Is God necessary for (objective) morality?

[Brian-M]

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?

Sorry, I forgot about that. Now, I suppose, we argue endlessly about what exactly the word "objective" means when applied to morality.

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

Yes, I agree (with the second part of that statement). The word "necessary" is a rather large puddle of subjectivity that needs to be paved over somehow. Or omitted altogether. How about...

Morality: Choosing to act in a manner intended to minimize the harm to or suffering of others.

Not much subjective about that definition.

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.

No, it's not my idea of what "right conduct" consists of, but my idea of how to objectively determine whether or not a particular conduct actually is right or not.

In essence, it's intended to be a common point from which behavior can be measured in order to determine objectively whether or not it is moral. A reference point with which to measure morality. After all, you can't measure the objective distance of an object without a reference point (such as yourself, another object, or mark on the ground) from which to measure distance from. Same sort of concept.

Stealing? Causes financial harm to others, therefore immoral.
Giving food to your starving family? Alleviates physical and emotional harm, therefore moral.
Stealing food to give to your starving family? Alleviates more harm and suffering than it causes, so while partially immoral, it is on balance moral.
Raping and murdering children? Causes profound harm and suffering, therefore profoundly immoral.

Are my posts invisible or something?

Yes, they are.

 

[Brian-M]

And yet, kids need to be taught morality.

That's highly disputable.

Your question is 'How does the existence of God create objective morals?'

[SNIP]

To cut a long story short...

By allowing theists to define morality as anything that is in accordance with God's laws.

We can measure that the temperature is X degrees Celsius / Fahrenheit, it is objective in one way, but also subjective in the way how we decided to name and number the various degrees of temperature.

Nope. There's nothing subjective about degrees Celsius / Fahrenheit. The decision on how to name and number the various degrees of temperature was entirely arbitrary, but that does not make it subjective.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Piscivore, I think you and I are talking past each other, so let me try to clarify a few points.

When it comes to taste in food, you and I can disagree on a number of things. This is a highly subjective matter. But let's suppose that there are two things that we definitely agree on.

1. Hamburgers are delicious.
2. Tofu is not.

These are two subjective claims (obviously). But from this we can make a conclusion: Hamburgers taste better than tofu. Now, is this an objective or subjective conclusion? Since it is derived from what was previously established as true, how could it be subjective? Could you possibly disagree with the conclusion? Of course not.

Now, you might say that we have concluded with a subjective claim, and that other people who disagree with our premises will not have the same conclusion we do, and that's fine. If you wanna say that qualifies it as a subjective conclusion, then okay, we'd just be arguing semantics. But my point is that in regards to subjective claims, statements such as "I just don't like it" are sufficient at nullifying them. Given the "Hamburgers are better than tofu argument," above, would "I just don't like it," suffice as nullification? No, not if the premises supporting it are true. You can't agree with those premises and disagree with the conclusion.

 

[Piscivore]

Sorry, I forgot about that. Now, I suppose, we argue endlessly about what exactly the word "objective" means when applied to morality.

What is wrong with "existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality".

If you have a different understanding of what "objective" means, please share it.

Yes, I agree (with the second part of that statement). The word "necessary" is a rather large puddle of subjectivity that needs to be paved over somehow. Or omitted altogether. How about...

Morality: Choosing to act in a manner intended to minimize the harm to or suffering of others.

Not much subjective about that definition.

Yes, there is- because "the harm or suffering of others" is still entirely dependant on an observer- the one experiencing the harm and/or suffering. "Suffering" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and the exact same thing that causes one person to suffer may benefit or even please another.

No, it's not my idea of what "right conduct" consists of, but my idea of how to objectively determine whether or not a particular conduct actually is right or not.

And you do that by measuring conduct against the standard you have decided is what is "moral". This standard exists in your mind (and the minds of those that happen to agree)- it does not exist independently of thought or an observer.

In essence, it's intended to be a common point from which behavior can be measured in order to determine objectively whether or not it is moral. A reference point with which to measure morality. After all, you can't measure the objective distance of an object without a reference point (such as yourself, another object, or mark on the ground) from which to measure distance from. Same sort of concept.

Except distance exists independently of an observer. One's behaviour, and the values and priorities used to measure them, do not.

Stealing? Causes financial harm to others, therefore immoral.
Giving food to your starving family? Alleviates physical and emotional harm, therefore moral.
Stealing food to give to your starving family? Alleviates more harm and suffering than it causes, so while partially immoral, it is on balance moral.
Raping and murdering children? Causes profound harm and suffering, therefore profoundly immoral.

If these are morally true for everybody equally, independant who does them, if everybody agrees these are unquestionably what is always "right" and/or "wrong"- why do they still happen?

 

[Piscivore]

Piscivore, I think you and I are talking past each other, so let me try to clarify a few points.

I think what would help the most would be if you would state how you are using "objective".

When it comes to taste in food, you and I can disagree on a number of things. This is a highly subjective matter. But let's suppose that there are two things that we definitely agree on.

1. Hamburgers are delicious.
2. Tofu is not.

These are two subjective claims (obviously). But from this we can make a conclusion: Hamburgers taste better than tofu. Now, is this an objective or subjective conclusion? Since it is derived from what was previously established as true, how could it be subjective?

Because "what was previously established as true" is dependant us- it is true for you and me, but not true for our vegan pal- and thus not "existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality"

You seem to be thinking that once something is established as "true" in any context, it somehow becomes true for everybody. "True" =/= "objective".

Could you possibly disagree with the conclusion? Of course not.

Now, you might say that we have concluded with a subjective claim, and that other people who disagree with our premises will not have the same conclusion we do, and that's fine.

If you know already why what you are saying is wrong, why do you persist?

If you wanna say that qualifies it as a subjective conclusion, then okay, we'd just be arguing semantics.

"Semantics" =/= "inconsequential". One of the most important and frequently violatied fallacies of logic is Equivocation. If it were inconsequential- "just semantics"- reason would be useless.

But my point is that in regards to subjective claims, statements such as "I just don't like it" are sufficient at nullifying them. Given the "Hamburgers are better than tofu argument," above, would "I just don't like it," suffice as nullification?

Yes.

Because what is true only for me, or for me and you, or for me and you and seven million other people, is not true for those that don't agree, and thus does not ""existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality".

No, not if the premises supporting it are true. You can't agree with those premises and disagree with the conclusion.

But one can still disagree with the premises. It is impossible to get an objective conclusion from subjective premises.

 

[westprog]

That sounds good on its face, but put into practice it fails. Let say you fall out of love with the person you're with. Breaking up with them will hurt them, but help you. Which is the "moral" choice?

Morality exists, ideas about what is "right" and "wrong" exist because we live in a world of limited resources, imperfect perception, and conflicting values. If these didn't apply, "right action" would truly be objective and we wouldn't need morality.

That we have imperfect knowledge doesn't mean that an objective morality doesn't exist. The ambiguous, tricky situations demonstrate nothing.

If any action is objectively wrong - that is, if it is wrong regardless of what people think - then objective morality exists. So in order for morality to be subjective, it's necessary that there are no acts which are inherently wrong. It's simply a matter of choosing a moral system and applying it. The moral system we choose then depends on the outcome we wish to achieve.

Objective morality does not equate to a consensus, or a set of easily comprehensible rules. It simply means that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong. It is also not necessarily tied to any given religion. It's not possible to disprove that an objective moral standard exists by pointing to immoral actions by members of various religions. Indeed, such arguments imply the presence of the very objective standard which they are attempting to debunk.

There are also two separate arguments going on. On the one hand, there's the question of whether or not an objective moral standard proves the existence of God. On the other, whether there is an objective moral standard. These are two different questions - and it is the first which is the subject of the OP. People who disagree that an objective moral standard exists might well have little to say about the possible implications of such a standard.

 

[fls]

Piscivore, I think you are suffering from the same problem I have had. The word "objective" is used in the phrase "objective morality", but it is not meant to have the same meaning as the word "objective" by itself. Once you realize that it means something else - i.e. what Westprog describes above as "inherently wrong" - then it becomes clearer how people are distinguishing between values which are specific to the individual (whether one likes tofu) and values which are specific to the act (sexual intercourse with an immature member of one's species).

Linda

 

[bluskool]

Just a bit of fun I conincidentally ran across just now...

[qimg]http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100621.gif[/qimg]

Laughing at the computer screen at work makes other people in the office look at you strange. I guess I could show them the comic, but I don't think that would help. I imagine you'd have to be into science/philosophy to get it. Thanks for sharing.
Anyway, busy work day. Will jump back in after work or whenever I get a free minute.

 

[I Ratant]

Since the blatherers here wouldn't, Google would.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081013131237AASx6N1
.
And even that leaves a vast field of ?????????? to continue to blather on.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Can there not be objective AND subjective morality? As in, it's objectively wrong to rape babies for sport, but subjectively wrong to a fundamentalist Christian for homosexuals to get married. Clearly there's a lot of latitude/variation on (for instance) sexual mores, and less when you get to the extreme cases. It's been said on this thread that if morality were objective, everyone would agree on it. That's an exagerration, there will always be outliers who can be found to disagree with what the vast majority sees as objective reality (flat earthers, for instance), but if that's a valid point in general, couldn't we conclude that a moral point everyone can agree on is objective (based on observed reality)?

To ramble a bit, if moral rules were set by God that would be incompatible with the existence of objective morals, they would just be what God subjectively chose.

To ramble further, objective doesn't equal universal. It's perfectly valid to talk about objective morals (determination of right and wrong) that apply only to humans and similar beings. There could conceivably be some sentient species in the Crab Nebula whose babies need a proper raping in order to develop properly and the adults have evolved to enjoy it, in which case I would argue that preventing the needed rape is objectively wrong for a member of that species.

Piscivore is making much about exceptions like that, as though Bob and Carol having different needs and wants means that a principle that it's wrong to do to Bob and Carol what they don't need and don't want is necessarily subjective. True, what's wrong to do to Bob may not be wrong to do to Carol, but that doesn't mean it isn't wrong to do to them what's bad for them.

 

[Darat]

the objective morality approach doesn't have much to say either. It fails simply because of that "unkown" object which is setting the moral code.

Objective morality pushes the choice of what is or isn't moral onto some arbitrary other and removes responsibility from the individual making the choice. Without needing to justifying their actions, any action becomes permissible (as long as they believe the object approves).

rejecting objective morality puts the responsibility of moral choice squarely on the individual and that person can no longer hide from the choices they make. If they do not have a logically sound argument to justify their morality by, then it is their failing. The objective moralist, however, could always hide from needing this justification. "because it just is!"

And of course in the major religions their "objective" moral code is in fact a completely subjective one since it is the personal moral code of their god.

 

[bluskool]

How much less bandwidth would it have required to post something resembling a definition of the term, instead of the analogies and evasions thus far?

Seriously? Go back and read again. I used no analogies whatever. Here, I'll simplify it as much as I can for you.

Objective morality: Right and wrong independent of any mind (facts about the universe)

Subjective morality: Right and wrong dependent on mind (stuff people think is right and wrong)

 

[SnakeTongue]

Kagan does this by arguing that objective morality can exist without God.

I agree.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Seriously? Go back and read again. I used no analogies whatever. Here, I'll simplify it as much as I can for you.

Objective morality: Right and wrong independent of any mind (facts about the universe)

Objective morality: Right and wrong dependent on mind (stuff people think is right and wrong)

Was the 2nd one meant to be Subjective? I see nothing to support the first one. And I also don't see morality being synonymous with facts. A rock in a universe without minds is still a rock, but that says nothing about morality.

 

[Piscivore]

That we have imperfect knowledge doesn't mean that an objective morality doesn't exist.

Then you should be able to explain what exactly it is.

If any action is objectively wrong - that is, if it is wrong regardless of what people think - then objective morality exists.

Great. What is that action?

So in order for morality to be subjective, it's necessary that there are no acts which are inherently wrong. It's simply a matter of choosing a moral system and applying it. The moral system we choose then depends on the outcome we wish to achieve.

Yes, it does. Or, the outcome one's parents or controlling authority want to acheive. No argument there.

Objective morality does not equate to a consensus, or a set of easily comprehensible rules. It simply means that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong.

What are they, and what makes them so?

It is also not necessarily tied to any given religion. It's not possible to disprove that an objective moral standard exists by pointing to immoral actions by members of various religions.

Ah, but this is where you misunderstand. The actions of the Aztecs- performing human sacrifice and torture on children- were not immoral acts to the Aztecs. Indeed, it was a supremely moral act in their eyes- ensuring the continuation of their civilisation. This is not a bit different from "murder" being suddenly moral in the context of war because it serves a "greater good".

What most people do is fail to see outside their own perspective and assume that what is right and wrong for them at this particular point in their lives is "objective".

There are also two separate arguments going on. On the one hand, there's the question of whether or not an objective moral standard proves the existence of God. On the other, whether there is an objective moral standard. These are two different questions - and it is the first which is the subject of the OP. People who disagree that an objective moral standard exists might well have little to say about the possible implications of such a standard.

If there is no objective standard, it cannot possible say anything about the existence of a god, can it?

 

[joobz]

Bluskool,
I'm hoping you can address my post I made yesterday to you:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6337184#post6337184

Because I think it gets to where we disagree. I very much liked your distinction between a perspective and descriptive morality. And I am willing to give to you that morality has some underlying mechanisms which directs it. E.g., survival of species through societal advantage. I just don't think this rule set can be described as "objective" in the way objective morality is classically considered.

What I see here though are some very good parallels between morality and evolution.

Evolution is a descriptive phenomenon. But the exact path it will take is not known. the set of mores any species possesses is really specific to them based upon what provides them an evolutionary advantage. This, to me, makes the moral sets subjective.

Now, I also see a lot of parallels between the "Subjective morality means anything can go" vs. "Evolution says a 747 can form from a tornado in a junk yard"

Both of these arguments ignore the fact that there is an underlying mechanistic set that limits the set of morals that a society can adopt. but to think that those morals are set in stone, or that WE were the predestined result of evolution, are both examples of the sentient puddle fallacy.

 

[Piscivore]

Piscivore, I think you are suffering from the same problem I have had. The word "objective" is used in the phrase "objective morality", but it is not meant to have the same meaning as the word "objective" by itself.

I've asked for the "correct" definition many times. Funny how no one (who disagrees with the one I'm using) can articulate one.

Once you realize that it means something else - i.e. what Westprog describes above as "inherently wrong" - then it becomes clearer how people are distinguishing between values which are specific to the individual (whether one likes tofu) and values which are specific to the act (sexual intercourse with an immature member of one's species).

"Values which are specific to the act" is meaningless. Actions do not make value judgements. The universe does not look at a tree falling in the forest and think, "that's a shame". And physics doesn't get it's panties in a twist when someone ****s a kid.

Only humans- individual humans- do that. There is no "right" or "wrong" that does not exist in some human's head. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

So, with that in mind, which values are independent of an individual? "Sexual intercourse with an immature member of one's species" isn't one, because it is easily observed that there are individuals that do not have a problem with this.

 

[Cainkane1]

I've been tought that humans and other social animals have a genetic tendency to want to live in harmony with fellow members of their species. This is why during a feeding frenzy piranas do not attack other members of the school. This is why there are pecking orders among chickens and why most of us don't murder and steal.

 

[Hokulele]

Objective morality: Right and wrong independent of any mind (facts about the universe)

How can morality exist independent of any minds? Without minds, where is morality?

 

[quadraginta]

I've been tought that humans and other social animals have a genetic tendency to want to live in harmony with fellow members of their species. This is why during a feeding frenzy piranas do not attack other members of the school. This is why there are pecking orders among chickens and why most of us don't murder and steal.

I think that "want to live in harmony" is putting a human interpretation on behaviors that may not be appropriately considered in those terms.

If you've ever spent much time observing how chickens arrive at a pecking order you wouldn't use that phrase when describing either the behavior, or the result.

... unless your definition of "harmony" is fairly elastic.