Is morality Objective?

[elman]

I thought moral statements were statement of what you "should" and "shouldn't" do. Like "Do not kill people" and "Pay your taxes". My premise is not such a statement, so this is why I don't understand how you're calling it a moral statement.



I guess I just really suck at explaining what I mean by God being irrelevent if our morality is still subjective. So I'll just tackle this from another angle.

Prove that God exists. You say yourself there is no absolute morality without God, so if God is one of your premises, then prove to me that God exists.



I'd question how wrong you actually think it is if you still did it. I'd say that if someone is doing something and they think it is wrong, they're probably really appealing to what other people think is wrong. If I really truly thought that doing X was wrong, I wouldn't do it. If I do X and tell myself it's wrong, I'm likely saying "This is considered wrong". People will always make what they BELIEVE is the best choice. It's quite possible to still regret it later when you realize you were wrong, but at the time we will always do what we think is best, no matter how stupid our choice is.

This is where wisdom comes in, because we learn from our mistakes and start having truth on the side of our beliefs as we make choices. So not only does the wise man believe doing X is the best choice, but doing X really is the best choice (In that his reasoning for doing it is sound, and he will not regret what he does later).

I personally have never done anything that I know consider "wrong" that I didn't tell myself was okay at the time. Never. I couldn't have brought myself to do a "bad" thing if I hadn't told myself that it was okay, right, justified, whatever.

I don't believe it. I think there has been times when you were selfish and unloving and you knew it was not the right thing to do but you did it anyway.

 

[Fledge]

I thought moral statements were statement of what you "should" and "shouldn't" do. Like "Do not kill people" and "Pay your taxes". My premise is not such a statement, so this is why I don't understand how you're calling it a moral statement.

I think I see the confusion now. I am using a slightly broader meaning of the term "moral" than you are. The example statements you have provided are all moral statements, and it is true that your premise is not the same as these. However, by saying that morality is based on desire, it appears to me that you are providing a system by which moral issues are decided. I would consider any such statement a moral statement, because it is directly related to questions of right and wrong.

The biggest difference that I see is that statements like "don't do X" provide individual laws as to what is right and wrong. Statements like "morality is based on desires" provide a broad standard by which the individual laws are "created" or decided.

I guess I just really suck at explaining what I mean by God being irrelevent if our morality is still subjective. So I'll just tackle this from another angle.

No more so than I do at explaining what I mean by God being very relevant no matter what kind of moral system we invent.

Prove that God exists. You say yourself there is no absolute morality without God, so if God is one of your premises, then prove to me that God exists.

Every worldview that I have run across has one core assumption that is the foundation for everything else that the person believes in. Probably the best test of the accuracy/validity of this basic assumption is if the person can construct a self-consistent worldview that is simultaneously consistent with the observed evidence.

My basic assumption would probably have to be that the Bible is what it claims to be. I don't know what your basic assumption is, but clearly it is very different from mine.

Under ordinary circumstances, proving a positive is quite simple, while proving a universal negative is inherently impossible. On this particular topic though, people will usually disagree with each other about the meaning of a piece of evidence, or if it is even admissable. This kind of topic is more than enough to deserve it's own thread, but it would probably belong somewhere in the "general apologetics" forum rather than the philosophy/morality forum.

Since I have had very little debating experience, I would quite likely be demolished very quickly unless I had solid support from people who are more experienced than I. Any kind of a one-sided debate is a disservice to everyone involved, so I will not enter into a serious debate about the existence of God while on this thread.

However, please keep in mind that I see your premise as resting upon the inexistence of God as much as mine rests upon His existence. As such, I would expect you to either prove on your part that God is irrelevant to the equation, or that He does not exist. If you would like to debate the existence of God in detail, please feel free to start a thread in the gereral apologetics forum, and let me know that you have done so.

I'm afraid that this post isn't especially well written, but I hope that I have not crossed any lines with it. If I have, I apologize, because it is no my intention to give offense.

Fledge

 

[Socrastein]

Mepalmer, I never said I "don't ever do anything wrong". I didn't say that in the least. I said that when I do bad things that I later regret, I only do them because at the time, for whatever stupid reason, I think it's a good idea.

Like when I lash out in ad hominems, I always think it's because the other person deserves it, this is my justification at the moment. Perhaps later I'll realize I was wrong when I've calmed down, but at the moment I always think it's a good idea to attack the person. If I didn't think it was a good idea, and I thought there was a better idea, then I wouldn't have lashed out - to say otherwise is a contradiction.

I don't believe it. I think there has been times when you were selfish and unloving and you knew it was not the right thing to do but you did it anyway.

That's a mighty solid argument you have there. I don't believe it, therefore it's false.

Fledge:

I understand how you were using the term moral statement now, thanks for clarifying that for me.

My view on morality does not rest on erroneously postulated hypotheses, so I am not the one who needs to prove that God doesn't exist. The rational man does not believe anything until he has reason to, and thus until you prove that God exists, it's safe to leave him out of the equation without proving he exists.

You telling me to prove God doesn't exist to substantiate my atheist morality is like telling Newton that magical elves that push planets together don't exist to substantiate his aelvish law of gravity. It's not up to him to disprove unparsimonious and unsubstantiated contradictions to his claim, it is up to the person making them to substantiate or retract them. Similiarly, if you wish to say that my view of morality falls apart with the existence of God, and only with the existence of God, then you have to prove that God exists or you have no argument whatsoever. Until you do, then my paradigm is logically consistent and sound.

 

[mepalmer3]

Mepalmer, I never said I "don't ever do anything wrong". I didn't say that in the least. I said that when I do bad things that I later regret, I only do them because at the time, for whatever stupid reason, I think it's a good idea.

Like when I lash out in ad hominems, I always think it's because the other person deserves it, this is my justification at the moment. Perhaps later I'll realize I was wrong when I've calmed down, but at the moment I always think it's a good idea to attack the person. If I didn't think it was a good idea, and I thought there was a better idea, then I wouldn't have lashed out - to say otherwise is a contradiction.

No, I wasn't saying or meaning to imply that you think you believe you never did anything wrong. But as you reaffirmed here, you think in every moment that what you are doing is in fact "right". This is what people in courts say when they plead temporary insanity. They say at that time they didn't know (or couldn't know) that it was wrong to do something.

But to the ad hominems.. I too might think in a moment that a person deserves it as well, (at least that is the justification I try to give myself). But alas, I would be lying if I when I lashed out that I was somehow doing something that was right. When I lash out in anger, I generally know what I'm doing. I do know people who say that they seem to be oblivious to the fact that what they are doing is wrong at that moment, but this is definitely not what I experience. Along those lines, the people who I know that are very moral people (by popular consensus) have alluded to the fact that the more we are aware of the right/wrong in our actions before we do them. In a similar way, the people who place a high importance on being logical know before they respond whether or not they are being logical or illogical. But those of us that do think acting with reason is important still often commit fallacies knowingly (such as with the ad hominems). It's not that we think that the fallacy is somehow sound in that moment, rather we just act upon a desire/instinct.

btw -- all of this debate makes me curious about one of your arguments against an objective morality. You've claimed that if morality truly is objective, then we should be able to very easily point to moral issues and show that it is objective. If logic is objective, then shouldn't you also be able to point to this argument and very easily prove that something is the only logical answer? Since you clearly can't, it would seem that that argument is not a sound argument against objective morality either.

 

[Socrastein]

btw -- all of this debate makes me curious about one of your arguments against an objective morality. You've claimed that if morality truly is objective, then we should be able to very easily point to moral issues and show that it is objective. If logic is objective, then shouldn't you also be able to point to this argument and very easily prove that something is the only logical answer? Since you clearly can't, it would seem that that argument is not a sound argument against objective morality either.

You misunderstand logic if you think that's how it works. Logic is a machine that you put premises into and it pumps out conclusions. If you put in different premises (Which is what is happening when two people disagree) you get different conclusions. The logic can be valid for both sides of the debate and there still be a disagreement.

However, a more relevent question would be "Shouldn't you be able to look at a syllogism and tell me if it is logically valid or not?" to which I could say yes, I could very easily look at any syllogism and see if it is valid or whether it uses fallacious reasoning at some point. And anyone who sufficiently understood logic could look at that deduction and come to the same conclusion. Even if someone looked at it and came to the wrong conclusion, it would be easy for someone more versed in logic to explain how that person was wrong, and they would then see their error. So logic is objective, and my question regarding the obscurity of "figuring out" a supposedly objective morality is valid, and finally your question regarding proving what is the only logical answer is off the mark and is a misunderstanding of what logic is and what its bounds are and relevence is.

 

[mepalmer3]

So logic is objective, and my question regarding the obscurity of "figuring out" a supposedly objective morality is valid, ...

ahh... so knowing a "truth" then is a better analogy I should have used. Although I see a great number of people arguing about logic as well, if something's a fallacy, if an argument is valid, invalid, etc... Most people seem to have a hard time coming to grips with agreeing on even the logic. But certainly the premises are widely not agreed upon here either. As such, I should have used "objective truth" as my analogy instead. absolute truth is a closer match to absolute morality.

 

[Fledge]

I can't say that I agree with you here, Socrastein. The situation is like this. If God exists, then your argument is inherently flawed. If God does not exist, then my argument is inherently flawed. This debate did not start from a consensus decision with one side trying to show why the majority decision is wrong. If that was the case, then we would have a clear cut burden of proof, which would tell us who needs to do the proving. However, that is not the case, and so (if I understand the "rules" properly) the burden of proof is spread equally to the people on both sides of this debate.

 

[Socrastein]

When it comes to unfalsifiable claims though (I cannot disprove that a metaphysical being exists) it is up to the claiment to support them and the opponent to either accept or refute the claimants arguments. Like I said:

You telling me to prove God doesn't exist to substantiate my atheist morality is like telling Newton that magical elves that push planets together don't exist to substantiate his aelvish law of gravity. It's not up to him to disprove unparsimonious and unsubstantiated contradictions to his claim, it is up to the person making them to substantiate or retract them. Similiarly, if you wish to say that my view of morality falls apart with the existence of God, and only with the existence of God, then you have to prove that God exists or you have no argument whatsoever.

If someone was to debate Newton's law of gravity by postulating that metaphysical beings are really responsible for planet's and objects moving, and thus they don't have any innate attraction whatsoever, it would NOT be up to Newton to disprove them lest his claim be falsified or challenged. It's up to whomever is throwing this unsupported claim into the mix to prove it, otherwise they are just wasting their breath.

It's no different with plugging God into a moral debate.

 

[mepalmer3]

It's no different with plugging God into a moral debate.

I think it's clear that only with God can an absolute morality exist. Otherwise the morality has been made-up and thus is arbitrary. If God doesn't exist, then there is no rational basis for morality. Thus there isn't necessarily a need to prove God or not. If either absolute morality or God exists, then the other does too. They are necessarily tied.

But there are a number of good arguments for God. The argument from morality itself is a good one. The first cause argument is another one.

 

[Socrastein]

Absolute morality does not necessitate God. Any philosopher with deontological ethics is advocating an absolute morality, and Kant's morality did not rest on God. So you can't prove absolute morality to prove God, it's the other way around. Anyone who is advocating a moral system that cannot be without a God with absolute desires that holds us to his morality must prove that the said God, with said properties, exists.

And in all seriousness mepalmer, how many times does one have to refute the first cause argument before you stop using it? It really is a terrible argument for God. Many Christians acknowledge that it is fallacious, so why do you keep plugging it? Is some First Cause Advocates corporation paying you to advertise for them? (Okay, maybe that wasn't in all seriousness)

 

[mepalmer3]

Absolute morality does not necessitate God. Any philosopher with deontological ethics is advocating an absolute morality, and Kant's morality did not rest on God. So you can't prove absolute morality to prove God, it's the other way around. Anyone who is advocating a moral system that cannot be without a God with absolute desires that holds us to his morality must prove that the said God, with said properties, exists.

We'll just have to argue the first cause argument in another thread. I've yet to see anyone have anything approaching a reasonable argument against it though.

As far as absolute morality, there is simply no basis for it being absolute, unless it has always existed. There is no notion of "nature" making it right or wrong to do something. The only plausible notion of a true right/wrong existing is if it comes from a God that wasn't created (and thus created everything else). Any other idea of right/wrong is somewhat arbitrary. As Bertrand Russell said, if morality is made up, then it's arbitrary.

But throwing out Kant's name doesn't prove your point. Neither does my throwing out Russell's name -- but I'm throwing out his name because it's funny that he agrees with this point.

 

[Socrastein]

Logic hasn't always existed, and math hasn't always existed. So how are they absolute? Or would you say they have because God has always made math and logic? If he hadn't, then would they not then be absolute/objective?

Russell said morality is arbitrary because it's nothing but people touting their likes and dislikes. Not because it's made up. Philosophy itself is made up but he certainly didn't consider that arbitrary.

As for first cause, I made a thread in the C&E forum detailing scientific refutation of the first cause (By showing that the universe can be explained naturally). Even without this though, the first cause falls apart for logical inconsistency, as has been shown to you numerous times both by myself and by others.

 

[Code-Monkey]

Logic hasn't always existed, and math hasn't always existed. So how are they absolute? Or would you say they have because God has always made math and logic? If he hadn't, then would they not then be absolute/objective?

Are you saying that math and logic are not necessary? That there could have been a time where they didn't exist?

I think God's nature would necessarily be perfectly logical. Otherwise, someone created logic and thus it's not objective like most rational people say it is.

 

[Fledge]

Socrastein, I'm still not sure why the burden of proof isn't shared equally in this debate. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, and there is a distinct possibility that I simply don't have a firm enough grasp of the logical concept, but I'm unable to understand why you think the burden of proof is entirely upon me.

We're not debating something that is obviously physical like the law of gravity. We cannot invent an instrument that "measures" morality, and if we did, it would simply reflect the moral choices of the people who programmed it. There is no consensus about what is moral/immoral, unlike with gravity where there is a consensus that objects fall to the earth when dropped. Since there is a huge gap between physical observations and moral decisions, I'm not sure I see how your physical analogies apply here.

 

[Socrastein]

Are you saying that math and logic are not necessary? That there could have been a time where they didn't exist?

Logic is a framework that only has meaning because of the way we define words and use language. To say X is true or not true only makes sense if we have a definition of X, a definition of true, and a definition of not true. Without language there is no logic. You cannot describe anything logically or make any logical statements without language.

Math is very similiar. It is a deductive system based on simple axioms. Without those axioms having been defined by humans, there is no math. As Arthur Eddington (A very famous mathematician and scientist) said quite simply "The mathematics isn't there until we put it there."

Fledge: the physical measurements and all that are completely irrelevent to the analogy. The point is, your ONLY argument against my argument rests on the existence of God. So you must prove God exists. It's that simple. If someone came in and said that my morality falls apart somehow if their are magical squid floating around in space behind the moons of Saturn, it is not up to me to prove that those squid don't exist. I have no burden when it comes to completely unsubstantiated and erroneous claims on the part of my opponent. That would simply be ridiculous, because any debate could be destroyed by someone who decided to throw in an unsupported challenge.

 

[Code-Monkey]

Logic is a framework that only has meaning because of the way we define words and use language. To say X is true or not true only makes sense if we have a definition of X, a definition of true, and a definition of not true. Without language there is no logic. You cannot describe anything logically or make any logical statements without language.

Math is very similiar. It is a deductive system based on simple axioms. Without those axioms having been defined by humans, there is no math. As Arthur Eddington (A very famous mathematician and scientist) said quite simply "The mathematics isn't there until we put it there."

So I can define math differently? Further, I can define science differently. I can say no, it in fact is logical proof if I appeal to the popular vote? Interesting. Why would anybody say anything is true if it is true purely by their definition of true? Why the bother to appeal to empirical evidence, logic, and so forth? If the meaning or the validity is just something we define as being correct, then there's no rational in saying in really is correct.

That's very interesting that you say that. This is true and logical because I said so.

 

[Socrastein]

So I can define math differently? Further, I can define science differently. I can say no, it in fact is logical proof if I appeal to the popular vote? Interesting. Why would anybody say anything is true if it is true purely by their definition of true? Why the bother to appeal to empirical evidence, logic, and so forth?

That's very interesting that you say that. This is true and logical because I said so.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say you can define math differently. You could work from different axioms though. There are various systems of math that do this, which is why some equations and formulas that work in one math system don't work, or create different outcomes, in another math system, because they're founded on differing axioms.

Same with logic. There are some rules and deductions that do not apply to all systems of logic, because different systems define things differently and are working from varying axioms.

Not sure what science has to do with this. You can say science is hot dogs if you want, but you haven't done anything to the practice that is normally called science. Also I don't know how you could justify an appeal to majority in logic, seeing as how logic is a deductive system and you cannot deduce from "Most people believe X is true" the conclusion "X is therefore true". If you did, then you'd just be arbitrarily refusing to acknowledge language and its usage. The only thing stopping someone from doing that is pragmatism - it's not practical to abuse words and use them in a way nobody else does, it ruins the point of language.

Also, you speak of truth. Truth is a correspondence to reality, and the "thing" that is corresponding is called a proposition, a statement about reality. If that statement corresponds to reality, then that proposition is "true". If it does not correspond, it is a "false" proposition. Obviously, without language there are no propositions, and thus, truth is not eternal or transcendent of humans and their thoughts and words.

If the meaning or the validity is just something we define as being correct, then there's no rational in saying in really is correct.

You mind rephrasing that statement? Maybe this time you can slow down and form a clear sentence.

 

[Code-Monkey]

Also, you speak of truth. Truth is a correspondence to reality, and the "thing" that is corresponding is called a proposition, a statement about reality. If that statement corresponds to reality, then that proposition is "true". If it does not correspond, it is a "false" proposition. Obviously, without language there are no propositions, and thus, truth is not eternal or transcendent of humans and their thoughts and words.

Wait, which way is it? Only with the invention of language (do you mean written or spoken language?) is mathematics become something that is real? Or something is "true" only once language is invented. So before someone spoke to another person, it was false that the idea of 1+1=2. Does that mean all mathematical or physics models do not apply before the advent of language? What nonsense! You should know better than that.

 

[Nikos100]

It's subjective based on social and biological forces.

Please, I'm not trying to be rude, but why do Atheists believe there is no such thing as morality, do you believe, like the majority of Atheists do (NYT Poll -12/8/03), that paedophilia should be legalized?

 

[Socrastein]

Wait, which way is it? Only with the invention of language (do you mean written or spoken language?) is mathematics become something that is real? Or something is "true" only once language is invented. So before someone spoke to another person, it was false that the idea of 1+1=2. Does that mean all mathematical or physics models do not apply before the advent of language? What nonsense! You should know better than that.

Let me retort with an equally invalid argument: what greater nonsense! Is there a single valid argument in your entire repetoire of responses, or are you just chock full to the brim with vacuous statements and unsupported denial?