What does objective morality do?

[David Gould]

Let us assume that objective morality exists. There are a set of rules/laws that are true. It actually is evil to murder, and so on.

What then? Why would this make any difference to human behaviour? After all, aren't we given the choice as to whether to obey those laws or not? If we can disobey these laws just as easily as we can disobey any human made laws what is it that objective morality actually does?

 

[Lifesaver]

Let us assume that objective morality exists. There are a set of rules/laws that are true. It actually is evil to murder, and so on.

What then? Why would this make any difference to human behaviour? After all, aren't we given the choice as to whether to obey those laws or not? If we can disobey these laws just as easily as we can disobey any human made laws what is it that objective morality actually does?

The breaking of any law, be it social or moral, entails in punishment.
Human society, imperfect as it is, does not punish every instance where the law is breaked, and nor can it differentiate properly between the degrees of breaking (though attempt is made, as with intentional or unintentional murder).
Such is not the case with God, who is perfect.

 

[David Gould]

I did not mention God. I am talking about objective morality. What does it do? How would the fact that there was an objective morality alter human behaviour, compared to if there was no objective morality?

 

[Lifesaver]

The existence of objective morality does not make humans act differently than if no such thing existed.
What changes the actions of humans is the knowledge that morality is objective.
This is true for almost everything, actually. Most facts only alter the behaviour of those who know it.

And the knowledge that morality is objective gives man a greater incentive to act in good ways, for they know it is not their opinion, or that of those around him, which will make his actions good or evil.

 

[Randall McNally]

The existence of objective morality does not make humans act differently than if no such thing existed.
What changes the actions of humans is the knowledge that morality is objective.
This is true for almost everything, actually. Most facts only alter the behaviour of those who know it.

And the knowledge that morality is objective gives man a greater incentive to act in good ways, for they know it is not their opinion, or that of those around him, which will make his actions good or evil.

This is probably true for many moral beings. But what about those who are not motivated solely by the knowledge that an objective morality exists? Legal systems are tangible codes of behavior, but people still readily ignore many of the individual prohibitions. Why would people like that follow an objective moral code?

 

[philosopherthales]

Randall, you seem to imply that a legal code is objective. It is actually subjective as evidenced by the multitude of variations in laws on the national, state and local level.

 

[philosopherthales]

Ignore this. I posted the above post twice b/c It didn't show up the first time. Then After the 2nd time, there were 2 of the same post.

 

[TrueQ]

Assuming that there is some set of objective morals inscribed on the inside of our eyelids (or somewhere else obvious enough that no one would miss it) and writ in a universally understood language. I think it would serve as a convenient starting point for subjective morality and plain old law, nothing more, nothing less. In either case it wouldn't be long before it was disregarded anyway, let's say that 'though shalt not kill', which most people agree is a pretty objective rule, is on this list. Wars cause people to ignore that rule practically inherently, and from adding conditions to one of these 'absolute morals', it won't be long before others are changed or erased and the whole thing becomes just another subjective set of loose guidelines.

 

[kedaman]

morality <=> immortality

 

[an7222]

Let us assume that objective morality exists. There are a set of rules/laws that are true. It actually is evil to murder, and so on.

What then? Why would this make any difference to human behaviour? After all, aren't we given the choice as to whether to obey those laws or not? If we can disobey these laws just as easily as we can disobey any human made laws what is it that objective morality actually does?

I think that the knowledge of morality, of what is right and wrong makes people better.

And if you say that morality is just a subjective opinion, in fact you're saying that morality is meaningless, since you have your opinion and I have mine, and nobody will be able to say that the other is right or wrong.

 

[Randall McNally]

Randall, you seem to imply that a legal code is objective. It is actually subjective as evidenced by the multitude of variations in laws on the national, state and local level.

Oh, certainly not. My point was that such a moral code must be objective and tangible. And since we have an example of a tangible code of behavior, we can observe how well people adhere to it. It's unclear whether objectivity would have a substantial effect.

 

[A. believer]

Let us assume that objective morality exists. There are a set of rules/laws that are true. It actually is evil to murder, and so on.

What then? Why would this make any difference to human behaviour? After all, aren't we given the choice as to whether to obey those laws or not? If we can disobey these laws just as easily as we can disobey any human made laws what is it that objective morality actually does?

I'm still waiting for a response from you to my point on a thread you started in the GA forum a few days ago, but I'll respond here anyway.

As in the other thread, it seems to me that you're asking the wrong question. The Christian claim is that morality is objective because it's a reflection of the holy character of a transcendent God. Because morality is objective and humans are created by God as moral agents, possessing a conscience, we're culpable for violating God's holy character.

So what does your question even mean?

 

[Randall McNally]

As in the other thread, it seems to me that you're asking the wrong question. The Christian claim is that morality is objective because it's a reflection of the holy character of a transcendent God.

What ever "a reflection of the holy character of a transcendent God" is supposed to be, it's not identical to objectivity. You can't beg objectivity by using fancy words to disguse the fact that God is a being with a will. Beings with wills who make decisions make subejctive decisions by definition. God must be able to make decisions other than the ones He actually makes; if he couldn't, then you couldn't say He has a will.

Because morality is objective and humans are created by God as moral agents, possessing a conscience, we're culpable for violating God's holy character.

This is precisely why theistic objective morality is nonsensical. In one breath, you tell us that morality is objective; in the next, you say we're morally culpable not because morality is objective, but because it violates "God's holy character."

 

[nadroj1985]

And if you say that morality is just a subjective opinion, in fact you're saying that morality is meaningless, since you have your opinion and I have mine, and nobody will be able to say that the other is right or wrong.

This only works if "meaning" is only defined as "objective meaning." If you want to define it that way, I suppose that's fine, but it neglects the possibility of subjective meanings.

If I concede that art has no objective standard for quality, have I taken meaning away from art?

 

[David Gould]

I'm still waiting for a response from you to my point on a thread you started in the GA forum a few days ago, but I'll respond here anyway.

Which thread was that? Can you link to it?

As in the other thread, it seems to me that you're asking the wrong question. The Christian claim is that morality is objective because it's a reflection of the holy character of a transcendent God. Because morality is objective and humans are created by God as moral agents, possessing a conscience, we're culpable for violating God's holy character.

So what does your question even mean?

My question is looking at whether the existence or otherwise of objective morality would have an effect on human behaviour.

In other words, if there were no objective morality would humanity act any differently than they do now?

 

[Stinker]

If a person claims that there is no God, that person cannot claim that 'objective morality' exists. In every normal human being there is a component in which God has placed, whereby that person can recognize as good, that being what is contained in the New Testament.

 

[Norea]

If a person claims that there is no God, that person cannot claim that 'objective morality' exists. In every normal human being there is a component in which God has placed, whereby that person can recognize as good, that being what is contained in the New Testament.

Not quite so because if morality is objective then it's a series of behaviors best suited for human survival. For example I don't kill my neighbor because my other neighbors may kill me out of fear that I may kill them as well. I don't steal from others so not to breed distrust from others. And so forth.

Morality isn't about what you don't do it's about what you must do to survive. And that morality needs not altruism or an external source besides natural forces to validate them. That's why it's not a moral to beat up gay people but it is a moral to treat them as you wish to be treated. It's not a moral to oppress your fellow human to make them accept your views but it is a moral to lead by example of what is best. And so on. Unless you look at morality this way you cannot ever learn what morality truly is about. You will always live in darkness until you accept your personal responsibilities, e.g. your morals.

-- Bridget

 

[David Gould]

If a person claims that there is no God, that person cannot claim that 'objective morality' exists. In every normal human being there is a component in which God has placed, whereby that person can recognize as good, that being what is contained in the New Testament.

And this just proves my point. If everyone recognises it as good but not everyone obeys it then what is the purpose for it? Why did God bother with it? Objective morality achieves nothing more than subjective morality.

 

[smog]

Even God is subjective. The moral codes God would edict would not objective by any standards.

In the context it is habitually used, objective morality is pretty much synonymous with the emergent morality of humanity as a whole. Needless to say, it's misleading, because humanity is subjective as well.

 

[an7222]

And this just proves my point. If everyone recognises it as good but not everyone obeys it then what is the purpose for it? Why did God bother with it? Objective morality achieves nothing more than subjective morality.

In the past, everybody thougth the earth was flat. Than they discovered that the earth was round. The imediate consequence of it was none, but with time, it helped us to develop other theories. The same here. The imediate consequence of discovering that morality is objective, opens the door for us to search for this objective morality more and more and develop other theories based on it. And it will make mankind better.