Secular Objective Morality

[David Gould]

There are 2 primary & different views on this.

A. One is the idea that Good/Evil are separate from God and everything he does is judged against that standard. Then a question might be asked, well what made the other good standard good? And we can infinitely regress in asking this question.

B. The other view is that God himself is pure goodness. In the same way that logic and truth are absolutes, God also is absolutely good, absolutely perfect. And him being the only necessary thing, he is uncaused and there is no good/evil standard apart from him. In this view, every bit of love, every bit of logical reasoning are things from God. And consequently, every bit of dishonesty, every bad deed, every bit of poor reasoning are not something coming from God.

Christianity claims B.

The fundamental problem with this view that even if it is true it helps the actual practical application of objective morality not at all.

The reason?

Because all we have to go on, assuming God exists, is God's word that he is a being of this kind. There is still no reason why we should accept God's word. To argue that we should accept God's word because he is the source of moral authority is circular reasoning, as the only means we have of discovering that God is the source of moral authority is his word. This is a huge problem for advocates of objective morality if they want objective morality to be practically implemented.

So why should God's word be followed, why should truth matter, why should we be good, why should we be logical and honest, and why do we exist are all meaningless questions (and illusions) if God doesn't exist.

And equally meaningless if God does exist. There are no reasons accessible to humans. (In fact, even God has this problem. Why should God accept that he is the source of moral authority? All he has is the feeling that he is the source of moral authority. Why should he trust this feeling?)

 

[mepalmer3]

Because all we have to go on, assuming God exists, is God's word that he is a being of this kind. There is still no reason why we should accept God's word. To argue that we should accept God's word because he is the source of moral authority is circular reasoning, as the only means we have of discovering that God is the source of moral authority is his word. This is a huge problem for advocates of objective morality if they want objective morality to be practically implemented.

By this reasoning, it's also a huge problem for anyone advocating absolute truths or logic. I think we can start with the axiom that absolute truth is a necessity. Similarly, logic is an axiom that we can start with. These things didn't begin, they aren't relevant to time, but they are necessary and they are uncaused. So starting with those as the only 2 uncaused things, we can logically begin adding other attributes that are necessary in order for a universe (time/matter/energy) to begin. Some attributes are willful, motivated, good, perfect, powerful, purely self-determined, and some others. Those attributes we don't separate, but assume to be 1 entity, according to Occam's Razor. And that's a basic definition of who God is.

Other places I've also argued that similar to absolute truth and something not true, good is an absolute whereas evil it just a perversion of good. Evil isn't necessary, but good is. That's perhaps another topic.

 

[David Gould]

We can say that absolute truth exists. We cannot make any claims about what it might be, though. At best, this is the position that absolute morality is in. And that makes it useless for all practical purposes.

My problem with your list of attributes is that I do not agree that they are necessary ones. I am happy to accept logic as an axiom - indeed, I do not think that it is possible to do anything other than that.

 

[mepalmer3]

We can say that absolute truth exists. We cannot make any claims about what it might be, though. At best, this is the position that absolute morality is in. And that makes it useless for all practical purposes.

My problem with your list of attributes is that I do not agree that they are necessary ones. I am happy to accept logic as an axiom - indeed, I do not think that it is possible to do anything other than that.

Ok... what use has logic without absolute truth? Can logic do ANYTHING useful without some truth?

I do like the approach of trying to throw out EVERYTHING not needed. So with your suggestion, we should start purely with logic, no universe, no time, no matter, no energy, no god, no people, etc... So, the question next that comes to mind is how do we get from logic to where we are today. And what can logic really do on it's own?

 

[David Gould]

Ok... what use has logic without absolute truth? Can logic do ANYTHING useful without some truth?

We cannot discover absolute truth. So absolute truth, while it is likely sitting prettily out there somewhere, is not a concept we need to be concerned with.

To use logic we need premises. These premises need not be true for logic to work or be useful.

Science, for example, does not seek truth. It merely seeks out what is useful. Or rather, it seeks out descriptions of the universe. Are these descriptions true? Impossible to say. But the ones that are useful we retain.

I do like the approach of trying to throw out EVERYTHING not needed. So with your suggestion, we should start purely with logic, no universe, no time, no matter, no energy, no god, no people, etc... So, the question next that comes to mind is how do we get from logic to where we are today. And what can logic really do on it's own?

I am unclear what you mean by this. However, there is a theory regarding the origins of the universe that suggest it is a logical or mathematical necessity - in other words, if we take logic and maths as the fundamental starting point, the universe necessarily arises. I do not really have a view - there is not enough evidence or argument in any direction.

However, how we could have gotten from logic to where we are today is not something I am able to answer, although one answer that springs to mind is that perhaps the non-existence of the universe is not permitted under the law of logic. There are indeed logical and conceptual problems with non-existence, so maybe that is the where the starting point lies.

 

[mepalmer3]

We cannot discover absolute truth. So absolute truth, while it is likely sitting prettily out there somewhere, is not a concept we need to be concerned with.

To use logic we need premises. These premises need not be true for logic to work or be useful.

Science, for example, does not seek truth. It merely seeks out what is useful. Or rather, it seeks out descriptions of the universe. Are these descriptions true? Impossible to say. But the ones that are useful we retain.

It's interesting that the only axiom you'll allow yourself is logic. It appears rather arbitrary to me to pick it and only it.

So you get a description via science. You come to the conclusion that truth, being unattainable, is unknown with respect to whether or not that description is accurate. But then you come to the conclusion that the description is useful. Is it true that it's useful? Impossible to say. Your claim that no truth can be known I think is self defeating. Is it true that no truth can be known?

You hold that consciousness itself is an illusion, right? And that "free will" of course is an illusion? Wouldn't you also hold logic to be an illusion as well?

 

[David Gould]

It's interesting that the only axiom you'll allow yourself is logic. It appears rather arbitrary to me to pick it and only it.

Well, logic is likely not the only axiom I hold to.

So you get a description via science. You come to the conclusion that truth, being unattainable, is unknown with respect to whether or not that description is accurate. But then you come to the conclusion that the description is useful. Is it true that it's useful? Impossible to say. Your claim that no truth can be known I think is self defeating. Is it true that no truth can be known?

The thing is, truth can only be evaluated in a context. In other words, it is true that quantum mechanics helps us build things. But is quantum mechanics truly the way the universe works? There are different levels to truth, you see.

When I speak of absolute truth I am speaking of the way the universe operates. But there are other truths separate to that that may be able to be known, depending on context.

For example, it is true that there is a sensation within my which we call hunger. But that has nothing to do with the question of absolute truth and whether we can know it.

You hold that consciousness itself is an illusion, right? And that "free will" of course is an illusion? Wouldn't you also hold logic to be an illusion as well?

No. Logic is not an illusion. As an example, imagine that the universe did not exist. Logic would still hold - the universe existing and not existing simultaneously would not be possible.

 

[David Gould]

I will try to explain myself a little better.

When we look at the universe we see that it behaves in certain ways. Unlocking cause and effect is a key part of science. However, as Hume pointed out and others since him, causation is not something that we can actually discover. We can only infer causation; we can never know it.

Thus, when science is useful it makes inferences about causation that enable us to have more control over the world around us. However, if these inferences are in fact false then it is also false that we have more control over the world around us. However, if it seems as though we do then that is sufficient.

Whether we really do or not in that sense is irrelevent. There is no way to know for sure, for example, that our flicking of the light switch turns on the light. But it seems to, and that is sufficient - until we can falsify that claim, of course.

But truth in these matters is beyond us.


With regard to personal truths - my hunger, for example - we may in fact approach knowledge of reality. Descartes, 'I think, therefore I am,' was an attempt of this sort, although it is fatally flawed. A better example is, 'There is thought.' This statement is necessarily true. However, the problem here is that thought may not be what we think it is. So the truth - whatever it is - is still obscured.


I hope that helps.

 

[RationalThought]

Well, the problem comes in of how you define violation of freedom, IMO, as you brought up a couple posts back. I'm not sure how useful it would be to keep it as just physical/financial harm. . . consider adultery, for example. The act is generally considered immoral, not because of physical harm, but because of emotional harm. A person who cheats on their spouse has caused real harm to another human being, and in my opinion has done something he/she should not do, or has committed an immoral act. It seems to me that we must take emotional harm into account.

The immorality of adultery comes not from the simple act of having sex with someone other than your spouse immoral, but from violating a contract with your spouse. I know of couples who do not consider it a violation of their marriage contract, so in their case it would not be immoral. Violating contracts we freely enter into is obviously immoral, and this would include marriage.

I don't see why emotional harm must be taken into account. What reasons other than adultery do you see would require the inclusion of emotional considerations?

But, of course, the problem with that is that the "neutral" act distinction goes right out the window, IMO. Everything we do has effects, both intentional and unintentional, on the states of others around us, especially if we begin talking about altering emotional states. To live, to be a "self," is to influence the world around you, or to exert your will to power on the world in Nietzschean terms, and this includes affecting the people around you. We don't have to agree with a will-to-power concept to agree with this, though. If your life is making no difference to existence as a whole, how does it make sense to say that you're participating in life in any meaningful way? So, it seems to me that every act we commit, under your system, must be considered moral or immoral.

I agree with you that to act is to influence the world, but that act need not violate anyone's freedom. Pending further review, let's remove emotional states from consideration. And let's, for the sake of argument, have every act be considered moral or immoral. I take hold of my son's hand, not for any reason other than I wanted to. While this is definitely not an immoral act, my not committing the act results in no harm, unlike not paying a restaurant bill. To me, there is a clear distinction between holding the hand and paying the bill. How do you propose to distinguish between actions which should be performed and actions which may be performed?

Here's the basic flow chart. We assign to every person the same freedoms, and assign every freedom which can be exercised without contradicting another's freedom. Next we define immoral as those actions which violate another's freedom, and moral actions as those actions whose omission results in violating another's freedom. This is how we can generate a universal morality from local conditions.

Perhaps some distinction could be made between "direct" and "indirect" harm, or intentional and unintentional harm, although that would change your system around a bit and might bring up new problems.

Accommodations can be made for both these distinctions. These, to me, are of a secondary nature and are more of a quantitative, rather than a qualitative nature. When incorporated in this manner they produce no fundamental change to the system, nor introduce new problems.

 

[nadroj1985]

The immorality of adultery comes not from the simple act of having sex with someone other than your spouse immoral, but from violating a contract with your spouse. I know of couples who do not consider it a violation of their marriage contract, so in their case it would not be immoral. Violating contracts we freely enter into is obviously immoral, and this would include marriage.

I don't see why emotional harm must be taken into account. What reasons other than adultery do you see would require the inclusion of emotional considerations?

Hmmm... that's a good point. I don't have a lot of time to respond now and think of another example, but I'll let you know if I do. I think that your position is pretty defensible if viewed that way

I agree with you that to act is to influence the world, but that act need not violate anyone's freedom. Pending further review, let's remove emotional states from consideration. And let's, for the sake of argument, have every act be considered moral or immoral. I take hold of my son's hand, not for any reason other than I wanted to. While this is definitely not an immoral act, my not committing the act results in no harm, unlike not paying a restaurant bill. To me, there is a clear distinction between holding the hand and paying the bill. How do you propose to distinguish between actions which should be performed and actions which may be performed?

Well, I'm proposing that there is no distinction. Nietzsche said (and I'm paraphrasing here, although I'll be proud of myself if I get it just right ) that there are no moral phenomena- only moral interpretations of phenomena. There are only actions that may be performed; a "should" is something we impose upon our experiences, because of the nature of our existence. I personally can't think of any distinction that wouldn't be arbitrary.

Here's the basic flow chart. We assign to every person the same freedoms, and assign every freedom which can be exercised without contradicting another's freedom. Next we define immoral as those actions which violate another's freedom, and moral actions as those actions whose omission results in violating another's freedom. This is how we can generate a universal morality from local conditions.

A nice summary. My objection from above remains, though. Looking forward to your response

Accommodations can be made for both these distinctions. These, to me, are of a secondary nature and are more of a quantitative, rather than a qualitative nature. When incorporated in this manner they produce no fundamental change to the system, nor introduce new problems.

Well, at the very least, the "intentional" vs. "unintentional" distinction changes the nature of the morality quite foundationally. As it is now, actions are judged moral or immoral based on their consequences (i.e., whether they violate another's rights), not on the intent of the person committing the act.