Is God necessary for (objective) morality?

[cambion]

The human impulse toward morality can be -- and has been -- objectively studied. There is an objective moral sense in most people (barring some sociopaths and psychopaths, but not all) but as far as an actual set of moral rules...I kind of doubt it. I've always felt that the specifics of morality were something we had to discuss amongst each other.

edit: here's one article about it. http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser

 

[Piscivore]

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.

"Conformity to the rules of right conduct" - the pisser is defining what is "right conduct" objectively.

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

Go for it.

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).

That's just a summation of your values and priorites- your idea of what "right conduct" consists of. And while they are common values to a lot of people, that does not mean they are objective.

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.

It cannot be done, because what is "necessary" is also a subjective consideration.

 

[plumjam]

That does 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.

Sorry, seems like I missed your questions.
For your second paragraph, I believe the question of morality is indivisible from meaning.
So: if there's no objective meaning to the Universe then there's no basis for objective morality within this Universe.
Your question is 'How does the existence of God create objective morals?'... well, my answer would have to be somewhere along the lines that the Universe was created with intentionality, from one conscious point-of-view, and for a purpose (i.e. a God point of view)... to drag that down to a mundane level, when we come across a board game, we typically don't suppose it came about by chance, ..instead.. even if as a toddler.. we don't ever think it found its way onto the coffee table by enormous luck, we recognise it as a designed experience, with its own rules and - to some extent - it exists to develop certain qualities in the participants.
The Universe is the same sort of thing, but on a much bigger scale, of course.

If you went to a Chess convention would you incredulously ask all the attendees whether there was intelligence behind the creation of the rules of Chess, ..or it had all just happened as some sort of accident of nature?

And yet nature, as it is, is trillions of times more complex than Chess, yet you don't really question how that could come about... because, like almost everyone else here, you've spent decades being indoctrinated into philosophical naturalism (Coincidence Theory)... so.. all physical laws are just some kind of coincidence, despite them all being astronomically necessary to create even a rock, never mind you.... etc...

 

[KingMerv00]

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.

Lots of unpleasant things are true.

 

[Resume]

The scariest cat I ever met was a christian Mr. Clean look-alike who told me the only reason he hadn't committed murder was his fear of hellfire. I don't know what that is, but it sure ain't morality, objective or otherwise.

 

[bluskool]

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.

Are my posts invisible or something?

 

[KingMerv00]

Sorry, seems like I missed your questions.
For your second paragraph, I believe the question of morality is indivisible from meaning.
So: if there's no objective meaning to the Universe then there's no basis for objective morality within this Universe.
Your question is 'How does the existence of God create objective morals?'... well, my answer would have to be somewhere along the lines that the Universe was created with intentionality, from one conscious point-of-view, and for a purpose (i.e. a God point of view)... to drag that down to a mundane level, when we come across a board game, we typically don't suppose it came about by chance, ..instead.. even if as a toddler.. we don't ever think it found its way onto the coffee table by enormous luck, we recognise it as a designed experience, with its own rules and - to some extent - it exists to develop certain qualities in the participants.
The Universe is the same sort of thing, but on a much bigger scale, of course.

If you went to a Chess convention would you incredulously ask all the attendees whether there was intelligence behind the creation of the rules of Chess, ..or it had all just happened as some sort of accident of nature?

And yet nature, as it is, is trillions of times more complex than Chess, yet you don't really question how that could come about... because, like almost everyone else here, you've spent decades being indoctrinated into philosophical naturalism (Coincidence Theory)... so.. all physical laws are just some kind of coincidence, despite them all being astronomically necessary to create even a rock, never mind you.... etc...

For the purposes of this argument, I'll grant the existence of an intelligent creative force.

Even if God exists, he is still imposing his opinion of right and wrong upon it. Physical laws are actual limitations, things that cannot be done even in principle. Moral laws are different. God could create a universe and wish for its inhabitants to act a certain way but that does not stop his wishes from being arbitrary.

 

[bluskool]

"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.

Right and Wrong don't have to be floating around out there to be objective. We also created numbers and math. Would you say that arithmetic is subjective?

 

[Piscivore]

Right and Wrong don't have to be floating around out there to be objective. We also created numbers and math. Would you say that arithmetic is subjective?

Numbers and math, while conceptual, are inseperably linked to measurement of objective physical entities.

Morality is not linked to anything objective.

 

[plumjam]

For the purposes of this argument, I'll grant the existence of an intelligent creative force.

Even if God exists, he is still imposing his opinion of right and wrong upon it. Physical laws are actual limitations, things that cannot be done even in principle. Moral laws are different. God could create a universe and wish for its inhabitants to act a certain way but that does not stop his wishes from being arbitrary.

Not sure what you're driving at. Physical laws are limitations? Well, yeah, but in order to produce anything of value in this kind of systemic thinking there need to be limitations.
Watching Federer play Nadal would be much less interesting if there was no net. Limitations are necessary to provide a framework for the development of excellence. Thus all sports have rules.

And thus the Universe has rules. Moral rules included.

(As a general point I think you're going wrong by supposing God is some entity separate from your own true nature, thus you set up a resentful duality. Not uncommon at JREF. If you investigate things like Advaita in hinduism you'll find problems like this tend to disappear).

 

[joobz]

Martin Luther? You're first trying to tie me to Christianity and then to Protestantism and then to Martin Luther?
Jeez, that's not only desperate but fundamentally strange.

I never said it was your morality. It was the "objective morality" of the Nazis. Unless you have evidence that your's is the "right objective morality" and theirs' was the "wrong objective morality", I don't know how one would tell the other apart.

Huh? if witnesses describe some happening with sometimes contradictory descriptions would you take that as proof that the event had not taken place?

If those witnesses said things that were so widely contradictory as "jews are inferior" and "Jews are the chosen people", (and we had no extra evidence suggesting one was right) then yes, I would start to doubt the existence of the event.

Why wouldn't you?

So, for white American plantation owners, slavery was moral because it gave them a great life, and the blacks, of course, weren't really people

No, because clearly if they could hold slaves, what would prevent society to change and have the slave owners to become slaves?

Hmm.. not sure what you're arguing here.

The reality is the only way one group can be described as inferior is based upon arbitrary criteria. Those criteria can easily change. As such, the only way to ensure that me and my family and offspring can avoid such treatment is to establish a society where no single group can be described as inferior. All men are created equal is a fairly good moral postulate by which to have a thriving society.

Though your sentiments might have had more strength if you had not always been so ready to try to diminish the suffering of the victims of atheist communism, cos it fitted with your current worldview (while being ever so worried about the Witches of Salem, and such)

Wow, this came out of left field. Please provide evidence of where I EVER did such a thing, and then we can start to talk.

I sincerely hope you aren't attempting your ridiculous (atheists caused the greatest harm) silliness again. it was dumb affirming the consequent then, and it is now dumb ad hominem here.

 

[I Ratant]

Are my posts invisible or something?

.
Using baby rape as an example doesn't define the friggin term!
No analogies, just define what it is supposed to represent!

 

[KingMerv00]

Not sure what you're driving at. Physical laws are limitations? Well, yeah, but in order to produce anything of value in this kind of systemic thinking there need to be limitations.
Watching Federer play Nadal would be much less interesting if there was no net. Limitations are necessary to provide a framework for the development of excellence. Thus all sports have rules.

And thus the Universe has rules. Moral rules included.

The rules to tennis are still arbitrary though. Suppose it was played on a circular court or had a wall instead of a net. There is no "true" version of tennis.

(As a general point I think you're going wrong by supposing God is some entity separate from your own true nature, thus you set up a resentful duality. Not uncommon at JREF. If you investigate things like Advaita in hinduism you'll find problems like this tend to disappear).

I'm confused by that line of thought. God is part of my true nature? Even when I think he is wrong?

 

[joobz]

Only if the moral code is prescriptive, like speeding laws which are prescribed by the state. If that's the case, morality is still subjective even if there is some unknown object prescribing it. But if the moral code is descriptive, like the law of gravity for example, then it would be objective. In order for morality to be objective, it must be a fact about the universe, not something dictated by anything. Craig is arguing that god's moral nature is a fact about god, not that morality is just whatever god thinks it is.

This is an excellent point, and one where I simply see it from a different light. I don't consider the descriptive version of objectivity to actually be objective. If the moral code is Dependant upon an independent set of variables (even if predictable) such as the set of societal interactions that are at play at that time, the moral code becomes subjective.

Now, just because morality is subjective, that doesn't mean there aren't moral codes that are better at sustaining a society than others. This is true, and if you wish this to be called "objective morality", than so be it. But the fact that there can be multiple "steady states" which can support a society suggests to me that the practical aspect of morality is subjective.

I'm not seeing it. If right and wrong are just facts about the universe they could still have reasons for being so. If someone says that a certain wrong action they did is, in fact, right, we could demand reasons why. We could say "what are the reasons for thinking that is objectively right." If, on the other hand, morality is subjective, the only reason they would need to give is that they think it is right. On what grounds could I argue that their opinion about what is right is any better than mine?

logic and reason. If you can't make a logical arguement why your action is acceptable to society, perhaps you should reconsider that action. Same thing for the other person.

So, it seems to me that the situation is the opposite of what you said, but I definitely could be missing something. Hell, I hope I am missing something because every time I think I have a good argument for objective morality, it falls apart on closer inspection, so it would be nice to think that subjective morality is superior anyway.

I don't think subjective morality is superior to objective morality. I merely think that objective morality is an illusion. The mere existence of multiple highly contradictory claims of objective morality supports this.

So does recent fMRI studies, which demonstrates that people use the same mental centers in their brain to think of "god's" morality and their own.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533.full.pdf

 

[bluskool]

Numbers and math, while conceptual, are inseperably linked to measurement of objective physical entities.

Morality is not linked to anything objective.

Yes, but how about this?
Let's say we come up with a set of moral axioms from which we can deduce right and wrong behavior, and the principles that we derive from them match up very well with our experience of the world. I'm sure exceptions will come up that we have to deal with, but that is not unlike any mathematical theory that describes physical reality. Since the principles derived would be mind-independent, could this be at all considered objective?

I guess you might say that it isn't describing physical objects, but, in a way, it is. Suffering, pleasure, happiness etc. are the sorts of things that morality deals with, and these all do have a basis in physical reality?

Am I way off here?

 

[joobz]

If the pedophiles of the world got a hold of all the nukes, took over the world and killed everyone who thought pedophilia was wrong, would raping a child now be right? I not asking if it would advantageous for the society to do that, but would it be right since that is what the society says is right?

For as long as that society lasted... There are clear evolutionary advantages to functioning in society, and those behaviors become selected for. Societies that degenerate from those tend to not persist. hence why, just because morality is subjective, it doesn't mean some work better than others.

 

[Piscivore]

Yes, but how about this?
Let's say we come up with a set of moral axioms from which we can deduce right and wrong behavior, and the principles that we derive from them match up very well with our experience of the world.

I'm sure exceptions will come up that we have to deal with, but that is not unlike any mathematical theory that describes physical reality. Since the principles derived would be mind-independent, could this be at all considered objective?

I guess you might say that it isn't describing physical objects, but, in a way, it is. Suffering, pleasure, happiness etc. are the sorts of things that morality deals with, and these all do have a basis in physical reality?

Am I way off here?

Yep. Gravity affects everyone the same way. If I give a sealed tin of sardines to anyone in the world, the number of fish in the tin isn't going to change depending on who I give it to.

Contrariwise, not everyone will be equally happy receiving a tin of sardines. the same event can make some people suffer, and at the same time please others. Someone on vacation can be happy when the sun shines, but a farmer with a parched field standing right next to him might suffer for it. This is because science and math deals with what things are, but morality deals with what things mean.

 

[plumjam]

The rules to tennis are still arbitrary though. Suppose it was played on a circular court or had a wall instead of a net. There is no "true" version of tennis.

The rules of tennis aren't at all arbitrary. They're based on the size of the human body, speed, ability to turn... etc.. in other words they're appropriate to the human being (even duffers) but leave enormous scope for improvement... just like the moral law in this here Universe.

I'm confused by that line of thought. God is part of my true nature? Even when I think he is wrong?

Yeah, it's confusing, but you have the excuse of being brought up with dualistic thinking ..i.e. God over there.. poor little me here
In the western mystical traditions, Eastern Orthodoxy, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.. the experiential culmination of spiritual practice has always been the immersion and disappearance of the individual ego-mind into the Divine... so, in the end you'll realise there's no separation, and the sense of separation was always just ignorance.. in the same way your cat doesn't know whether you're drinking tea or coffee

 

[joobz]

(As a general point I think you're going wrong by supposing God is some entity separate from your own true nature, thus you set up a resentful duality. Not uncommon at JREF. If you investigate things like Advaita in hinduism you'll find problems like this tend to disappear).

And yet, kids need to be taught morality. and even when asked moral dilemma problems*, adults often give self-contradictory choices. not a very good start for an "own true nature's " objective morality.

*the classic train problem.

 

[bluskool]

No analogies, just define what it is supposed to represent!

Earlier I said:

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?

If we agree, then this definition is a possible starting point to deduce objective morality from. I also defined what exactly I mean when I say objective and subjective in an earlier post.

Using baby rape as an example doesn't define the friggin term!

And I said:

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.

They are not analogies, but examples of what it means to reject objective morality.