What is objective morality?

[Ken-1122]

I often hear Christians claim the existence of “objective morality”. What is it? Is it like math where anybody who understands math will agree that 1+1=2, or like anyone with their 5 senses working correctly will see the grass is green, that sugar is sweet, and the brick wall in front of them exists? Do you believe anyone who understands morals will agree that slavery (for example) is wrong if slavery is an objective moral situation? What are objective morals?

Ken

 

[Joshua260]

I often hear Christians claim the existence of “objective morality”. What is it? Is it like math where anybody who understands math will agree that 1+1=2, or like anyone with their 5 senses working correctly will see the grass is green, that sugar is sweet, and the brick wall in front of them exists? Do you believe anyone who understands morals will agree that slavery (for example) is wrong if slavery is an objective moral situation? What are objective morals?

Ken

Hey Ken,

When I say that I believe that a practice has a negative or "bad" objective moral value, I mean that the practice has an intrinsic negative moral value that could be rightly perceived by a rightly-thinking person. As we discussed before concerning slavery, I believe that slavery was wrong even back long ago when almost all the world thought of it as an accepted practice. So, when a person says that he believes that slavery has a negative or "bad" intrinsic moral value, I believe that he has *correctly* perceived the actual intrinsic negative value of slavery and not just formed an opinion or guess about it.

Consider what would have happened if the Nazis had won WWII and Hitler had successfully brainwashed the rest of the world, like he had much of Germany, into believing that antisemitism was an acceptable practice. It is my contention that even if everyone was brainwashed into believing that antisemitism held a morally acceptable value, that a rightly-thinking person should in fact perceive antisemitism as having an intrinsic negative moral value.

What do you think? Do you think slavery and antisemitism have intrinsic negative moral values, or are the negative values we perceive in them just our personal preference at this particular time in history?

 

[Ken-1122]

Hey Ken,

When I say that I believe that a practice has a negative or "bad" objective moral value, I mean that the practice has an intrinsic negative moral value that could be rightly perceived by a rightly-thinking person. As we discussed before concerning slavery, I believe that slavery was wrong even back long ago when almost all the world thought of it as an accepted practice. So, when a person says that he believes that slavery has a negative or "bad" intrinsic moral value, I believe that he has *correctly* perceived the actual intrinsic negative value of slavery and not just formed an opinion or guess about it.

Consider what would have happened if the Nazis had won WWII and Hitler had successfully brainwashed the rest of the world, like he had much of Germany, into believing that antisemitism was an acceptable practice. It is my contention that even if everyone was brainwashed into believing that antisemitism held a morally acceptable value, that a rightly-thinking person should in fact perceive antisemitism as having an intrinsic negative moral value.

What do you think? Do you think slavery and antisemitism have intrinsic negative moral values, or are the negative values we perceive in them just our personal preference at this particular time in history?

I agree that it has a negative moral value because I precieve it as harmful; but I don't know if I would consider it "intrinsic" because another person may agree with me 99% of the time on various moral issues, but still disagree with me about slavery or antisemitism.
Do you think everybody will agree on that which is morally subjective vs morally objective/intrinsic?

Ken

 

[dhh712]

I often hear Christians claim the existence of “objective morality”. What is it? Is it like math where anybody who understands math will agree that 1+1=2, or like anyone with their 5 senses working correctly will see the grass is green, that sugar is sweet, and the brick wall in front of them exists? Do you believe anyone who understands morals will agree that slavery (for example) is wrong if slavery is an objective moral situation? What are objective morals?

Ken

From what I understand thus far, objective morality is that moral code which is written in the Bible; I understand that moral code to be contained in the ten commandments, which I understand to be the moral law.

I don't understand slavery to be an objective moral situation; I understand it to be subjective (what I mean by that is that I do not know of any moral law in the ten commandments which forbids slavery; in fact, the 5th clearly describes the existence of superiors and inferiors. Not that that it would be a direct permission of slavery, yet we are clearly placed by God into roles where we can be either superior or inferior to another person). I do understand certain actions which were being committed under the conditions of slavery to be heinous violations of God's objective moral laws. Superiors are to love and protect the inferiors which God has placed beneath them--that commandment was certainly being violated by some practitioners of slavery.

 

[Ken-1122]

From what I understand thus far, objective morality is that moral code which is written in the Bible; I understand that moral code to be contained in the ten commandments, which I understand to be the moral law.

I don't understand slavery to be an objective moral situation; I understand it to be subjective (what I mean by that is that I do not know of any moral law in the ten commandments which forbids slavery; in fact, the 5th clearly describes the existence of superiors and inferiors. Not that that it would be a direct permission of slavery, yet we are clearly placed by God into roles where we can be either superior or inferior to another person). I do understand certain actions which were being committed under the conditions of slavery to be heinous violations of God's objective moral laws. Superiors are to love and protect the inferiors which God has placed beneath them--that commandment was certainly being violated by some practitioners of slavery.

So "objective morality" is strictly a Judeo-Christian thing?

Ken

 

[Harry3142]

New Testament Scripture teaches us that in order for our actions to be moral, the motivations which culminate in those actions must conform to what God wants of us. If our actions are dictated by the proper motivations, then those actions conform to God's will, and therefore are moral. However, if our actions are dictated by motivations which emanate from a sinful nature, then those actions cannot be seen as conforming to God's will, and therefore are immoral, or even amoral:

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:16-26,NIV)

The motivations that are listed as 'the acts of the sinful nature' cannot be seen as conforming to God's will. Because of this, an action which proceeds from any of those motivations also cannot be seen as conforming to God's will. Instead, such an action is to be seen as a sinful act, even if it might superficially appear to be righteous, or even pious.

In order for our actions to conform to God's will, and so be seen as moral, the impetus for those actions must be the motivations that are listed as 'the fruit of the Spirit'. It is when they dictate our actions that the actions can be seen as righteous, aka 'moral'. Just as the motivations listed as 'the acts of the sinful nature' can be identified as the root cause of all sinful acts, the motivations listed as 'the fruit of the Spirit' can be identified as the root cause of all righteous acts. That is why the words which immediately follow their listing are, "Against such things there is no law."

As for their being objective, rather than their being subjective, all we need to do is recognize what type of person would have either the motivations of 'the acts of the sinful nature' or those of 'the fruit of the Spirit' dictate his actions. 'The acts of the sinful nature' can be classified under the heading of 'narcissism', so those who have them as the impetus for their actions have a "Me first, last, and always" attitude toward all those around them. They may disguise it as an attempt to have others see them as superior, or even more pious, but when seen objectively their narcissistic nature becomes apparent.

However, 'the fruit of the Spirit' can be classified as the mature attitude, so those who have these motivations as the impetus for their actions have a "We're all in this together, so let's help each other" attitude toward those around them. It's these people who have a genuine compassio for others, culminating in their working to alleviate whatever suffering they can. So it's the people whose actions are dictated by 'the fruit of the Spirit' whom others want to have among them when help is needed.

 

[Joshua260]

I agree that it has a negative moral value because I precieve it as harmful; but I don't know if I would consider it "intrinsic" because another person may agree with me 99% of the time on various moral issues, but still disagree with me about slavery or antisemitism.

Ok. First, let me clarify what I mean by intrinsic.
According to Merriam-Webster, intrinsic means:
"belonging to the essential nature of a thing : occurring as a natural part of something". So, the intrinsic property is not there because someone placed that property on it; rather, that property "essentially belongs" to it or is a "natural part" of it. Whether something has an intrinsic property or not is NOT open to opinion. You may GUESS whether or not a property of something exist intrinsically or not, but your guess does not alter the fact that is does or does not exist. So, this is another way of saying that something has an objectively negative or objectively positive value.

Do you think everybody will agree on that which is morally subjective vs morally objective/intrinsic?

No, of course not. But that has nothing to do with my reply. Whether or not anyone agrees that something has an intrinsic property has nothing to do with the truth that it does or does not have that property.

Whether or not a practice has an objectively negative moral value attached it or not is not always clear (like smoking or spitting), but that has no effect on the truth value of the situation. On the other hand, I believe there are some practices that we can be pretty sure about. For example, I think it's pretty clear to just about everyone on this planet that raping little girls is a practice that definitely has a negative moral value attached to it. I don't really need to ask anyone's opinion about it. What do you think about that situation? Do you think it's pretty clear that raping little girls is definitely something that has a negative moral value attached to it, or do you feel that a reasonable person could make the argument that the negative moral value of raping little girls is still debatable?

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok. First, let me clarify what I mean by intrinsic.
According to Merriam-Webster, intrinsic means:
"belonging to the essential nature of a thing : occurring as a natural part of something". So, the intrinsic property is not there because someone placed that property on it; rather, that property "essentially belongs" to it or is a "natural part" of it. Whether something has an intrinsic property or not is NOT open to opinion. You may GUESS whether or not a property of something exist intrinsically or not, but your guess does not alter the fact that is does or does not exist. So, this is another way of saying that something has an objectively negative or objectively positive value.

So do you believe something that is intrinsic/objective is as morally correct or wrong as 1+1=2? Or the brick wall in front of you exist (you can deny the wall all you want, you will not walk through it) as I mentioned before?

No, of course not. But that has nothing to do with my reply. Whether or not anyone agrees that something has an intrinsic property has nothing to do with the truth that it does or does not have that property.

Whether or not a practice has an objectively negative moral value attached it or not is not always clear (like smoking or spitting), but that has no effect on the truth value of the situation. On the other hand, I believe there are some practices that we can be pretty sure about. For example, I think it's pretty clear to just about everyone on this planet that raping little girls is a practice that definitely has a negative moral value attached to it. I don't really need to ask anyone's opinion about it. What do you think about that situation? Do you think it's pretty clear that raping little girls is definitely something that has a negative moral value attached to it, or do you feel that a reasonable person could make the argument that the negative moral value of raping little girls is still debatable?

Rape is easy; what about the more difficult moral issues? Homosexuality, polygamy, smoking? lying, the fact that not everybody will agree if these issues are subjective, or objective tells me it is not as appearant as a brick wall sitting in front of you.

Ken

 

[dhh712]

So "objective morality" is strictly a Judeo-Christian thing?

Ken

No (at least, I don't think so--I'm not too familiar with what would be considered a Judeo-Christian thing. If it is that the Old Testament is still important, then yes; if it is that everything in the Old Testament still applies today, then no). Jesus commands us to obey the ten commandments when He says (something along the lines of): "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and might and love your neighbor as yourself; if you do this then you have fulfilled the law." The first four commandments encompass loving God and the last six encompass the love we should extend and act out towards all.

I think that perhaps some people confuse the law which was given to the Israelites to uphold as a nation, as they were the line through which would be born God incarnate as man (is found in the books of the law, Exodus, Leviticus, etc. I personally believe many of those laws still would promote a very beneficial, satisfying society--the more severe laws such as death to unbelievers as well as practitioners of obscene activities and so on are of course way too severe, yet I feel they were in place strictly because that was the nation into which Christ would be born; now it would not have too much purpose to enact such drastic punishments today because we know not to an absolute certainty who are God's people and therefore should treat everyone as those who may in time if they are not at the moment be called of God. This of course is no strict conclusion which I have come to, only an idea that has come in to my mind and into which I am searching more), and the moral law which is the ten commandments.

 

[prov1810]

I often hear Christians claim the existence of “objective morality”.

For the record, it's not just Christians. 56% of professional philosophers in this survey either accept or lean toward moral realism.

I believe there is an objective morality in inscripturated divine moral commands (the Bible) summed up in the principle "Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Rom. 13:10). I think the good life is about being as harmless as one reasonably can, and helping to alleviate suffering. A widespread and perennial value, no?

 

[RDKirk]

The bible does not teach "objective morality." The bible teaches that God is the single source of morality, and God is not objective, but very much subjective.

If morality were objective, God would necessarily be subject to it: There would be a moral code that God was obligated to obey, thus that moral code would be God's "god."

No, scripture teaches that morality is subjective to God, not objective.

 

[Ken-1122]

No (at least, I don't think so--I'm not too familiar with what would be considered a Judeo-Christian thing.

I meant those who practice the Judeo-christian religion;

K

 

[Ken-1122]

For the record, it's not just Christians. 56% of professional philosophers in this survey either accept or lean toward moral realism.

Is moral realism the same as objective morality?

I believe there is an objective morality in inscripturated divine moral commands (the Bible) summed up in the principle "Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Rom. 13:10). I think the good life is about being as harmless as one reasonably can, and helping to alleviate suffering. A widespread and perennial value, no?

But is that value subjective or objective?

K

 

[Ken-1122]

The bible does not teach "objective morality." The bible teaches that God is the single source of morality, and God is not objective, but very much subjective.

If morality were objective, God would necessarily be subject to it: There would be a moral code that God was obligated to obey, thus that moral code would be God's "god."

No, scripture teaches that morality is subjective to God, not objective.

Makes sense to me! Thanx for your perspective.

K

 

[Joshua260]

Rape is easy

The more I read RDKirk's response, the better I like it. But I want you to notice that he says "morality is subjective TO God". And I'm glad you agree with that, but his response does not mean that morality is subjective TO humanity. We could very easily fall into the "Euthyphro Dilemma" deception here, so maybe now is a good time to address it. This "dilemma" was proposed by Plato and essentially asks "Is a thing good simply because God says it is? Or does God say a thing is good because of some other quality it has?" The problem is that this is not really a dilemma because there is a third option in that morality is not grounded ultimately in God's commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands. In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good. However, when Christians such as myself claim that there are "objective moral values and duties", we are referring to morality from OUR frame of reference. So, from RDKirks' POV, it would be incorrect to say that rape had an "intrinsic" negative moral value, and I would agree with that. To say that it did, would lead one to Platonism, which is doubted by most. But I am not arguing from that POV. I am saying that a good God has expressed himself through his word and declared that rape has a negative moral value attached to it.

So, I take it that you agree that "raping little girls is definitely something that has a negative moral value attached to it". If so, I'm glad that you recognize that and would hope that you see the implication that it leads to. If rape did NOT have a negative moral value attached to it, then God would not exist. Some atheists recognize this truth and because they refuse to accept that God exists, resort to claiming that rape is neither good nor bad, but simply a preference of society, just as antisemitism was a preference in the Nazi Germany society. I hope you see this. There is a "price to pay" for believing that God does not exist. As Dostoevsky is reported to have said, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted".

So, in case you've never seen this, I'd like to present you with the moral argument for God:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties DO exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

As we agree, rape definitely has a negative moral value attached to it. Yes, rape is subjectively "wrong" TO God, but it is objectively "wrong" from humanity's POV. The question is "how did that negative moral value attached to rape get there?" Again, I contend that a good God has expressed himself through his word and declared that rape has a negative moral value attached to it.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The more I read RDKirk's response, the better I like it. But I want you to notice that he says "morality is subjective TO God". And I'm glad you agree with that, but his response does not mean that morality is subjective TO humanity. We could very easily fall into the "Euthyphro Dilemma" deception here, so maybe now is a good time to address it. This "dilemma" was proposed by Plato and essentially asks "Is a thing good simply because God says it is? Or does God say a thing is good because of some other quality it has?" The problem is that this is not really a dilemma because there is a third option in that morality is not grounded ultimately in God's commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands. In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good. However, when Christians such as myself claim that there are "objective moral values and duties", we are referring to morality from OUR frame of reference. So, from RDKirks' POV, it would be incorrect to say that rape had an "intrinsic" negative moral value, and I would agree with that. To say that it did, would lead one to Platonism, which is doubted by most. But I am not arguing from that POV. I am saying that a good God has expressed himself through his word and declared that rape has a negative moral value attached to it.

So, I take it that you agree that "raping little girls is definitely something that has a negative moral value attached to it". If so, I'm glad that you recognize that and would hope that you see the implication that it leads to. If rape did NOT have a negative moral value attached to it, then God would not exist. Some atheists recognize this truth and because they refuse to accept that God exists, resort to claiming that rape is neither good nor bad, but simply a preference of society, just as antisemitism was a preference in the Nazi Germany society. I hope you see this. There is a "price to pay" for believing that God does not exist. As Dostoevsky is reported to have said, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted".

So, in case you've never seen this, I'd like to present you with the moral argument for God:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties DO exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

As we agree, rape definitely has a negative moral value attached to it. Yes, rape is subjectively "wrong" TO God, but it is objectively "wrong" from humanity's POV. The question is "how did that negative moral value attached to rape get there?" Again, I contend that a good God has expressed himself through his word and declared that rape has a negative moral value attached to it.

God decides what is good so He decides He is good. There is no objective yardstick that He uses to measure Himself against. That is subjective. There is no objective morality. As a Christian, I accept God's subjective morality as superior to my subjective morality and submit to Him and His judgement completely. That may make it seem to me as if my morality were objective because it comes from a source outside myself and IMO greater than myself and more knowledgeable about Creation than myself as He is the Creator of everything , including morality. Before Creation the concept of good and evil did not exist. It is not a case of my examining the ideas of good and evil like I would measure a door frame or count how many peaches were in a bag but a submission of my own will to that of God for very subjective reasons.
Plato had a bias toward objective reality so the arguments he puts in the mouth of the one that opposed to his own thoughts tend to be quite shallow and vacuous. His own arguments for it if examined closely turn out to be his insistence that he is correct about his own assumptions about the nature of reality disguised as leading questions posed to a person that has never examined his own beliefs enough to argue effectively for them.

 

[Joshua260]

God decides what is good...

First, we brothers and sisters should not debate here (per forum rules) so this will be my only response here.

Brother, the problem with saying that something is good or bad just because God says so is that it could therefore lead to God possibly declaring that rape is good. This falls into that "Euthyphro Dilemma" trap that I referred to in my reply. So I only recommend to you that you research this so-called dilemma a little bit further and some Christian responses to it. I think it is more correct to say that a (good) God's commands will always be good. To say it another way, "God is good, therefore, whatever he commands is good"

...so He decides He is good

The problem here is that if your statement is true "God decides what is good so He decides He is good.", then that would mean that, not only is that reasoning circular, but that God existed FIRST without any good (or bad) nature, and THEN decided to take on that good nature. Your reasoning could then allow that he could have decided to be evil. I do not believe this to be the case. I believe the goodness of God to be an inherent part of his nature. Since he IS good, he commands good things. Hmmm, I just realized that it's almost like the fruit-of-the-tree logic if you think about it.

I want to add here that "God decides what is good so He decides He is good." also falls into the trap that RDKirk described "There would be a moral code that God was obligated to obey, thus that moral code would be God's "god." If God had decided that he would be good, then he would have been subject to his own command. I like and respect your position on this (its a very interesting POV), but I still have to fall into the camp that God simply has an inherent good nature about him, therefore he commands good things. Again, great response, but I still respectfully disagree.

In any case, I understand where you're coming from, so just to be clear (and reconcile our apparent differences), when I say that there are objective moral values and duties, I mean that a good God has declared that rape has a negative moral value attached to it and humanity is not in the authoritative position of deciding otherwise. Does that clarification help us understand each other (and agree with each other)? The point I'm trying to make to the poster is that there is a moral law above what is between our ears. If God does not exist, then the only moral law that DOES exist is between our ears. So again, if Hitler had won the war and brainwashed the rest of society into believing that antisemitism has a positive moral value attached to it, there would be no basis for a moral argument against it. One could not argue for a higher moral authority...everyone agrees that antisemitism has a positive moral value attached to it, therefore antisemitism must have a positive moral value attached to it.

 

[Ken-1122]

The more I read RDKirk's response, the better I like it. But I want you to notice that he says "morality is subjective TO God". And I'm glad you agree with that.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am asking these questions to understand a Christian perspective. When I agreed with him, I meant looking at things from a Christian perspective; if you believe the Christian God exist, what he said made perfect sense. IMO

but his response does not mean that morality is subjective TO humanity. We could very easily fall into the "Euthyphro Dilemma" deception here, so maybe now is a good time to address it. This "dilemma" was proposed by Plato and essentially asks "Is a thing good simply because God says it is? Or does God say a thing is good because of some other quality it has?" The problem is that this is not really a dilemma because there is a third option in that morality is not grounded ultimately in God's commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands. In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good. However, when Christians such as myself claim that there are "objective moral values and duties", we are referring to morality from OUR frame of reference.

That is what I’m trying to find out! When you guys say there are objective moral values, what does that mean? That these moral values are as obvious as 1+1=2 to anybody who understands math? Or that the grass is green? What does that mean?

So, from RDKirks' POV, it would be incorrect to say that rape had an "intrinsic" negative moral value, and I would agree with that. To say that it did, would lead one to Platonism, which is doubted by most.

What is Platonism?

So, I take it that you agree that "raping little girls is definitely something that has a negative moral value attached to it". If so, I'm glad that you recognize that and would hope that you see the implication that it leads to.

But I see it as a subjective, not objective moral value. Why do you see it as an objective moral value?

Ken

 

[Joshua260]

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am asking these questions to understand a Christian perspective...

Ok, so you did not necessarily agree with RDKirk. Thanks for the clarification.

What is Platonism?

"Platonism holds that in addition to concrete objects, which are things that can stand in cause-effect relations, there are also abstract objects, or things that cannot stand in such relations, things like numbers, sets, propositions, and properties." from rasonablefaith.org.

But I see it as a subjective, not objective moral value. Why do you see it as an objective moral value?

I think I've already answered that, and I'd rather not retread that road anymore in this thread because it's diverting from what would otherwise be a productive discussion. I think it would be more productive to stick to things that we can agree on, which I think we agree that "raping little girls is definitely something that has a negative moral value attached to it", and see if can move on from there. So I think the next obvious question that we should be asking is "where did that negative moral value attached to the concept of rape come from"? My contention is that if you're going to insist that God does not exist, then you must adhere to the logical result that this negative moral value that we see in rape comes only from between our two ears. Is that your position?

 

[Ken-1122]

If God does not exist, then the only moral law that DOES exist is between our ears. So again, if Hitler had won the war and brainwashed the rest of society into believing that antisemitism has a positive moral value attached to it, there would be no basis for a moral argument against it. One could not argue for a higher moral authority...everyone agrees that antisemitism has a positive moral value attached to it, therefore antisemitism must have a positive moral value attached to it.

But not everybody has agreed on if antisemitism has a positive or negetive moral value attched to it. Doesn't that make it subjective?

Ken