in case of nuclear war, how to deal with the increase speed of the expansion of the universe, and considerations on the fluctuations on the stock market. She decides the rest.
I don't know what to say to that, lol.

God Bless.
 
Upvote 0