Is morality objective, even without God?

[o_mlly]

Can't be knowledge of good and evil though...could it? How did Eve know temptation if she didn't know what good and bad was?

Natural law informs us. For example, before the age of reason, children often complain, "That's not fair!".

In the Genesis story, God tells both Adam and Eve that He forbids them eating the fruit from the tree.

It's a bit of a discrepancy. She knows she's not supposed to do something....which is bad....and does it anyway

The abuse of free will at work.

Keep that in mind because for the evil deed of knowing morality....they were cast out of paradise. As if they were intended to be ignorant animals all along....

Well, knowing what is evil is not evil per se. In the story, the knowledge of good and evil preceded the evil deed which they were told but did not believe, meant death for Adam and Eve.

God exists in eternity. In eternity, the past like the future is present to His mind. Knowing we would mess up His initial arrangement, He eternally intended that we would, if we freely willed to, join Him in eternity ... "In Scripture, to see is to possess.... Whoever sees God has obtained all the goods of which he can conceive (CCC#2548).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ahhh....see? Imagine yourself good.

It's really not imagination. It's just comparative analysis.

 

[Fervent]

I would suggest we mean something that exists independent of any subjective perspective. We may not know such things due to the limitations of our understanding, but to say anything at all is true in a sense that it can be considered factual and correct to the greatest degree we can demonstrate....we would have to agree on this starting point at least.

That's precisely my point, we don't have any reports of reality without a subjective experience. So while we may intuit the idea of a reality that is independent of all subjective experience, we don't know that one exists. And I'm not just talking about a radical skeptical position, I'm depending on physics because the reality of observer-dependent phenomenon. The only interpretations of quantum physics that doesn't introduce the subjective into the physical system are Von Neuman that has a transcendent observer and Many Worlds in which observers can't communicate with one another because every time a measurement is taken new worlds are created, so if an objective reality exists at all it is prior to the world we currently occupy. So our intuitions about objective and subjective may not be salient to reality as it exists.

An argument about truth without an objective reality that we agree exists becomes an unresolvable mess of pure speculation. If we cannot agree that something exists independent of ourselves.....then it's unclear what we really have to discuss at all.

The shared physical space need not be entirely subjectively independent, it only needs to be shared and internally consistent. Objective truth is not the only kind of truth, and while we may have very strong intuitions about the existence of an objective reality we can't set preconditions for what reality has to be based on what we can understand or want or intuit. We have to take reality as it presents itself to us and accomodate uncomfortable truths within our understanding of it. When we start talking about first order things the whole subjective-objective divide gets really blurry.

 

[Bradskii]

The question about objectivity in ethics doesn't center merely on whether or not everyone could decide whether or not Act X is good, but rather on the robustness of the reason(s) involved for WHY everyone may think that Act X is good. Or bad, or even evil.

I completely agree on giving reasons. Rather than a simplistic 'Do not do X', there should be reasons put forward why we shouldn't do X. And if I give you the bare bones 'Do not do X' then you will either follow it blindly, whether you think it's right or not, in which case I have personally decided it's wrong. Or, if I give you the reasons then you will decide if they are valid.

Either way, one of us is making a personal decision on whether it's right or wrong. So it cannot, by definition, be objective.

Fortunately for Christians, we have a Lord who breaks many of the moral deadlocks we may encounter have due to our seeming fickle human moral relativity. Sometimes, it's good to be overruled by a Higher Power and have our moral course lit up like a jet runway.

So do you follow the rules blindly or do you decide if the reasons given (if any, and they mostly are not given) are valid?

 

[Fervent]

I completely agree on giving reasons. Rather than a simplistic 'Do not do X', there should be reasons put forward why we shouldn't do X. And if I give you the bare bones 'Do not do X' then you will either follow it blindly, whether you think it's right or not, in which case I have personally decided it's wrong. Or, if I give you the reasons then you will decide if they are valid.

Either way, one of us is making a personal decision on whether it's right or wrong. So it cannot, by definition, be objective.



So do you follow the rules blindly or do you decide if the reasons given (if any, and they mostly are not given) are valid?

So why not change the language of morality to speak of it in relative terms like "preferential" or "agreeable" and keep terms like "good" at all if at bottom there is no truly good or evil action? If I decide it is good to eat chocolate ice cream all the time, how is that substantiially different from if I decide it is good to not murder somebody? Or if I decide you are evil for being an atheist and it would be good to kill you, how is that different from if I decide it would be good to grow pretty flowers? What makes one of those a moral issue and the other a non-moral issue?

 

[Bradskii]

So why not change the language of morality to speak of it in relative terms like "preferential" or "agreeable" and keep terms like "good" at all if at bottom there is no truly good or evil action?

Why do you think an action can't be described as good or bad? I can certainly do so. And guess who decides that. I'm assuming that you decide as well. Or do you need to be told?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'd say this is patently false, Ana. Objectivity, in a robust sense, needs to be not only grounded but actually recognizable on something much more than another single person's subjectivity.

I suppose the Bible and it's dictats fulfill that grounding for you.

But if all you're intending to say is that the Objectivity/Subjectivity distinction is conceptually blurry on 1st order levels, I'd agree.

Let's ignore 1st order levels. I'm starting with the axiomiatic concept that objective reality must exist independently of perception in order to say anything which one might begin to consider true.

I'm not saying anything can escape subjective perception and obtain objectivity.

I think you can probably accept that...and you should or else we'll never get to discuss morals lol.

Reality is reality, and other, regardless of what anyone thinks. Reality has a way of biting us on the rear when we think we're the ones in control of it.

I have no illusion of controlling reality whatsoever.

I'm not an evangelical, so I sweep anyone and everyone who engages me, regardless. I'm self assured like that.

Good to see you still confident long after they closed down apologetics here lol.

 

[Fervent]

Why do you think an action can't be described as good or bad? I can certainly do so. And guess who decides that. I'm assuming that you decide as well. Or do you need to be told?

I didn't just ask about describing something as good or bad, but what makes the difference between something that is morally good and something that is morally empty but good? Saying morality is relative is the same as saying it is arbitrary, so there can be no real reason one thing is good in a moral sense and another is good in a non-moral sense, and the only thing you are saying when you say something is good is that you have a personal preference for that thing.

 

[Bradskii]

I didn't just ask about describing something as good or bad, but what makes the difference between something that is morally good and something that is morally empty but good? Saying morality is relative is the same as saying it is arbitrary, so there can be no real reason one thing is good in a moral sense and another is good in a non-moral sense, and the only thing you are saying when you say something is good is that you have a personal preference for that thing.

If you state that something is good, have you made that decision yourself? Is it your personal opinion? Or did someone make the decision for you?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What's more, there is no subjectivity in how to safely (and morally) land an aircraft, nor is there utter subjectivity in much of anything real outside of a modern museum of art.

Well let's consider the runway bomb dive in Baghdad.

Redirect Notice

You'll note that the approach is a fairly dangerous steep dive with a twist.

I imagine that it's unlikely you would find that a "morally good" landing on a routine trip to Dallas from Denver.

Yet you probably agree that it is under the circumstances of Baghdad at the time.

Regardless of whatever you may be more comfortable with or find immoral, I'm certain that we can find disagreements.

Another instance that should be obvious to everyone is the prohibition against creating modes of germ warfare in a lab.

Are you saying that's good or bad?

But apparently, there are some political ideologies that dull the objective sense of morality and ethics that we human being should otherwise have and shar

I don't know what part the concept of communism would easily be described as immoral. The problem is that it's beyond the reach of mankind and our general nature. It's not unlike Christian morality in that sense.

So, I think we can drop this disinclination toward recognizing objectivity when it truly does manifest in the real world we find around us.

I don't know what you're hoping to claim here.

In the concept of communism....what specifically about the dogma is evil? The universal peace and respect of others? The equality of ownership? The utopian ideal of everyone putting the social group before themselves?

And before you tell me it's never played out that way, it always fails to reach those ideals....I'll just point out that I agree. The same can be said of a Christian hope to emulate the ideals set forth by Jesus or the 10 commandments. They will always fail as well.

 

[Fervent]

If you state that something is good, have you made that decision yourself? Is it your personal opinion? Or did someone make the decision for you?

Why are you deflecting? What makes one good moral and another non-moral? Surely when we say that something is moral we mean something stronger than that we favor it. We don't mildly disapprove of the holocaust, or believe that saying it was a great evil is an arbitrary opinion or personal preference. When we say something is morally wrong, we mean that globally and not just as a means of expressing personal disapproval.

 

[Bradskii]

Why are you deflecting?

I'm not. I decide if something is moral or not. Now I'll ask you again. If you state that something is morally good, have you made that decision yourself? Is it your personal opinion? Or did someone make the decision for you?

 

[Fervent]

I'm not. I decide if something is moral or not. Now I'll ask you again. If you state that something is morally good, have you made that decision yourself? Is it your personal opinion? Or did someone make the decision for you?

Someone else made the decision for me, God. If you truly believe that morality is only contingent on whether or not you have decided that it is moral or immoral, then why should your thoughts on morality matter to anyone but yourself? How can one reason be better than another for selecting between moral propositions if the sole factor in whether or not it is moral is your agreement that it is moral?

 

[Ben Leevey]

It's unclear what we get out of it.

We get to know Him, there is none more worth knowing!

 

[Ben Leevey]

We'll skip the second half of that since you seem to feel really strongly about the one god part.

Both are equally important.

Can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?

This is, as the well known Philosopher C.S. Lewis once said: "Nothing leading to Nothing." It's a logical oxymoron.

 

[Ben Leevey]

Your “Satan“ fits all criteria for a
god.

This is false because Satan is created, and depends on God all mighty for his existence.

And he is said to be in conflict
with another god.

No, rather he has rebelled against God almighty. Not another small g god.

 

[Astrid]

This is false because Satan is created, and depends on God all mighty for his existence.

No, rather he has rebelled against God almighty. Not another small g god.

I know it’s so important that it must be so, that
any explanation will do.

The bible of course quotes the main god as saying
not to worship any other gods.

And no dictionary will agree with your chosen
definition.

I neither stated nor implied that the God you
refer to was a small one.

” Satan” tho, is portrayed as immortal, immensely powerful,
and has all other attributes of what all other religions would call a god.
Pretty tough to challenge, game of thrones wise.


Im just curious why it’s so important to insist on there being one god.

Christians even pray to divers other powerful immortals.

Why is MONOtheistic so important?

 

[Bradskii]

Someone else made the decision for me, God.

So you didn't have to make the decision yourself. I guess we're different in that respect.

If you truly believe that morality is only contingent on whether or not you have decided that it is moral or immoral, then why should your thoughts on morality matter to anyone but yourself? How can one reason be better than another for selecting between moral propositions if the sole factor in whether or not it is moral is your agreement that it is moral?

Because I use reasons to make my decisions. You don't, as you just said. If I believe that something is immoral I can give reasons for that belief (they'll be the ones that convinced me in the first place) and then others may agree. Or not, as the case may be. But if you have no reasons then all you can say is that God has decided for you.

 

[Ben Leevey]

The bible of course quotes the main god as saying
not to worship any other gods.

If you looked at the Greek and Hebrew you'd find different words used for each.

And no dictionary will agree with your chosen
definition.

For Christians, the Bible is the dictionary in theological situations.

” Satan” tho, is portrayed as immortal, immensely powerful,
and has all other attributes of what all other religions would call a god.
Pretty tough to challenge, game of thrones wise.

He is as immortal as you are, no more no less. And yes, he's powerful, but God can turn His power of like you turn of the sink.

As far as Him having the attributes of what other religions call god, you're quite right. For a Christian is this not surprising since we beleive that demons are behind and represented by all pagan Gods.

Im just curious why it’s so important to insist on there being one god.

Firstly, because the Bible says so.

But also, if we have multiple equal powers in the universe, who can we trust? How can we know that God will protect his people eternally no matter what? We can't. He might be overruled.

Christians even pray to divers other powerful immortals.

I think you are here referring to the Catholics. They are, (no offense to them) false Christians, and do not follow what the Bible say as the only standard. No one but God should be prayed to. Anything more is idolatry.

 

[Fervent]

So you didn't have to make the decision yourself. I guess we're different in that respect.

I suppose we are, because I'm not arrogant enough to believe that if I decide something is wrong then that's the end of the story.

Because I use reasons to make my decisions. You don't, as you just said. If I believe that something is immoral I can give reasons for that belief (they'll be the ones that convinced me in the first place) and then others may agree. Or not, as the case may be. But if you have no reasons then all you can say is that God has decided for you.

I use reason to make my decisions, but if one reason is as good as any other then "God said so" seems well enough to me. So what criteria can we sort the strength of reasons from that aren't arbitrary? What is your non-arbitrary yet relative basis for moral values?