Is morality objective, even without God?

[Ana the Ist]

Correct. Logic, as we think of it and use it and are bound by it, is God's "invention".

Seems unlikely.

Of course, that whole statement is only a human way to look at it or to try to describe what we see. It is not very good for defining God.

Ok.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Fair enough, though that would then imply that morality is subjective, which is a subjective premise.

I'm sorry...subjective premise?

I'm speaking of morality as I see applied to any group at any time.

I'd suggest it is inter-subjective.

But if God exists, morality is objective, since it is defined by God.

That's always seemed like an odd way to see it. What exactly is the difference between god defining morality and me, for example? Power?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ok. So, do the physicists find it necessary to consider both outcomes true, in order to continue with their descriptions of physics?

I know a physicist on the CF.

Would you prefer asking him? I think I'm correct but he's an expert.

Part of my problem with this is that reading what is written about this, (which, granted, is a condensed version, and not necessarily accurate, but rather, written to garner attention in this noisy environment of public knowledge), what I begin to see is a blurring of the line between them treating both as true for the purpose of continuing their thinking, but remaining cognizant that they only don't know, and them thinking that both are true.

That's very similar to how I used to see it.

Now, it becomes hard to describe...hence the goofy analogy of cats in boxes.

It's more like both possibilities are true and the measurements itself (observations) will determine which possibility you see....and which you don't.

Does that make sense? I could be wrong here....it's been awhile.

Same sort of thinking shows up in the language of probability, with their use of "chance", "random" and "spontaneous"; they should know better than to believe that anything can happen uncaused to happen, but they certainly do talk like they believe it!

I would suggest that perhaps the whole cause/effect notion is a result of our perceptions of time or maybe limited by them. We're trying to make sense of an eternal "now" (sort of) because everything keeps changing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
Fair enough, though that would then imply that morality is subjective, which is a subjective premise.

I'm sorry...subjective premise?

Sure! After all, if morality is not objective, then any premise concerning morality is based on one's own point of view, thus, 'subjective'. We can even make it up as we go!

I'm speaking of morality as I see applied to any group at any time.

I'd suggest it is inter-subjective.

Who applies it? There's no objectivity there, but only application. Granted, it does not then depend on the individual, but on the many. Nevertheless the standards are subject to change, (as history shows), so not entirely objective.

Mark Quayle said:
But if God exists, morality is objective, since it is defined by God.

That's always seemed like an odd way to see it. What exactly is the difference between god defining morality and me, for example? Power?

If God is God, he doesn't have opinions, but only truth. If God is Omnipotent, Self-existent and, obviously, First Cause, creating all things that are not he himself, then he OWNS it all. It owes its existence to him, and his definitions are truth. We are responsible to HIM, not to ourselves. If that does not [at least] all describe the God you want to talk about, then we have no common ground for discussion of God, and the question of objectivity of morality has taken a strange turn for me.

If there is no such God, morality has no firm basis at all, nevermind being objective. The very word "moral" is up to interpretation there. What is "wrong", after all, if there is no God. It's all opinion and enforcement.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I know a physicist on the CF.

Would you prefer asking him? I think I'm correct but he's an expert.

Not really. I've given up on that. Many have tried to explain it to me, but they all leave me in the dust, my questions not answered to my satisfaction. Drawings, equations and other representations are only that —structures to introduce a way to consider what may be reality, but not more than that to my ignorant mind.

That's very similar to how I used to see it.

Now, it becomes hard to describe...hence the goofy analogy of cats in boxes.

It's more like both possibilities are true and the measurements itself (observations) will determine which possibility you see....and which you don't.

Does that make sense? I could be wrong here....it's been awhile.

Sounds backwards, to me. But, maybe I'm backwards.

I would suggest that perhaps the whole cause/effect notion is a result of our perceptions of time or maybe limited by them. We're trying to make sense of an eternal "now" (sort of) because everything keeps changing.

All I know is that up till the present, cause-and-effect has been the basis for scientific reasoning concerning the structure of the OMNI. It is axiomatic to our logic. Or so I thought, lol.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok. So, do the physicists find it necessary to consider both outcomes true, in order to continue with their descriptions of physics?

This sounds like the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Essentially, there is no outcome until the measurement is made. Until then the wavefunction continues to evolve.

Part of my problem with this is that reading what is written about this, (which, granted, is a condensed version, and not necessarily accurate, but rather, written to garner attention in this noisy environment of public knowledge), what I begin to see is a blurring of the line between them treating both as true for the purpose of continuing their thinking, but remaining cognizant that they only don't know, and them thinking that both are true.

It's probably important to know that Schrödinger's Katze gedankenexperiment was designed to point to the folly of taking the "observation" effect too far with evolving quantum systems. Observation is not dependent on a mind, but is just the interaction of the quantum system (the decaying atom) with another system (the radiation detector). If the atom decays and the emitted particle is detected, then the cat is poisoned, right then and there. It does not need to wait until the box is open. (Though as the intelligent observer, you won't *know* if the cat is dead until you open the box and look. This latter effect is no different than recording a sporting event and watching it later without knowing the score before you watch. Your team won or lost before you started watching, but you don't know until you watch it (or look up the score online).

Same sort of thinking shows up in the language of probability, with their use of "chance", "random" and "spontaneous"; they should know better than to believe that anything can happen uncaused to happen, but they certainly do talk like they believe it!

Probability is very much part of QM, not just the language. As for spontaneous and uncaued, if you like you can think of the cause of the decay of an excited state being that there is a lower state to decay to. The timing is uncertain and seems to be effectively random with a fixed probability in each equal time interval. If a state has a 1 in 10 chance of decaying in any second, the chance will be 1 in 10 for this second and 5 hours from now and in any second after the excited state is formed. Long overall delays have low probability than shorter ones, but if it is still excited the probability in the next second remains 1 in 10. (For such a state there is a 90% [0.90] likelyhood that it will remain excited at the end of the second. To survive for 2 seconds is a 0.90^2 = 81% probability, for 1 minute is a 0.90^60 = 0.179%.

Now you can go back to deciding if objective morality exists...

 

[Mark Quayle]

And, btw, even though I believe in God, I don't believe that morality is objective because God is not an object. Morality is subjective to God.

Well, no. That is an anthropomorphism, and would imply that God might change. Morality, as love, existence and reality itself, are from God. HE is the basis for such things. He does not change. He is always what he is, not growing nor improving himself, not learning nor discovering. Morality is, to God, neither subjective nor objective but simply endemic to himself.

The OP, though, is asking, if we leave God, (the source of objective morality), out of the picture —i.e. from a purely humanistic POV— is morality objective. I say NO.

 

[RDKirk]

Well, no. That is an anthropomorphism, and would imply that God might change. Morality, as love, existence and reality itself, are from God. HE is the basis for such things. He does not change. He is always what he is, not growing nor improving himself, not learning nor discovering. Morality is, to God, neither subjective nor objective but simply endemic to himself.

The OP, though, is asking, if we leave God, (the source of objective morality), out of the picture —i.e. from a purely humanistic POV— is morality objective. I say NO.

If morality is not subject to God, then God is subject to morality...which we don't believe is the case.

Morality is subject to God because God creates morality. We might presume God does not change His standards of morality. That has nothing to do with whether God, Himself, changes because God can change His creations without Himself being changed. But we don't know that God does not or has not changed morality.

God certainly adjusts the measure by which He judges our compliance with His morality...He judges it according to our knowledge and ability to comply.

 

[Bradskii]

God certainly adjusts the measure by which He judges our compliance with His morality...He judges it according to our knowledge and ability to comply.

That might well be the case. But we have limited knowledge. We might know the proximate outcomes of our acts. Which may be good. But not the ultimate outcomes. Which may be bad. Our acts are subject to the knowledge that we have.

 

[Niels]

I'm just gonna pop my head in here and say that the question doesn't make sense if we agree on what is meant by "God". At least how I use the term. People attribute many traits to God. Some of which are more reasonable than others, but if the source of the universe is understood to be God then without God there would not only be no morality. There would be no us.

I mean, sure, we can live like the universe didn't have a beginning. We can live like there is no God, but that doesn't have much bearing on whether morality is objective. It would persist whether we acknowledge it or not. To better answer the question, we must ask ourselves whether the objective exists. If the objective does not exist then morality is not objective. If the objective does exist, however, then morality is arguably objective. If we define morality is being aligned with the objective. Which is how theists generally frame morality in relation to God.



Note: My work schedule is kind of crazy right now so it may be a while before I have time to follow up on this thread.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If morality is not subject to God, then God is subject to morality...which we don't believe is the case.

Agreed completely. I hope you didn't take me to say differently.

Morality is subject to God because God creates morality. We might presume God does not change His standards of morality. That has nothing to do with whether God, Himself, changes because God can change His creations without Himself being changed. But we don't know that God does not or has not changed morality.

Morality IS subject to God, but God does not see it subjectively. He doesn't make up an absolute set of rules arbitrarily, but neither does he reference himself in some consideration of this or that in order to produce an absolute morality.

Sin by definition is enmity/rebellion against God. If God establishes rules (and he has) by which we are measured, that is only demonstrative of morality, and to disagree and rebel against them is indeed to rebel against God's Word, and so that rebelling is sin, in and of itself. But those without the law also sin because they also pit themselves against him. Morality is described by the law, but the law is not of itself morality, but only of God, is it moral. God does not change what is moral, because God is moral. He does change what he requires of his people. Our priests need not wear ephods. We no longer sacrifice animals. It is not unlawful to eat bacon. But from the beginning his commandment has been to love the Lord our God with all our being, and to love one another as ourselves.

God does not change. Morality is definitive by his person, which does not change. What is moral is drawn upon rebellion vs obedience, not on individual mores.

God certainly adjusts the measure by which He judges our compliance with His morality...He judges it according to our knowledge and ability to comply.

True enough. He looks upon the heart to judge the deeds.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That might well be the case. But we have limited knowledge. We might know the proximate outcomes of our acts. Which may be good. But not the ultimate outcomes. Which may be bad. Our acts are subject to the knowledge that we have.

If the God I posit is God— that is, if he is omnipotent creator —there is no excuse for any wrongdoing. More to the point, though, is the nature of all of us who intentionally separate ourselves from our creator: There is no good in anyone, but what God does in them. We have no goodness in and of ourselves ——IF God is Omnipotent Creator. He is both the source and measure of morality.

 

[Bradskii]

If the God I posit is God— that is, if he is omnipotent creator —there is no excuse for any wrongdoing.

Except our lack of knowledge.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Except our lack of knowledge.

Still no excuse. IMHO. But that gets into Christian doctrine, which teaches that nobody is actually innocent.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure! After all, if morality is not objective, then any premise concerning morality is based on one's own point of view, thus, 'subjective'. We can even make it up as we go!

Or it could be subjective and not your point of view....someone else's.

Who applies it?

Would you like me to guess?

Mark Quayle said:
But if God exists, morality is objective, since it is defined by God.

Fun.

If God is God, he doesn't have opinions, but only truth.

Yeah? Only truth?

And how would I access this truth?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Or it could be subjective and not your point of view....someone else's.

Sure.

Yeah? Only truth?

And how would I access this truth?

Subjectively.

 

[Niels]

Or it could be subjective and not your point of view....someone else's.

Therein lies the rub. It seems to me that morality should be linked to the objective. The closer we adhere to the objective the lower the risk that we will perpetuate injustice. It is my understanding that this is what "In God We Trust" refers to. It doesn't mean we trust in a particular religion or sect, but a shared underlying reality that transcends our subjective experience. Perhaps easier said then done, but a worthy goal.

 

[Bradskii]

Therein lies the rub. It seems to me that morality should be linked to the objective.

Law is linked to the objective. We lay down very specific rules that we must, as a society, obey. But morality is something that we each determine.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not really. I've given up on that. Many have tried to explain it to me, but they all leave me in the dust, my questions not answered to my satisfaction. Drawings, equations and other representations are only that —structures to introduce a way to consider what may be reality, but not more than that to my ignorant mind.

Sounds backwards, to me. But, maybe I'm backwards.

When you say it sounds backwards...I agree.

I think you mean "intuitively wrong".

It is intuitively wrong....we expect whatever result we see upon opening the box to have existed prior to opening the box. Cat dead or cat alive.

It's the absurd nature of the thought experiment itself which conveys an understanding of the difficulty in understanding quantum physics.

All I know is that up till the present, cause-and-effect has been the basis for scientific reasoning concerning the structure of the OMNI. It is axiomatic to our logic. Or so I thought, lol.

Right. Logic has its limits though. Non-contradiction arises out of the limits of words to describe reality. Inside and outside are polar opposites....can't be both inside and outside at the same time.....

Until you're inside a Gazebo outside somewhere. We could probably endlessly debate whether that's someone truly inside somewhere or actually outside somewhere because it's not entirely obvious what exactly delineates the two. We all agree the cat is in the box....but exactly how much box needs to be there before the cat is outside is....a tougher question.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Therein lies the rub. It seems to me that morality should be linked to the objective.

Should be is a moral claim.

It's not obvious it should be...after all, whatever you hope to lay claim as moral and good or evil will be immediately abandoned under certain conditions.

The closer we adhere to the objective the lower the risk that we will perpetuate injustice.

If you're tying justice directly to objective morality.

It is my understanding that this is what "In God We Trust" refers to.

Had that been in our founding...I might care.

It wasn't.

It doesn't mean we trust in a particular religion or sect, but a shared underlying reality that transcends our subjective experience. Perhaps easier said then done, but a worthy goal.

We are unfortunately, a nation created to maximize individual freedom and liberty. Therein is the cause of such disagreement regarding morality. We act as if we need not account to justify the small or large moral goods and evils to those around us.