Is there an absolute morality?

[childeye 2]

Basically you are saying its immoral to be immoral?

Sort of, and for what it's worth, great question! At a fundamental level of understanding, I'm saying that what is moral is never immoral and what is immoral is never moral, in any sound reasoning. To rephrase, I'm saying morality/immorality is a positive/negative (a true dichotomy as opposed to a false dichotomy).

Please note that all synonyms for the meaning of the term 'hypocritical' carry a negative immoral connotation, and that all antonyms carry a positive moral connotation.

From thesaurus.com
SYNONYMS FOR hypocritical

• deceit
• deception
• dishonesty
• duplicity
• fraud
• insincerity

Here are some antonyms:

• forthright
• frank
• genuine
• honest
• humble
• open
• real
• truthful
• actual
• authentic
• just
• reliable
• righteous
• sincere
• upright

 

[childeye 2]

I am talking about how the average person intuitively understands Math. When we see a Math equation like 2+2=4 we don't have to get our calculators out as we just know its correct.

In the same way when we see someone getting mugged we intuitive know that a moral wrong is being done.

Learning the value of $1.00 is not dissimilar to learning the value of Compassion/Love/Morality. You even have to work for it and invest in it.

 

[Astrid]

Sort of, and for what it's worth, great question! At a fundamental level of understanding, I'm saying that what is moral is never immoral and what is immoral is never moral in any sound reasoning. To rephrase, I'm saying morality/immorality is a positive/negative (a true dichotomy as opposed to a false dichotomy).

Please note that all synonyms for the meaning of the term 'hypocritical' carry a negative immoral connotation, and that all antonyms carry a positive moral connotation.

From thesaurus.com
SYNONYMS FOR hypocritical

• deceit
• deception
• dishonesty
• duplicity
• fraud
• insincerity

Here are some antonyms:

• forthright
• frank
• genuine
• honest
• humble
• open
• real
• truthful
• actual
• authentic
• just
• reliable
• righteous
• sincere
• upright

Deception is always immoral?

 

[childeye 2]

Deception is always immoral?

If it's qualified by an intent of personal self-gain at the expense of all others, then it's immoral. If I lied to a Nazi in WWII to protect a family of Jews from extermination, then it is objectively a moral intention in that it's not self-serving at the expense of others, but self-sacrificing for the sake of others.

The circumstance dictates to me that it would be objectively immoral not to lie. But to the blind Nazi at that time, the subjective moral intention still remains, that all Jews must be exterminated, so the lie is subjectively immoral to the Nazi.

 

[Astrid]

OK

If it's qualified by an intent of personal self-gain at the expense of all others, then it's immoral. If I lied to a Nazi in WWII to protect a family of Jews from extermination, then it is objectively a moral intention in that it's not self-serving at the expense of others, but self-sacrificing for the sake of others.

The circumstance dictates to me that it would be objectively immoral not to lie. But to the blind Nazi at that time, the subjective moral intention still remains, that all Jews must be exterminated, so the lie is subjectively immoral to the Nazi.

Deception comes at all levels.
Card games, say.
Or here where we loves to bicker over prices!
You have to play deception games.
So fooling other people is not always wrong.

 

[childeye 2]

OK


Deception comes at all levels.
Card games, say.
Or here where we loves to bicker over prices!
You have to play deception games.
So fooling other people is not always wrong.

The ways of the corrupt world are corrosive through the self-fulfilling subjective negative prejudice of cynicism, that each person is only out for themselves. Hypocrisy is a manifestation of this.

In an absolute positive of objective morality, it's wrong that people should ever have to fool or lie to one another to begin with. What does such a morality look like working in a corrupt and cruel world? Compassion.

 

[stevevw]

No. We don't just know. Either you've only memorized the equation or you've experience grouping things together. In the first case, you know the equation but you don't know what it means. In the second case, you've learned what means to put a group of two things together with another group of two things.

You don't "just know".

Then according to many "Intuition is an important part of understanding Math. It seems we do have some sense of Math in the world in the way we can intuit certain shapes and numbers without having any learning about them. We can also make intuitions about what we do know which is the base for creative and explorative thiking that can lead to greater discoveries.

"Intuition," as used by the modern mathematician, means an accumulation of attitudes (including beliefs and opinions) derived from experience, both individual and cultural. It is closely associated with mathematical knowledge, which forms the basis of intuition. This knowledge contributes to the growth of intuition and is in turn increased by new conceptual materials suggested by intuition. The major role of intuition is to provide a conceptual foundation that suggests the directions which new research should take. The role of intuition in research is to provide the "educated guess," which may prove to be true or false; but in either case, progress cannot be made without it and even a false guess may lead to progress. Thus intuition also plays a major role in the evolution of mathematical concepts.
The ultimate basis of modern mathematics is thus mathematical intuition.
The role of intuition - PubMed

The results of this research show that mathematical problems solving through intuition will have positive effects on the performance of students. Using intuitive instruction and use of intuition and upbringing intuitive perception can enable students in exact perception of proofs and development of abstract thinking which is the final aim of mathematics learning. Students will have more strategies and instruments for problem solving.
Intuition and its Effects on Mathematical Learning | Semantic Scholar

We rally our approximate number system, an ancient and intuitive sense that we are born with and that we share with many other animals. Rats, pigeons, monkeys, babies - all can tell more from fewer, abundant from stingy. An approximate number sense is essential to brute survival.
Intuition and math: A powerful correlation (Published 2008)

Because we see circles in the real world before the classroom, we understand their “roundness”. No matter what fancy equation we see (x2 + y2 = r2), we know deep inside that a circle is “round”. If we graphed that equation and it appeared square, or lopsided, we’d know there was a mistake.
We started in one corner, with our intuition, and worked our way around to the formal definition.
Developing Your Intuition For Math – BetterExplained

Just like morality we seem to come into the world with some basic knowledge. When we look around at the world even if we were never educated Math is present everywhere in nature. We see a cup shape device for holding coffee, we see a level table knowing the cup won't fall off. We see a triangle in nature and recognise it has 3 equal angled sides. We intuit this and recognise Math when we see it even if we don't completely understand it.

The same for morality. We recognise an immoral act even if we don't completely understand the context. This is our starting point. We can then use reason and logic to build on our intuition and find further truths/facts.

 

[stevevw]

A couple of years ago, I sent a long email to Dr. Frank Turek, the glib host of the "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" podcast (and book of the same name). One of his pet claims is that there can be no morality without God - i.e., God provides an objective standard and without God morality is just a matter of opinion. Turek used my email as fodder for three of his podcasts, mischaracterizing what I had said, repeating what he always says like a broken record, giving me no opportunity to respond, and going so far as to question whether I was even a Christian as I had claimed. Par for the course with this sort of lightweight apologetics, I guess.

My points, which still seem to me to have validity, were:

• It at least seems rational to me for atheists to claim that evolution, with its sole objective of maximizing survival, could have genetically programmed much of what we regard as morality because it enhances survival. This isn't what I believe, but it doesn't strike me as irrational. The genetic programming would constitute the objective standard Turek regards as essential.

Except morality is not something we can inherit genetically. Its more to do with social behaviour which is something evolution finds hard to explain. How agents can direct their own destiny and survival without genetics.

• It at least seems rational to me for atheists to claim that over the course of thousands of years the vast majority of humans have reached a consensus as to what constitutes moral behavior. This consensus would constitute the objective standard Turek demands, even if there are outliers and violators.

Yes so humans can determine objective reasons why we should behave one way and not the other. Protecting and upholding human "Life" is a no brainer. You don't have to believe in God to know that one. Yet this is still an objective basis for morality and not left open to relative ideas about what is right and wrong.

I just don't see Turek's argument that atheists "steal from God" when they speak about morality as being convincing or going anywhere. I happen to believe God is the source of morality, both in terms of His commands and the human conscience, but I don't think atheism can reasonably be dismissed on this basis.

I think what you will find is that Turek atheist don't know morality as according to the CHristian doctrine all including non-believers have knowledge of Gods laws in their heart. Turek is merely saying that despite atheist being able to know and claim moral values they ultimately despite their attempts at of making it objective have has no basis for morality.

 

[stevevw]

Just admit that you where wrong.

Doubling down just shows your ignorance.

And you still dont understand how math works.

lol how do you know you are right and I am wrong. How do we know your not doubling down. That is the question. We disagree and thats when independent support comes in.

From what I have read it seems to be a common understanding that Math is similar to morality in how it demands a right or wrong answer and how it is an abstract idea that is regarded as fact. Even Plato thought the same and much of our understanding of morality and Math comes from Plato. Kurt Godel was also a Platonist.

Mathematical Platonism is the form of realism that suggests that mathematical entities are abstract, have no spatiotemporal or causal properties, and are eternal and unchanging. This is often claimed to be the view most people have of numbers.

Kurt Gödel
Kurt Gödel's Platonism[8] postulates a special kind of mathematical intuition that lets us perceive mathematical objects directly. (This view bears resemblances to many things Husserl said about mathematics, and supports Kant's idea that mathematics is synthetic a priori.) Davis and Hersh have suggested in their 1999 book The Mathematical Experience that most mathematicians act as though they are Platonists, even though, if pressed to defend the position carefully, they may retreat to formalism. The mathematician Alexander Grothendieck was also a Platonist.

Ross thought along similar lines.
Ross maintains that ‘both in mathematics and in ethics we have certain crystal-clear intuitions from which we build up all that we can know about the nature of numbers and the nature of duty’ (FE 144).

The analogy with mathematics is instructive, for we acquire our moral knowledge in the same way we acquire knowledge of mathematical axioms. We apprehend that 2+2 = 4 by apprehending that 2+2 matches makes 4 matches and that 2+2 balls makes 4 balls, and so on. We apprehend the algorithm in the particular cases after repeated exposure to particular instances of its application, by a process of intuitive induction (FE 170). We apprehend that it is prima facie right to keep promises by apprehending that it is prima facie right to fulfill this or that particular promise. ‘What comes first in time is the apprehension of the self-evident prima facie rightness of an individual act of a particular type. From this we come by reflection to apprehend the self-evident general principle of prima facie duty’ (RG 33; also FE 170).
William David Ross (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So who am I to believe.

 

[VirOptimus]

lol how do you know you are right and I am wrong. How do we know your not doubling down. That is the question. We disagree and thats when independent support comes in.

From what I have read it seems to be a common understanding that Math is similar to morality in how it demands a right or wrong answer and how it is an abstract idea that is regarded as fact. Even Plato thought the same and much of our understanding of morality and Math comes from Plato. Kurt Godel was also a Platonist.

Mathematical Platonism is the form of realism that suggests that mathematical entities are abstract, have no spatiotemporal or causal properties, and are eternal and unchanging. This is often claimed to be the view most people have of numbers.
Kurt Gödel

Kurt Gödel's Platonism[8] postulates a special kind of mathematical intuition that lets us perceive mathematical objects directly. (This view bears resemblances to many things Husserl said about mathematics, and supports Kant's idea that mathematics is synthetic a priori.) Davis and Hersh have suggested in their 1999 book The Mathematical Experience that most mathematicians act as though they are Platonists, even though, if pressed to defend the position carefully, they may retreat to formalism. The mathematician Alexander Grothendieck was also a Platonist.

Ross thought along similar lines.

Ross maintains that ‘both in mathematics and in ethics we have certain crystal-clear intuitions from which we build up all that we can know about the nature of numbers and the nature of duty’ (FE 144).

The analogy with mathematics is instructive, for we acquire our moral knowledge in the same way we acquire knowledge of mathematical axioms. We apprehend that 2+2 = 4 by apprehending that 2+2 matches makes 4 matches and that 2+2 balls makes 4 balls, and so on. We apprehend the algorithm in the particular cases after repeated exposure to particular instances of its application, by a process of intuitive induction (FE 170). We apprehend that it is prima facie right to keep promises by apprehending that it is prima facie right to fulfill this or that particular promise. ‘What comes first in time is the apprehension of the self-evident prima facie rightness of an individual act of a particular type. From this we come by reflection to apprehend the self-evident general principle of prima facie duty’ (RG 33; also FE 170).
William David Ross (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So who am I to believe.

You say morality is similar to math but then show that you dont understand how math works.

Do you see a problem yet?

 

[stevevw]

You say morality is similar to math but then show that you dont understand how math works.

Do you see a problem yet?

No, because your making a straw man. I never said that morality works like Math as in the way its formula works to find the answers/facts. I said that morality works like Math in that they are both abstract ideas that we derive a correct or incorrect answer/determination from. My point was that we have non-physical entities in Math & Morality that can have objective facts/truths. More along the Platonist view as I just mentioned.

This was to try and explain how determining morality is different to science methodology as science can only measure the physical. Whereas science is limited and there are facts/truths in the world besides physical ones. The problem I see is that some who may take the materialist view find it hard to even comprehend that there can be truths/facts beyond the material.

 

[stevevw]

No use saying anything to you, is there

I find that a bit disappointing. We have had a debate back and forth with disagreement about our moral positions. That is to be expects from 2 people holding opposing views. I am not going to convince you and me the same. But by dismissing my opposing view you are more or less saying I should agree with you if we are to continue our debate.

That seems unfair when you consider the basis for relative morality is it tolerates disagreement. That everyone has a right to their moral views.

Especially as I said my moral position is not all that unreasonable to take. You seem to want me to give that up and take on your moral position as though you claim to be taking the one and only true moral position we all should take.

I mean it was a simple question and one I thought would further our debate.

 

[VirOptimus]

No, because your making a straw man. I never said that morality works like Math as in the way its formula works to find the answers/facts. I said that morality works like Math in that they are both abstract ideas that we derive a correct or incorrect answer/determination from. My point was that we have non-physical entities in Math & Morality that can have objective facts/truths. More along the Platonist view as I just mentioned.

This was to try and explain how determining morality is different to science methodology as science can only measure the physical. Whereas science is limited and there are facts/truths in the world besides physical ones. The problem I see is that some who may take the materialist view find it hard to even comprehend that there can be truths/facts beyond the material.

Still doubling down. Well, thats to be expected.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yet as I mentioned this idea has crept into science and there are a growing number of scientific research and theories. For example conscious realism is a scientific theory based on panpsychism.

Conscious realism is a theory proposed by Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist specialising in perception. He has written numerous papers on the topic[52]
Conscious realism builds upon Hoffman's former User-Interface Theory. In combination they argue that (1) consensus reality and spacetime are illusory, and are merely a "species specific evolved user interface"; (2) Reality is made of a complex, dimensionless, and timeless network of "conscious agents".[53]

It is a natural and near-universal assumption that the world has the properties and causal structures that we perceive it to have; to paraphrase Einstein's famous remark, we naturally assume that the moon is there whether anyone looks or not. Both theoretical and empirical considerations, however, increasingly indicate that this is not correct.
— Donald Hoffman, Conscious agent networks: Formal analysis and applications to cognition, p. 2

You still dont see you error, what a surprise.

That doesn't reflect what I have been posting. Havn't mentioned God once and have reasoned and used independent support which all are the opposite of proposing God as the answer as this is not based on evdience.

Your agenda is very obvious. You have chosen a conclusion and work your way from there. And your conclusion is always god (in all subjects you post about here).

Yes I do. This is "Humes Law". As I said people have come up with ways of getting around the "Is and ought" problem.

You havent and you still dont understand the problem.

I don't mean "Justify" motivation itself but justify our belief in the basis such as "LIfe" being intrinsically valuable. It is from this assumption and justified belief (self-evident truth) that we base morality and our motivation comes. There are epistemic duties about what we know and how we come to know and this leads to an obligation to uphold "Life". This is our motivation and reason.

Here you say that "life is intrinsically valuable" is an assumption, then its not supported. Ergo, you have not shown that its an objective value.

By the way "Justification" implies theres an objective to measure whether something is justified or not. I this case justified "Proper belief". Otherwise why even worry about justification.

Really? Support this, with formal logic. Hint, you are in error.

Because this is a self evident truth that humans cannot dispute and is not subject to subjective views. These moral laws have authority over us similar to how the legal law has authority over us.

Legal laws have authorithy because the state has authority through its (near) monopoly on force. Do you not even know this basic fact?

Your "objective morality" have no such backing.

Try again.

That is not my agenda here. Those other comments were relevant to the topics debated. God is not relevant here and even if He was no arguement can be made as we cannot verify God. So its a useless arguement.

Yes its useless, so why do you keep trying to preach?

I did not realize what site it was assuming that I knew the evdience was out there. Like I said the original article was linked. I can show you other sites that say the same thing. Its common knowledge that consciousness has become a mainstream area of research and that many of the ideas stemming form this are counter intuitive.

My point stand. And nmy guess, you have no accedemic background in this either, its just things you have read about on your creationist sites.

What your doing is creating a logical fallacy that if a person or claim is linked to any religious source then everything they have said is disqualified. That would make many scientists unable to comment.

No, thats not how it works. But as soon as you mix religion and science the source is worthless.

Actually I just saw a similar comment to another poster and thought so what if someone preaches on this topic. Afterall morality is closest related to religion. I am sure we are able to acommodate this while also determining the facts/truth of the matter.

No, thats not how it works. But I know you think so, thats a problem for you.

So I guess your objection is unfair in that there is no rule saying someone cannot preach on this topic especially on a Christian Forum. Just like there is no rule that you can say that the preaching is not relevant so long as each party can debate whether thats the case.

You can preach however much you want, in fact "objective morality" is very close to religion and many philosophers are open about this (especially in the UK).

As I'm sure this is your real position Im not sure why you feel the need to lie about it.

 

[stevevw]

You can preach however much you want, in fact "objective morality" is very close to religion and many philosophers are open about this (especially in the UK).

That is just what I told you that preaching should not be regarded as off limits with a topic that is so closely related. Yet you deride people who preach about the topic.

As I'm sure this is your real position Im not sure why you feel the need to lie about it.

I don't have any need to lie about my intentions. Why would I have to admit something that simply is not the case. You seem to be doing my thinking.

My arguement is not based on God. That doesn't mean I don't think God is the moral law maker. I just think that using God as the basis and proof for why there are moral laws is not a good arguement. Its impossible to prove God so the premise is immediately invalid. The arguements lost before we start.

Therefore if God did truely place his moral laws in us then we should be able to see this in the form of a core of common moral truths that we all know of and uphold. So therefore its a case of looking for the practical and factual evidence.

Though its not a knock down evidence for moral truths it is a sure better way to provide support than saying "God did it". Moral realism at least presents a reasonable arguement for moral truths then appealing to God. Even atheists agree with this and attempt to give their version of how morals are objective without God.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

Except morality is not something we can inherit genetically. Its more to do with social behaviour which is something evolution finds hard to explain. How agents can direct their own destiny and survival without genetics. Yes so humans can determine objective reasons why we should behave one way and not the other. Protecting and upholding human "Life" is a no brainer. You don't have to believe in God to know that one. Yet this is still an objective basis for morality and not left open to relative ideas about what is right and wrong.

Protecting and upholding life is a no-brainer? I'd say quite the opposite. If it's a no-brainer, vast swaths of humanity over the course of history must have been brainless. Approximately 50% of 21st Century Americans must be brainless.

When you say "humans can determine" and that this is an "objective" basis, you're responding to and agreeing with my second bullet while attempting to address my first. Turek would (and did) say, "No, this isn't an objective basis. It's merely opinion on a grand scale."

To the extent I accept evolutionary theory at all (which I did in my first post because I was presenting potential atheist arguments), we see in all species patterns of behavior that scientists regard as the product of evolutionary conditioning. It isn't irrational to me for an atheist to argue that what we like to consider morality are, in fact, behaviors that are the product of evolutionary conditioning, overlayed by a patina of opinion and law that humans have applied as they've become more sophisticated.

I think what you will find is that Turek atheist don't know morality as according to the CHristian doctrine all including non-believers have knowledge of Gods laws in their heart. Turek is merely saying that despite atheist being able to know and claim moral values they have has no basis for morality.

Yes, I know what Turek is saying - that was the whole point of my post. His point is that without an external authority (God), there is no objective basis for morality. Hence, atheists must "steal from God" to make moral claims.

The point of my post was that I don't believe this is true. If you define morality as requiring an external authority, as Turek pretty much does, you've simply begged the question. Bertrand Russell would've eaten an apologist like Turek for lunch.

You do make a point that somewhat bolsters my evolutionary arguments. We Christians argue that even pagans have a variety of morality planted in their hearts and minds by God. On what basis, other than the fact we believe in God and an atheist doesn't, can we answer the atheist who says "Oh, I agree, conscience is there - but it was planted not by God but by evolution"?

We can only argue, pretty much as you have done, "We don't think evolution can do that." But then, as I say, the atheist can point to numerous patterns of behavior in numerous species that could easily be misinterpreted as "morality" from the human perspective but surely aren't.

I'm not promoting atheism, mind you. But one of my pet peeves is apologetic arguments like "no morality without God" that have a superficial appeal but are embarrassingly lightweight and misguided.

 

[stevevw]

Protecting and upholding life is a no-brainer? I'd say quite the opposite. If it's a no-brainer, vast swaths of humanity over the course of history must have been brainless. Approximately 50% of 21st Century Americans must be brainless.

When you say "humans can determine" and that this is an "objective" basis, you're responding to and agreeing with my second bullet while attempting to address my first. Turek would (and did) say, "No, this isn't an objective basis. It's merely opinion on a grand scale."

To the extent I accept evolutionary theory at all (which I did in my first post because I was presenting potential atheist arguments), we see in all species patterns of behavior that scientists regard as the product of evolutionary conditioning. It isn't irrational to me for an atheist to argue that what we like to consider morality are, in fact, behaviors that are the product of evolutionary conditioning, overlayed by a patina of opinion and law that humans have applied as they've become more sophisticated.


Yes, I know what Turek is saying - that was the whole point of my post. His point is that without an external authority (God), there is no objective basis for morality. Hence, atheists must "steal from God" to make moral claims.

The point of my post was that I don't believe this is true. If you define morality as requiring an external authority, as Turek pretty much does, you've simply begged the question. Bertrand Russell would've eaten an apologist like Turek for lunch.

You do make a point that somewhat bolsters my evolutionary arguments. We Christians argue that even pagans have a variety of morality planted in their hearts and minds by God. On what basis, other than the fact we believe in God and an atheist doesn't, can we answer the atheist who says "Oh, I agree, conscience is there - but it was planted not by God but by evolution"?

We can only argue, pretty much as you have done, "We don't think evolution can do that." But then, as I say, the atheist can point to numerous patterns of behavior in numerous species that could easily be misinterpreted as "morality" from the human perspective but surely aren't.

I'm not promoting atheism, mind you. But one of my pet peeves is apologetic arguments like "no morality without God" that have a superficial appeal but are embarrassingly lightweight and misguided.

The moral arguement for God is based on objective morality needing to be grounded in some anchor beyond humans. That is something we can all agree whether its evolutionary survival, human Life or wellbeing.

But because all these reasons are seen as human made (fallible & subjective) they cannot be objective and a reliable source of morality. Because morality is a rational enterprise the objective basis for morality needs to be grounded in something beyond humans yet rational. Therefore a transcendent moral lawgiver.

 

[VirOptimus]

That is just what I told you that preaching should not be regarded as off limits with a topic that is so closely related. Yet you deride people who preach about the topic.

I don't have any need to lie about my intentions. Why would I have to admit something that simply is not the case. You seem to be doing my thinking.

My arguement is not based on God. That doesn't mean I don't think God is the moral law maker. I just think that using God as the basis and proof for why there are moral laws is not a good arguement. Its impossible to prove God so the premise is immediately invalid. The arguements lost before we start.

Therefore if God did truely place his moral laws in us then we should be able to see this in the form of a core of common moral truths that we all know of and uphold. So therefore its a case of looking for the practical and factual evidence.

Though its not a knock down evidence for moral truths it is a sure better way to provide support than saying "God did it". Moral realism at least presents a reasonable arguement for moral truths then appealing to God. Even atheists agree with this and attempt to give their version of how morals are objective without God.

Tell me, did the moral laws change with the new testament?

 

[Astrid]

The ways of the corrupt world are corrosive through the self-fulfilling subjective negative prejudice of cynicism, that each person is only out for themselves. Hypocrisy is a manifestation of this.

In an absolute positive of objective morality, it's wrong that people should ever have to fool or lie to one another to begin with. What does such a morality look like working in a corrupt and cruel world? Compassion.

None of that is responsive to what i asked.

Moral absolutes should lead to clear answers.

 

[Astrid]

Sort of, and for what it's worth, great question! At a fundamental level of understanding, I'm saying that what is moral is never immoral and what is immoral is never moral, in any sound reasoning. To rephrase, I'm saying morality/immorality is a positive/negative (a true dichotomy as opposed to a false dichotomy).

Please note that all synonyms for the meaning of the term 'hypocritical' carry a negative immoral connotation, and that all antonyms carry a positive moral connotation.

From thesaurus.com
SYNONYMS FOR hypocritical

• deceit
• deception
• dishonesty
• duplicity
• fraud
• insincerity

Here are some antonyms:

• forthright
• frank
• genuine
• honest
• humble
• open
• real
• truthful
• actual
• authentic
• just
• reliable
• righteous
• sincere
• upright

Moral / immoral are a false dichotomy with as fuzzy a boundary as nihgt and day.