Is God necessary for (objective) morality?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Well, if morality is subjective, you could justify it by just saying that you think it is right. What further justification is needed if it's just an opinion like whether or not you think lasagna is better than spaghetti?

Good point. Disputes between pro-lifers and pro-choicers seldom end in a gentle murmur of de gustibus non disputandum.

 

[plumjam]

I would say my answer would be the same. I would say that if those babies suffer as a result, then it would be morally wrong. I am sure many of those pedophiles would disagree. Or they might agree, but allow their personal desires to trump their sense of morality as we have all done from time to time (though hopefully not in terms of molesting children).

And of course I don't speak objectively, I speak based on my moral standards since I am addressing the question. And that might be different than that of those there on that planet. I quantify my reason based on the issue of suffering vs benefits, not simply feelings.

So if, through your telescope, you could see this happening on a planet over years, and you were a Galactic Commander, and had the power to stop it, would you stop it?
I'm sure you would.
But you could not do it on the grounds that it was viewed as wrong in that planet (of paedophiles) society (subjectively wrong).

Any strength in your position could only be based on the reality of objective morality... as well as your belief in such a thing...etc...

So, welcome to my gang

 

[Jonnyclueless]

It's a hypothetical. I'm not asking if you think it is wrong, I am asking if it would be wrong in that society.
You might think causing harm to others is wrong and I agree, but that's just our opinion, right? There is nothing "really" wrong with raping children if morality is subjective. We just don't like it.

I understand, but again, I still have the same response. My opinion is that it's wrong for that society because it would case damage to that society. even though that society may very well disagree with me and everyone in that society might feel it's morally correct. Just like I think human sacrifice was wrong even in that time when it was socially acceptable to sacrifice humans. Just like now how I think preventing gays from getting married is morally wrong even though most of society finds it morally acceptable.

It's subjective so my subjective morals are going to apply to everyone at all times since they are based on environment.

Now in a society where not only could someone be brought back to life after being murdered, but in addition became more healthy, I would not only find murder acceptable, but would endorse it. In our current environment I find murder to be morally unacceptable.

Which I am sure you may take as me thinking you're asking what I think is wrong or right. Something that is not avoidable since I find morality to be so subjective. And I don't know if my explanation made my position even more vague.

 

[Piscivore]

Hmm.. strange response.

Is the sun an objective reality?

I can tell you where the sun is. Where is "morality"?
I can measure the sun's effects on things that aren't the sun, whether a person is involved or not. What does "morality" affect that isn't people?

If 1000 blind blokes told me they couldn't see it would that mean the sun wasn't an objective reality?

They can feel the warmth of it. How does this alleged "morality" affect those that don't "see" it?

Transpose that all to the realm of moral perception.

Go right ahead. Show me how it "transposes".

What you've got is an analogy, and not a good one.

Some people see things better than others.

And sometimes people "see" what isn't there.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So if, through your telescope, you could see this happening on a planet over years, and you were a Galactic Commander, and had the power to stop it, would you stop it?
I'm sure you would.
But you could not do it on the grounds that it was viewed as wrong in that society (subjectively wrong).

Any strength in your position could only be based on the reality of objective reality... as well as your belief in such a thing...etc...

So, welcome to my gang

If I was responsible for it, then I would stop it. If I was not responsible for it I would probably not. In the same sense that I have subjective moral objections to the way many Muslim countries treat women, but I don't feel it's my right to go invade them to change their morals to match mine.

Not even remotely sure how you can get anything objective about this. My position is not objective as it's based on a variable which is environment and circumstance.

Now if in that world it turned out that pedophilia could be beneficial to the children and even society, I would support it. So again, nothing objective about it. And it gets more muddied when we don't use such extreme cases and what makes one person suffer is enjoyable by another in the same position.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh and I could also ask why my criteria is lessening suffering and increasing benefits. And I would say that's based on subjective feelings. And I tend to think those feelings are somewhat built into us through evolutionary processes as they encourage survival of a species. Those species who tend towards lessening suffering may out survive those that don't while competing.

And we can see how someone may be a perfectly loving and caring person one day, then the next day get Lyme disease and start killing people.

 

[plumjam]

I can tell you where the sun is. Where is "morality"?
I can measure the sun's effects on things that aren't the sun, whether a person is involved or not. What does "morality" affect that isn't people?
Huh? So are you in favour of cruelty to animals?

They can feel the warmth of it. How does this alleged "morality" affect those that don't "see" it?

It's an analogy.
You might as well raise the objection that human serial killers who eat their victims don't "see" morality. Yeah, maybe they don't. What are we supposed to glean from that? That Jeffrey Dahmer was morally no different from the average bus driver?

Go right ahead. Show me how it "transposes".

Looks like you're incapable of making a pretty simple mental leap.

The rest of your response isn't worth a considered reply, sorry.

 

[Piscivore]

And why do you feel the need to resort to murder, rape and pedophilia in all your examples?

I'm somewhat puzzled by the example of child torture and rape being offered as a possible situation for objective morality.

It's because appeal to emotion is all the proponents of objective morality have left. Without facts or reason to present all they can hope for is to shock or horrify their critics enough to back down.

I know of no way to justify torture... much less on a child.

The Aztecs did: "Dedicated to the Tlaloque, this veintena involved the sacrifice of many children on sacred mountaintops. The children were beautifully adorned, dressed in the style of Tlaloc and the Tlaloque. On litters strewn with flowers and feathers; surrounded by dancers, they were transported to a shrine and their hearts would be pulled out by priests. If, on the way to the shrine, these children cried their tears were viewed as signs of imminent and abundant rains. Children who did not weep could have their fingernails torn off in order to achieve this effect. "

There are places where what the West considers rape is termed "marriage", where pre-pubescent children can be legally abused, but the true morality of that peculiar institution is debatable.

"No True Morality"?

It may look immoral to someone outside that society because the observer has a different set of values and priorities than those in the society.

 

[Piscivore]

It's an analogy.
You might as well raise the objection that human serial killers who eat their victims don't "see" morality. Yeah, maybe they don't.

Not the way you do, not regarding this specific situation. Does that mean they don't have any concept of morality at all?

What are we supposed to glean from that? That Jeffrey Dahmer was morally no different from the average bus driver?

No, the point is that he is morally different. And the bus driver is potentially morally different from each and every one of his passengers,

The rest of your response isn't worth a considered reply, sorry.

Of course not- you don't have a reply.

 

[bluskool]

It's because appeal to emotion is all the proponents of objective morality have left. Without facts or reason to present all they can hope for is to shock or horrify their critics enough to back down.

I wouldn't say I'm a proponent of objective morality. My only point is that, if morality is subjective, there are certain unpleasant realities that we have to face. I agree, these examples are, of course, emotional appeals, but they aren't invalid nor unreasonable. They only serve to dramatically demonstrate what one must accept in order to deny objective morality. But, certainly they do not at all prove the existence of objective morality.

 

[plumjam]

Not the way you do, not regarding this specific situation. Does that mean they don't have any concept of morality at all?


No, the point is that he is morally different. And the bus driver is potentially morally different from each and every one of his passengers,


Of course not- you don't have a reply.

And thus, you have surrendered your right to morally differentiate between a serial killer and a normal bus driver.

An extraordinary position to put yourself into. And why? Because you have, perhaps unwittingly, swallowed the BS moral guidance of political correctness.
(No one's better or worse than anyone else... apart from those ******* racists)

Wise up, Pisci. Start to think a bit.

 

[Brian-M]

All this talk about whether or not morality can objective, and I still haven't seen anyone attempt to concisely define exactly what morality is.

Surely whether or not morality is objective depends entirely on whether or not morality is defined using objective terms?

Before we can sensibly discuss whether or not morality is objective, we first have to agree on exactly what morality is.

Personally, I'd define morality as choosing to act in a manner intended to minimize unnecessary harm and suffering of others (including physical, financial and emotional harm).

Of course "unnecessary" as used here is a little vague, and may may need further clarification in order for this to be a truly objective definition.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Looks like you're incapable of making a pretty simple mental leap.

"You won't agree with me so you're dumb."

 

[Foster Zygote]

...apart from those ******* racists...

About that... In case you're reading this...

 

[KingMerv00]

Well, it's a good question.

In my opinion the question of whether objective morality exists is just a slightly different way of asking whether there is objective meaning in our shared reality (the present universe etc...).

If there is no objective meaning to the Universe then there's absolutely no moral power behind anyone who... for example... argues it's wrong to hire out newborn orphan babies to media magnates, to be anonymously raped and then buried in the deserts of the Sudan.

If, for example, you and I want to be able to converse on subjects that have any moral meaning, such conversations would be completely pointless if either you or I were to believe that "anything goes".

I don't believe that you believe that "anything goes"... and, in fact, for your arguments against me to have any power against me, they would need to be based on a position that "anything does not go"... because for arguments to have any power they need to mutually exist on some sort of rail that has a meaningful ability to connect to the other argument

Subjective morality only arguments do not have that.

That doesn't answer my question. Even if a morally subjective universe sucks, that doesn't make it untrue.

I'll ask again: How does the existence of God create objective morals? To me it just looks like the most powerful being is giving us his subjective opinion.

EDIT: Whoops. "Does" should be "doesn't".

 

[Piscivore]

And thus, you have surrendered your right to morally differentiate between a serial killer and a normal bus driver.

My "right"? that's amusing. Who grants this "right"? You?

An extraordinary position to put yourself into. And why? Because you have, perhaps unwittingly, swallowed the BS moral guidance of political correctness.

I see... how did I do that?

(No one's better or worse than anyone else... )

I didn't say that- I cannot say that, because it is meaningless without considering an observer- because "better" and "worse" only have meaning to an individual observer according to that observer's own values and priorities.

Objective morality requires there to be an "ideal observer" that universally matches every potential observer possible, and that's just not so. The fact that we have, on this very board, people that admire the moral choices of the people who tortured, raped and murdered milions of people- and yes, even children- disproves it.

Wise up, Pisci. Start to think a bit.

Insults don't make it look like you're correct.

 

[bluskool]

All this talk about whether or not morality can objective, and I still haven't seen anyone attempt to concisely define exactly what morality is.

Surely whether or not morality is objective depends entirely on whether or not morality is defined using objective terms?

Before we can sensibly discuss whether or not morality is objective, we first have to agree on exactly what morality is.

Personally, I'd define morality as choosing to act in a manner intended to minimize unnecessary harm and suffering of others (including physical, financial and emotional harm).

Of course "unnecessary" as used here is a little vague, and may may need further clarification in order for this to be a truly objective definition.

Okay, I'll agree that that is a pretty good definition for morality. In my first response to this thread I did provide a similar definition that was given by Kagan. Right action is action that will not harm and/or will help, and wrong action is action that will harm and/or not help. This is limited and there are exceptions that can be teased out, but can we agree that that is a good start? Now, where do we go from here?

 

[plumjam]

All this talk about whether or not morality can objective, and I still haven't seen anyone attempt to concisely define exactly what morality is.

Surely whether or not morality is objective depends entirely on whether or not morality is defined using objective terms?

Before we can sensibly discuss whether or not morality is objective, we first have to agree on exactly what morality is.

Personally, I'd define morality as choosing to act in a manner intended to minimize unnecessary harm and suffering of others (including physical, financial and emotional harm).

Of course "unnecessary" as used here is a little vague, and may may need further clarification in order for this to be a truly objective definition.

I appreciate your honesty, but you could raise the same objections to the notion of objective physicality. We, all, presumably (most here being science geeks) believe in an objective physical world that exists beyond their current perceptions.
I do too, but **** me if I could come up with a definition of it no one could reasonably quibble with.

The same with morality. Any moral agent who argues against objective morality eventually ends up in the same trouble as would an engineer arguing against objective physicality.
It might not be so obvious to non-students of philosophy and such like, but give it a few months to sink in and the notion of subjective morality becomes obviously abhorrent to those who are capable of only a bit of independent thought.

 

[I Ratant]

Geez!
DEFINE the frapping idea!
What the **** is "objective morality"?
Raping babies is just sugar coating to what appears to be of no more existence than angels on pinheads.

 

[Third Eye Open]

It might not be so obvious to non-students of philosophy and such like, but give it a few months to sink in and the notion of subjective morality becomes obviously abhorrent to those who are capable of only a bit of independent thought.

"If you don't agree with me you're stupid"

Yeay Pumjam's back!


Morality would not exist without humans. We created it, it applies only to us. The idea that there is some 'right' and 'wrong' that are unchanging floating around out there for us to discover is silly.